A question to atheists

Originally posted by whodey
Why what?

Why do you correlate being constrained by time as meaning that one would need to be created and the opposite for being "confined to the dimension of time"?

What does it mean to be "confined to the dimension of time"?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Why do you correlate being constrained by time as meaning that one would need to be created and the opposite for being "confined to the dimension of time"?

What does it mean to be "confined to the dimension of time"?

By the very definition of time, there must be a begining of time. If I am not mistaken, science views this begining when the Big Bang occured some 15 billion years ago. Once matter was created, time was created as a dimension for that matter to exist in. If matter had a begining, logically it must have been created by an eternal entity. To be eternal means you had no begining and no end. For this to be possible, that entity must have pre-existed outide of the dimension of time that had a begining.

Originally posted by whodey
By the very definition of time, there must be a begining of time. If I am not mistaken, science views this begining when the Big Bang occured some 15 billion years ago. Once matter was created, time was created as a dimension for that matter to exist in. If matter had a begining, logically it must have been created by an eternal entity. To be eternal mean ...[text shortened]... possible, that entity must have pre-existed outide of the dimension of time that had a begining.

"By the very definition of time"? Where does it say in the definition that it must have had a beginning?

If I am not mistaken, science views this begining when the Big Bang occured some 15 billion years ago.

That is one possibility that scientists, for example Hawking, have come up with. However:

Hawking is one of the best-known theoretical physicists of his generation. He has done groundbreaking research on black holes and the origins of the universe. He proposes that space and time have no beginning and no end.

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articleArchive/jun2006/hawkingpope.php

I don't know what the nwfdailynews is referring to, but it sounds fascinating. The whole idea of time having a beginning; that is, a temporal boundary; never made sense to me; nor did the idea of space having spatial boundaries. How can a dimension have a barrier in terms of itself?

If matter had a begining, logically it must have been created by an eternal entity.

Incorrect.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I control certain things, but how I choose to exercise that control is determined by biochemistry and other internal and external physical factors.

I control certain things...

Such as?

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]I control certain things...

Such as?[/b]

Like whether or not I decide to repond to a post on the forum.

Originally posted by Starrman
Why does god not remove the sin from the biological process? Why does he continue to waste perfect souls in imperfect bodies, effectively damning those souls?

Starr, baby, you're a better theologian than you may think. You have hit the nail squarely on the head of one of the most troublesome aspects of Christian thought. Troublesome because, unfortunately, most of today's Christians prefer human viewpoint over divine viewpoint. What is actually simple and sheer genius has become mired in shrouds of vagarity.

However, when one considers the implications of the several imputations, one begins to understand exactly why it is said that the devil is a helluva checker player, but God is playing chess.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
"By the very definition of time"? Where does it say in the definition that it must have had a beginning?

[b]If I am not mistaken, science views this begining when the Big Bang occured some 15 billion years ago.

That is one possibility that scientists, for example Hawking, have come up with. However:

Hawking is one of the best-known the ...[text shortened]... r had a begining, logically it must have been created by an eternal entity.

Incorrect.[/b]

One of the definitions of time is the an interval seperating two points on this continuum, measured essentially in terms of occurance. The thought of time never having a begining is incomprehensisble, or at least it is for me. Perhaps you would like to share your thoughts on the matter?

It was nice reading the article about Hawkins poking fun at the Pope. Unfortunatly, it gave no insight into the matter at hand which is his views regarding time having a begining. I would assume that if Hawkins does not think time had a begining, that the Bid Bang was not the begining of the universe. That is if he believes the science that says there was a Big Bang.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I don't know what the nwfdailynews is referring to, but it sounds fascinating. The whole idea of time having a beginning; that is, a temporal boundary; never made sense to me; nor did the idea of space having spatial boundaries. How can a dimension have a barrier in terms of itself?

The way I view it, matter was created via the Big Bang. Once matter was created, this created the dimension of time. Time is merely a deminsion of matter as well as hieght, width, ect. These deminsions are merely the canvas in order for the creator to create matter and the physical universe. The canvas, therefore, is not eternal, only the creator.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Like whether or not I decide to repond to a post on the forum.

And you are sure you had a choice?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
And yet, still better than yours.

That the best you can come up with? At least Starrman demonstrates some knowledge of Hume. What's your excuse?

Originally posted by Churlant
In theory my parents weren't needed for my existence. In reality they were. My parents made me - not God.

My control is greater than you realize. Internal control is limited by experience and technique. Individuals who obtain the necessary skills and guidance can eventually regulate their passions without the need for actual repression. Anger and joy can also be acknowledged in a way which does not allow those emotions to control the self.

-JC

The fact that your parents were needed for your existence doesn't mean they "made" you. Supplying raw materials is not the same as building.

The very fact that you have to "acknowledge" that anger and joy exist (independent of whether you want to feel particularly angry or happy at that moment) shows how limited your control is. If an event that would normally make you angry happens before your eyes, you cannot control yourself as to feel no anger at all. The anger will come up within you - and you have no power to control that. You can either acknowledge it and let it take its course, or repress it. But there is no way for you to stop yourself feeling the anger in the first place.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I control certain things, but how I choose to exercise that control is determined by biochemistry and other internal and external physical factors.

Then there is no "choice".

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
It means everyone deserves compassion and understanding, even if we are forced due to practicality to kill or imprison them, no matter how evil they appear to be.

On the contrary - no one deserves compassion or understanding. In fact, no one deserves anything. Questions of 'ought' have no meaning in a deterministic world. Some people just happen to receive compassion and understanding, some people just happen not to. Which ones are lucky and which ones are unlucky are determined by the physical laws of the universe.

Originally posted by Halitose
And you are sure you had a choice?

Depends on what you mean by "choice". I choose based on my desires and personality. I do not ultimately choose what those desires and personality are.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
On the contrary - no one deserves compassion or understanding. In fact, no one deserves anything. Questions of 'ought' have no meaning in a deterministic world. Some people just happen to receive compassion and understanding, some people just happen not to. Which ones are lucky and which ones are unlucky are determined by the physical laws of the universe.

I disagree. "Deserving" is of course an individual opinion, so you can disagree if you like. I know Christians think everyone deserves hellfire, but I disagree.