For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.
[theot58 responding to Nofun]
“Your statement ‘No phenomena has been discovered to be caused by supernatural means.’ is totally incorrect. Let me show you.
In the early 1900’s the prevailing scientific view was that the universe was eternal (and the Bible was wrong in the 1st sentence).
In the 1920 Einstein and others found a growing number of observable phenomena which indicated that the universe must have had a beginning. Now it is the uncontested scientific view (some people call it the Big Bang).
But think about it.
– At one point there was nothing
– At a later point there was the universe.
We know that all effects have a cause – so what cause[d] the universe to come into existence?
The creator had to be outside space and time – Christians call this being God.
Does it take faith to believe this – of course it does.
Does it take MORE faith to hold to the atheistic position that nothing exploded and made everything without a cause – OF COURSE IT DOES.
Easy, the absolute infinitude of nothing, translates to infinite potential.
In other words, the utter infinitude of non-existence, is the root cause of existence.
This is not supernatural, but the very nature of nature.
It is the nature of Self Awareness. I Am.
The Big Bang” is not something that happened in the past. It is ever present as the eternal Now.
Though we be tangled in enormous webs of small concern.
[Nofun responding to theot58 (above)]
“Science does not know yet, but since everything we see is moving away from a single point, as Hubble saw, we know the big bang happened and we know it was a in rush of hydrogen.
What happened before the big bang was outside space and time as we perceive it but that in no way proves a magic god caused the big bang …mainly due to their no being one scrap of evidence of such a being. It is also not beyond the scope of science to find out.
You are playing god of the gaps … which is fine until the gaps close then your faith construct gets squeezed further back.
No one believes something came from nothing except for creationists bearing false witness against others. You want to drag everything down to be a choice between beliefs when the actual choice is between reality and belief.“
Infinite potentiality. Translates into “nothing”. The emergent characteristic of this, is the Singularity. The Entirety of everything as monad.
Time, space, matter, motion.. Not separate things, but characteristics of change. Change translates into “awareness”. But who is aware?
Pondering the permutations of Hydrogen, will not reveal the answer. But rather, try wondering “Who am I?”.
Isn’t it wrong to think of the Big Bang as something that “happend”? Except in the most rudimentary grip of relativism.
Isn’t it right to teach people about reality, that they might better understand God?
Nofun – “No. We know it happened as everything is moving away from a central point. It is isn’t a philosophical discussion, its hard evidence.“
It’s a relativistic understanding.
Any time frame you put on it, past, present or future.
There is only NOW.
I’m sure somebody has done the Math.
[Responding to Capt Stormfield who is responding to theot58]
The “God thing” is about attitude.
The “no need for God” thing is about attitude.
But, how does experience play out, where the rubber meets the road?
Guiding people to a less anthropomorphic and agenda driven view of God is helpful, but dismissing out of hand, that “God” is a viable orientation, or even a summation, is just another version of the problem.
“Words like ’cause’ and ‘design’ carry no necessary connotation of agency, self-awareness, personality, or any other human or traditionally god-like quality.“
The artifacts of old paradigms, linger. But the cutting edge of both the theological and scientific impulse is where we should be focusing our attention.
Holding onto the idea that they are exclusive, and that one should “win out” over the other, is itself a lingering artifact.
[Responding to theot58]
We exist and therefore we have been created. The question is was it an act of will. That would require a previous act of creation.
Better to go right to emergent characteristic of infinite potential.
Then contemplate on how this is the nature of Sentience.
On another note: Why are people putting a bum wrap on Zeus? We were just getting warmed up.
Nofun responding to theot58 – “None of that is evidence of god himself. You are having a personal relationship with god not his creation.”
Putting God outside of creation is a primitive trope.
Stop doing that and pieces start falling into place.
Nofun responding to SmokieGunn1776 – “Life is completely explained.
Because science does not know everything does not mean it does not know anything. Rattling off things science does not know is as useful as rattling godly quotes from scientists.
Give as some evidence of your god. Not his creation as we have rational explanations for all that….. him. You claim to have a personal relationship with this entity …..any proof of this entity?“
A rational explanation of a thing is not the thing itself. (Just thought I would remind you about that.)
Another line of inquiry, is where does the “thing” begin and end?
This is arbitrary. Constructs of the language based mind.
“The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao The name that can be named is not the eternal Name. The un-namable is the eternally real.“- Tao Te Ching
Nofun – “Rational explanation backed by the evidence. Evidence is not arbitrary. With more evidence the rational explanation may get overturned …its all better than blind faith with no evidence.“
Rational explanation for, and supporting evidence of, “Existence”?
Or, the potential to “Exist”?
Evidence that these are even separate phenomena?
That is a tall order.
Where would you begin? And by the choosing a beginning point, hasn’t your explanation already skewed the results.
Then of course, there is “Experience”. What about a rational explanation with supporting evidence of “Experience”?
And the potential for Experience to Exist?
Oh my God! It boggles the mind. 🙂
Nofun – “Anything can be true or have the potential to exist but only
things with evidence are real. If it isn’t real it doesn’t matter.
Man with 50 heads – no evidence – doesn’t matter.
Flying dog with lasers for eyes – no evidence – doesn’t matter.
Gods – no evidence – doesn’t matter.
Navel gazing will give you a sore neck. The only beginning is that you accept you exist and can perceive things. The rest flows from there.
If you can’t make that initial leap then you are hopelessly lost, running in circles, chasing existential ghosts.”
I’m not sure if it is necessary to agree or disagree with your statement.
There are a few tripping points though.
– Not sure if you assume that I am a Navel gazer, or even what exactly that is.
– What is the scope, and or nature, of this “I” that I should accept exists? (This is actually the subject of most of my commentary.)
– Who is it, that “perceives”. Has this been examined? What does the evidence indicate?
– You have made “Gods”, plural in your example of things that don’t matter for lack of evidence. That works for me simply because, by my definition, there is only God, for which there is NO END of evidence.