• 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.

God is the answer; here are the questions

RAMOSS said:
Well, you got at least one thing wrong, right at the very begining. THe big bang isn't really an 'explosion'. It is an 'expansion.'. Now, show that entropy matters when there is no space-time.
Click to expand...

See rodger penrose he already calculated it. your typical dismissal nonsense doesn't work.
 
Porkuloss said:
I'm an agnostic. STEM education does that to people. Sorry if you don't understand, but I require proof beyond, "my impossible scenario makes more people feel good than your impossible scenario." Who/what made your God? "unknowable" is not a valid debate answer.
Click to expand...

Depends on what God you are referring to. The Greek Gods for instance where the offspring of the titan chronos. same go for the Egyptian gods and Roman gods as well

If you are referring to the Christian God then he was made by no one. He is infinite incarnate. he has always existed and will always exist. He is the creator not the created.
God is knowable hence we have the bible.

Please remember that I'm an agnostic. I admit I don't know, I wonder, and don't say, "I don't have time" for other views unless I've already decided they are not worth considering. Christianity is not in that realm, yet, though the evangelicals are pushing me in that direction. Prove something to me through logical argument. Note that the argument must be scientifically plausible. I admit to have accepted that paradigm.

Again, :peace
Click to expand...

Please see the links I posted in the beginning of the thread. all made by reputable and leading scientists in their field of study.
People attempt to correlate science as disproving God in some way but it can't and doesn't.

God is outside the realm of science. Since He is infinite he cannot be measured or calculated as it all ends up in as the same answer infinity.
 
ludin said:
See rodger penrose he already calculated it. your typical dismissal nonsense doesn't work.
Click to expand...

What Penrose doesn't do is show in a model about WHY such a set of numbers doesn't work. THere is no model for that. It is a statement of the logical fallacy of personal belief (argument from ignorance). He also hasn't really shown that he knows all the factors that go into the formation of the universe.. because, actually, right now, it's beyond our current knowledge. It's one fallacy after another for him to make that declaration.
 
RAMOSS said:
What Penrose doesn't do is show in a model about WHY such a set of numbers doesn't work. THere is no model for that. It is a statement of the logical fallacy of personal belief (argument from ignorance). He also hasn't really shown that he knows all the factors that go into the formation of the universe.. because, actually, right now, it's beyond our current knowledge. It's one fallacy after another for him to make that declaration.
Click to expand...

again you have no authority to say otherwise. if you think you do please present what authority you do have in the matter other than you don't like his results.
I will be waiting for you to establish your authority in the matter. if you cannot present it then you are committing an appeal to authority fallacy.

it isn't what I believe it is what the math says it is.

his calculations are also supported by hawking and hawkings calculations are now supported by higgs boson.
so you have quite of bit of disproving to do. get back to me once you have done so.
 
ludin said:
again you have no authority to say otherwise. if you think you do please present what authority you do have in the matter other than you don't like his results.
I will be waiting for you to establish your authority in the matter. if you cannot present it then you are committing an appeal to authority fallacy.

it isn't what I believe it is what the math says it is.

his calculations are also supported by hawking and hawkings calculations are now supported by higgs boson.
so you have quite of bit of disproving to do. get back to me once you have done so.
Click to expand...

I noticed rather than attacking my points, you are claiming "I have no authority'. Prove it. Hawking took his calucations, and that includes the higgs boson, and said that it proves that there is no need for god...

Big Bang Didn't Need God

Gosh, two opposite conclusions from the same equations about God. Since you are invoking Hawkings equations, why aren't you addressing his conclusions? Could it be , well, there is no model about 'what god is'? I will also say that Hawkings conclusions from the same data is the same logical fallacy.. the fallacy of argument from ignorance... and personal belief. Neither person can use that data and make a conclusion about God using that, because there are missing pieces.
A bad argument is a bad argument, no matter who makes it.
 
Last edited:
it's just me said:
Ran across this while perusing C.B. Moss' book, "The Christian Faith". Scientism cannot answer these questions.

3. God is the Best Answer to Four Questions

He is therefore aware of four questions, to each of which God is the true answer.

a) The Problem of Nature – The first is the question, Why was the universe made, and
what is its purpose? The universe shows, as we shall see, many signs of having been
made by design and with very great skill, which seems to show that it was made by
Someone, and that He had a reason for making it.

b) The Problem of Mind – The second is the question, What is the conscious self? We
know of no other self-conscious beings in the whole vast universe of which natural
science tells us. Are we to believe that the human race is a mere accident in a material
universe, or that the universe itself has behind it a Person like, but infinitely greater than,
human beings?

c) The Problem of Conscience – The third is the question, What is the meaning of the
difference, which we all feel, between right and wrong? Every human being possesses
this power to distinguish between right and wrong, which we call the conscience; and it
does not correspond to anything else in nature. Do the words "I ought" belong to
something universal, or are they merely an accidental result of the development of life in
this planet?

d) The Problem of Beauty – The fourth is the question, What is meant by beauty? Is
beauty merely something that gives pleasure to a particular person, or is it a permanent
principle corresponding to something in the nature of the universe?

The right answer to these questions is:

a) God made the universe, for His own glory.

b) God has made us self-conscious beings after His own likeness; man is the crown of
creation.

c) God has made us capable of knowing His will by means of our conscience, or sense of
duty.

d) God is eternal and perfect beauty, and whatever is beautiful is a means by which He
displays His beauty.

Yes, I have heard many alleged "explanations" for nature, consciousness, conscience, and fewer for beauty, but none of them are definitive, no more definitive than the religious explanations. For example, many believe that the universe has always been here or if it did appear suddenly it was purely coincidence, with no cause or purpose. In that universe elements came together accidentally and formed living things, some of which are capable of consciousness and some are not. (It's funny that some would call human beings "animals" leaving out the part that even the most savage among us recognize that there is such a thing as right and wrong, while animals do not have this capacity.)

The question of beauty is the one that really struck me - who has not seen the milky way in a sky not polluted by city light and marveled at the beauty of it?
Click to expand...


You go your way and I'll go mine. In the end, we both end up dead. With no future.
 
blarg said:
why do you say that?

energy seems to dissipate through out the universe but where is it spreading out to in order to not be recaptured if the entire universe collapses back in on itself?
Click to expand...

never did get an answer to that one
 
ludin said:
Depends on what God you are referring to. The Greek Gods for instance where the offspring of the titan chronos. same go for the Egyptian gods and Roman gods as well

If you are referring to the Christian God then he was made by no one. He is infinite incarnate. he has always existed and will always exist. He is the creator not the created.
God is knowable hence we have the bible.



Please see the links I posted in the beginning of the thread. all made by reputable and leading scientists in their field of study.
People attempt to correlate science as disproving God in some way but it can't and doesn't.

God is outside the realm of science. Since He is infinite he cannot be measured or calculated as it all ends up in as the same answer infinity.
Click to expand...

if your willing to entertain an infinity becase you believe you need one why would that infinity need to be incarnate as your god seems like a simpler infinity could be used to pump out matter and energy endlessly then multiple universes and the repeating emergence of universes would be back on the table
 
blarg said:
if your willing to entertain an infinity becase you believe you need one why would that infinity need to be incarnate as your god seems like a simpler infinity could be used to pump out matter and energy endlessly then multiple universes and the repeating emergence of universes would be back on the table
Click to expand...

By definition God is not bound by time or space. he stands outside of those bounds. Unlike the other gods of other religions that can be slain or killed He cannot be.
He is the creator of all. he has no reason to pump out multiple universes.
 
ludin said:
By definition God is not bound by time or space. he stands outside of those bounds. Unlike the other gods of other religions that can be slain or killed He cannot be.
He is the creator of all. he has no reason to pump out multiple universes.
Click to expand...

ok may be missing my point since we are making up things not bound by time or space why not go with something simpler

seems like an infinite source of blind creation would produce everything that could possibly be just as well as a magical sky daddy could

why is your god the necessary or more likely made up explanation?
 
ludin said:
By definition God is not bound by time or space. he stands outside of those bounds. Unlike the other gods of other religions that can be slain or killed He cannot be.
He is the creator of all. he has no reason to pump out multiple universes.
Click to expand...

um when you dont need to do anything to preserve yourself and you allredy know how anything would turn out as if you weer eternally experiencing all possible moments from all possible points of view ( not clear why you would need to know anything at all though if your a primordial immortal) whats the point of making the one universe?

hell why make a billions of Galaxys and not one world the extent of creation seems kind of arbitrary as dose dismissing the idea that it can extend beyond the parts we can perceive
 
Last edited:
it's just me said:
Well, you're half right. I have a future.
Click to expand...


What evidence do you have if a future after death, but for your own carbon matter diffusing into all other matter in the environment. That is your final contribution to anything and everything, or your only contribution.
 
bluesmoke said:
What evidence do you have if a future after death, but for your own carbon matter diffusing into all other matter in the environment. That is your final contribution to anything and everything, or your only contribution.
Click to expand...

None that you'll be satisfied with, I am sure of that, and again, I must ask you to speak for yourself.
 
it's just me said:
None that you'll be satisfied with, I am sure of that, and again, I must ask you to speak for yourself.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. I can give my opinion of the lack of an afterlife as it applies to anybody and everybody. Nothing in the forum rules against doing so. In this case, no one gets out alive. What make you think you're so special? There is more fact supporting my position than yours. We all end up the same, regardless of our opinion or theological leaning.
 
Read my answers in RED.

it's just me said:
Ran across this while perusing C.B. Moss' book, "The Christian Faith". Scientism cannot answer these questions.

3. God is the Best Answer to Four Questions

He is therefore aware of four questions, to each of which God is the true answer.

a) The Problem of Nature – The first is the question, Why was the universe made, and
what is its purpose? The universe shows, as we shall see, many signs of having been
made by design and with very great skill, which seems to show that it was made by


If the universe was designed by God, both the solar decay and death and the Andromeda/Milky Way collision were also designed by God. Given that any of these will render life on Earth and the Milky Way impossible, would you say God is a malicious deity then?



b) The Problem of Mind – The second is the question, What is the conscious self? We
know of no other self-conscious beings in the whole vast universe of which natural
science tells us. Are we to believe that the human race is a mere accident in a material
universe, or that the universe itself has behind it a Person like, but infinitely greater than,
human beings?

What's your estimation, how much of the universe have humans explored thus far?
0.000000000000000000000000000000000000001%, maybe?

c) The Problem of Conscience – The third is the question, What is the meaning of the
difference, which we all feel, between right and wrong? Every human being possesses
this power to distinguish between right and wrong, which we call the conscience; and it
does not correspond to anything else in nature. Do the words "I ought" belong to
something universal, or are they merely an accidental result of the development of life in
this planet?

As of now all we know is that conscience is an emergent property of a human brain. Furthermore, mankind has behave consistently in opposite ways throughout the millennia, suggesting that, contrary to what you assert but cannot prove, that is not one common view on what is right and wrong. Kublai Khan definitely did not share the contemporary views on morality. Yet he thought he was doing the right thing.



d) The Problem of Beauty – The fourth is the question, What is meant by beauty? Is
beauty merely something that gives pleasure to a particular person, or is it a permanent
principle corresponding to something in the nature of the universe?

The right answer to these questions is:

a) God made the universe, for His own glory.

So God is vain beyond belief?
Right.

b) God has made us self-conscious beings after His own likeness; man is the crown of
creation.

c) God has made us capable of knowing His will by means of our conscience, or sense of
duty.

What if I don't want to follow through on His will? What happens to me?

d) God is eternal and perfect beauty, and whatever is beautiful is a means by which He
displays His beauty.

God is eternal?
What an interesting thing to say.

The quality of being eternal is dependant upon on the concomitant existence of time. Yet I am told that God created time. Ergo, God cannot, by definition , be eternal. AT the most, God ios outside time.



Yes, I have heard many alleged "explanations" for nature, consciousness, conscience, and fewer for beauty, but none of them are definitive, no more definitive than the religious explanations. For example, many believe that the universe has always been here or if it did appear suddenly it was purely coincidence, with no cause or purpose. In that universe elements came together accidentally and formed living things, some of which are capable of consciousness and some are not. (It's funny that some would call human beings "animals" leaving out the part that even the most savage among us recognize that there is such a thing as right and wrong, while animals do not have this capacity.)

Your inability to understand explanations is not a testament to the invalidity of said explanations.


The question of beauty is the one that really struck me - who has not seen the milky way in a sky not polluted by city light and marveled at the beauty of it?
Click to expand...

And who has not witnessed the simultaneously ghastly spectacle of nature? Parasites who eat their way down to the sheep's eyeball, insects eating each other while copulating, lions killing their offspring just so the lionesses enter heat early on, etc. Do you find that beautiful as well?

Thinking that life is a postcard from Venice is a sign of narrow-mindedness.
 
AntiTheist said:
Read my answers in RED.



And who has not witnessed the simultaneously ghastly spectacle of nature? Parasites who eat their way down to the sheep's eyeball, insects eating each other while copulating, lions killing their offspring just so the lionesses enter heat early on, etc. Do you find that beautiful as well?

Thinking that life is a postcard from Venice is a sign of narrow-mindedness.
Click to expand...

1. What law of nature would you like God to change to prevent solar decay?

2. I have not calculated it.

Kubla Khan was one person, not a race or a species.

Vanity is a human emotion. You can't anthropomorphize God.

God is eternal from our vantage point.
 
it's just me said:
1. What law of nature would you like God to change to prevent solar decay?

I don't want him to change a thing, least because I don't believe He exists. If you are willing to draw conclusions from the fact that God created the universe, then you must also draw conclusions from the fact He created it in such a way that all life on Earth will eventually perish.
Go ahead.


2. I have not calculated it.

We have explored a tiny tiny faction of the entire universe. Life could very well exist elsewhere, in which case your entire paragraph goes north.


Kubla Khan was one person, not a race or a species.

Entire cultures are on record for not sharing the values you ascribe to manking at large.

Vanity is a human emotion. You can't anthropomorphize God.

No, vanity is an attribute. A god who creates a universe just for his own glory - your words, not mine - fits the description perfectly.


God is eternal from our vantage point.
Click to expand...

No, he is not. He is outside time by your own definitions and axiomatic assertions. God cannot be subject to that which he supposedly created, time.
 
AntiTheist said:

No, he is not. He is outside time by your own definitions and axiomatic assertions. God cannot be subject to that which he supposedly created, time.
Click to expand...

The theological answer is that everybody dies. You might have noticed this yourself. This truth is scattered throughout scripture.

Let me know when you find life somewhere else in the universe.

Those cultures do not represent all of mankind.

I didn't say that, I said from our perspective He is eternal.
 
it's just me said:
The theological answer is that everybody dies. You might have noticed this yourself. This truth is scattered throughout scripture.
Click to expand...

Given that the laws of thermodynamics and intergalactic alignment were not dependant upon Adam sinning or not, it's safe to assume God wanted life on Earth to perish even if Adam had not sinned.

What a wonderful loving God.


Let me know when you find life somewhere else in the universe.

Sure. You're banking on ignorance, which is the Christian favoured modus of arguing. Regardless, such evidence will surface sooner than evidence for your God.


Those cultures do not represent all of mankind.

I never said they did. What they instantly demolish is the notion that Christian morality is innate to mankind, which was the OP's point.


I didn't say that, I said from our perspective He is eternal.[/QUOTE]

And I reject such assertion. God is beyond time, which is not equitable to being eternal, especially since none of us knows what it means to exist outside time or if that's even possible.

The equivocation you're trying to pull is not innocent, not just linguistic, though. In some Christian theology, the notion of an eternal punishment in Hell for finite sins is argue precisely on the basis of it. They claim that since God is eternal, so must the justice and punishment be. A cheap trick they wouldn't be able to get away with had they gone with the rigorous outside-of-time attribute.

It's just one of the numerous reasons Christianity is morally obscene.
 
AntiTheist said:
Given that the laws of thermodynamics and intergalactic alignment were not dependant upon Adam sinning or not, it's safe to assume God wanted life on Earth to perish even if Adam had not sinned.

What a wonderful loving God.


Let me know when you find life somewhere else in the universe.

Sure. You're banking on ignorance, which is the Christian favoured modus of arguing. Regardless, such evidence will surface sooner than evidence for your God.


Those cultures do not represent all of mankind.

I never said they did. What they instantly demolish is the notion that Christian morality is innate to mankind, which was the OP's point.


I didn't say that, I said from our perspective He is eternal.
Click to expand...

And I reject such assertion. God is beyond time, which is not equitable to being eternal, especially since none of us knows what it means to exist outside time or if that's even possible.

The equivocation you're trying to pull is not innocent, not just linguistic, though. In some Christian theology, the notion of an eternal punishment in Hell for finite sins is argue precisely on the basis of it. They claim that since God is eternal, so must the justice and punishment be. A cheap trick they wouldn't be able to get away with had they gone with the rigorous outside-of-time attribute.

It's just one of the numerous reasons Christianity is morally obscene.[/QUOTE]

Morally obscene, huh? You should read the rules before posting in here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom