31 Aug 08
3 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloIt seems JW thought that he was responding to an AH post. What's particularly interesting is how jaywill rips KM's post line by line. This serves as more evidence of the superficiality of JW's posts. And KM's posts for that matter. What's particularly frightening is that both seem to fancy themselves as deep thinkers.
So knightmeister is a vocal atheist on these boards?
You're comic relief, jaywill.
31 Aug 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonTo me, the statement:
To me, the statement:
"there was no nothing before the big bang because there was no before"
-isn’t just a trick of semantics -it represents a real concept about reality. You may mistaken it for just a trick of semantics because you fail to understand the real concept behind it. I cannot address the issue without reference to this concept for ...[text shortened]... on nor evidence for that. So you severely and completely misrepresent atheist views all round.
"there was no nothing before the big bang because there was no before"
-isn’t just a trick of semantics -it represents a real concept about reality.-------------------------hamilton------------------------------
Ok, so maybe saying it's just semantics is a bit harsh I will admit. But to me the above statement just seems bizarre. I will try and tell you why.
The phrase "before the big bang" is just an expression the potential for there to be a first cause to everything. It might be better to talk about causality rather than time. Either the Big Bang is a caused event or it is not. If it is caused then by what is it caused. If it is not caused by anything then nothing caused it - therefore nothing preceeded it in the causal chain.
There may have been no "before" as you say , and if so that just goes to prove that the Big Bang was an uncaused event , ie nothing caused it to happen. If there was nothing before the big bang then there would be no before either and no time as well. No nothing infact. A nothing so non-existent that to even call it nothing would be wrong.
Do you at least agree with me what the great cosmic problem is ? Eg- that everything we know exists in a causal chain originating in the Big Bang. If we say the Big Bang is the first cause then we must ask ourselves how did the Big bang ...well...start in the first place. We can then say either a) "it just did start for no reason from nothing" or b) " it was caused by something else and so on - infinite regress.
My view is that logically there is an awful lot we can say about existence. We are limited to only a few options.
a) existence has always existed and never didn't exist (eternity)
b) existence hasn't always existed and had a beginning (something from nothing)
c) existence has a cause but these causes go back infinitely - (there is no first cause but also no "nothing" - infinite regress)
The great mystery of existence is whether it's ever possible to get to a point in the causal chain and say " nothing caused this to happen" ( Uncaused Cause) To me the only other option is to get to a point where one can say " this thing is the first cause of everything and has no cause itself because it is eternal and has no beginning" (God -eternity). I prefer this one for one simple reason - namely - that it seems logical to assume that nothingness would just continue not existing - I see no reason why something like a Big Bang should just begin for no reason at all from zilch. I bet you can't think of a rational reason why it would either.
31 Aug 08
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneDo you actually believe in the God of Jesus or not ToO? If you do it's strange that you nearly always end up attacking Theists (who share your belief in God) and siding with Atheists. If you don't then you are a hypocrite and Jesus would have no time for anyone who did not believe in his Father as a real active agent.
It seems JW thought that he was responding to an AH post. What's particularly interesting is how jaywill rips KM's post line by line. This serves as more evidence of the superficiality of JW's posts. And KM's posts for that matter. What's particularly frightening is that both seem to fancy themselves as deep thinkers.
You rarely make any attempt to witness to Atheists in a positive way about the Father God you should believe in. Instead you seem to quote Jesus incessantly to those who do believe the Gospel already. If you do not believe in the Father of Jesus why are you doing this?
You then talk about the superficiality of the posts of others when you yourself refuse to come clean and talk meaningfully about what you actually believe and how you live your own life. You hide behind your accusations and your repetitive quotes - that's superficial (and slippery besides).
Whose side are you actually on? Jaywill may have his faults but at least he is a believer in the Father God Jesus taught us about. AH, Lemon, et al are not.
01 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterThis is getting old. I happen to mostly like ThinkOfOne's perspective. He seems to have his priorities pretty much straight. It's not so much about Jesus Christ the person or about god the active agent; it's more about the virtues that they are supposed to embody. When are you going to get your thinking straight?
Do you actually believe in the God of Jesus or not ToO? If you do it's strange that you nearly always end up attacking Theists (who share your belief in God) and siding with Atheists. If you don't then you are a hypocrite and Jesus would have no time for anyone who did not believe in his Father as a real active agent.
You rarely make any attempt to ...[text shortened]... at least he is a believer in the Father God Jesus taught us about. AH, Lemon, et al are not.
01 Sep 08
Originally posted by LemonJelloI may be wrong, but that doesn't sound like the ThinkofOne's perspective I remember.
This is getting old. I happen to mostly like ThinkOfOne's perspective. He seems to have his priorities pretty much straight. It's not so much about Jesus Christ the person or about god the active agent; it's more about the virtues that they are supposed to embody. When are you going to get your thinking straight?
01 Sep 08
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeister…The great mystery of existence is whether it's ever possible to get to a point in the causal chain and say " nothing caused this to happen" ( Uncaused Cause) To me the only other option is to get to a point where one can say " this thing is the first cause of everything and has no cause itself because it is eternal and has no beginning" (God -eternity). I prefer this one for one simple reason - namely - that it seems logical to assume that nothingness would just CONTINUE not existing … (my emphasis)
To me, the statement:
"there was no nothing before the big bang because there was no before"
-isn’t just a trick of semantics -it represents a real concept about reality.-------------------------hamilton------------------------------
Ok, so maybe saying it's just semantics is a bit harsh I will admit. But to me the above statement just seems from zilch. I bet you can't think of a rational reason why it would either.
Actually, in this case, NEITHER of the options you consider above would “assume that nothingness would just CONTINUE not existing”: -note that for something to “CONTINUE” to exist requires time and there was no “before” the big bang.
…I see no reason why something like a Big Bang should just begin for no reason at all FROM zilch..…
Admittedly this could just sound like I am just playing with semantics here but I don’t know how else to say it so I will just say it but; IF this hypothesis of mine is correct (and I cannot be certain that this one is correct -only that there WAS a big-bang), the universe didn’t come “FROM” anything or nothing or even “FROM zilch”! -it simply didn’t “come from”.
01 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterSome people seem to be totally incapable of stepping outside the box. If I tell you that a line that goes in a circle has no end, you just keep on insisting that all lines have ends and there must be something after the end of a line that forms a circle.
The phrase "before the big bang" is just an expression the potential for there to be a first cause to everything. It might be better to talk about causality rather than time. Either the Big Bang is a caused event or it is not. If it is caused then by what is it caused. If it is not caused by anything then nothing caused it - therefore nothing preceeded it in the causal chain.
If time is trully a property of the universe not a property of some larger entity of which the universe is just a part, then to talk about time before the big bang is simply meaningless. Hiding it behind the term causality, itself a concept within time, does not somehow render it any less meaningless. If time is a property of the universe (as above) then causality is neccesarily a property too ie to talk about 'what caused the big bang' is meaningless (not unanswered).
On a side note, causal chains are not nearly as much a part of modern physics as you appear to imply. Quantum physics implies that at the smaller scales, the vast majority of causes are either non-existent or at best unknown, and unknowable. These smallscale causes feed into larger scale effects. Hence our inablity to predict the weather.
01 Sep 08
Hi twhitehead, AH, ToO and all.
Hi again KM;
You answered to our friend AH as following:
“Your mindset is such that you still assume that the answer to the problem lies in an "explanation". The problem with this is that any explanation requires further explanation (ad infinitum -infinite regress). Once you let go of this then the answer lies not in an "explanation" but in a realisation. God is not a "solution" or and "explanation" He just IS. A mystery not to be solved but to be realised.”
No my friend KM. When one cannot find a rational reason for “the problem”, he has to admit his ignorance and his inability to find “the solution”, and then he must proceed by scientific and philosophical means, never allowing hiself to be draged here and there reckless by his obsessions. Otherwise every "conclusion" is a delusion of his, and he cannot pursue nobody to accept that his delusion is a “mystery” just because he sees the string of his delusion as “realization”. This is disorder, not realization.
The factor “further explanation”, as you mentioned it, does not forces us in any case to accept your irrational string of thoughts. Furthermore, it seems to me that you feel free to use this very logic on your own terms and conditions: at first you dismissed and twisted the very essence of logic due to your desire to present your supernatural thoughts, ie the core of your faith, as a “mystery”, and then you present pseudological versions of "reason" in order to back up your faith. Therefore until now your opinion is not scientific, but the worst is that is not based at all on philosophical values. Your thoughts are clearly theological and they have nothing to do with the essence of the term “reason”, at least not from a scientific and a philosophical view.
Dear KM, kindly please answer to my post only if you feel like debating instead of preaching;
01 Sep 08
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloI agree. I would sooner associate with someone who believed in love and compassion but who was an Atheist , than someone who believed in a Father God but used his name to justify killings.
This is getting old. I happen to mostly like ThinkOfOne's perspective. He seems to have his priorities pretty much straight. It's not so much about Jesus Christ the person or about god the active agent; it's more about the virtues that they are supposed to embody. When are you going to get your thinking straight?
However , Jesus asked that we believe in his Father and behave virtuously too. It's both. Belief in God as an active agent is central to everything Jesus did. (" I do nothing on my own , only what I see my Father doing" )
With this in mind , do you not think it is slightly strange at all that someone who sees fit to preach to Christians about Jesus' treachings might not even actually believe in the Father who Jesus said sent him?
In addition ToO has been frequently asked about the quality of his own virtue and righteousness but is not forthcoming. he could be a teacherous rogue for all we know.
If I were preaching to you about communism and picking apart your communist beliefs but at the same time had no belief in shared ownership you might be inclined to tell me to shut up.
01 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou do not own Jesus nor his teachings. I do not have to believe in Jesus' teachings in order to preach his teachings to you, nor do I need to believe every one of his teachings in order to believe in some of them (and preach them to others with full self belief in them).
With this in mind , do you not think it is slightly strange at all that someone who sees fit to preach to Christians about Jesus' treachings might not even actually believe in the Father who Jesus said sent him?
If I were preaching to you about communism and picking apart your communist beliefs but at the same time had no belief in shared ownership you might be inclined to tell me to shut up.
We are most often inclinded to tell others to shut up when they point out the hypocricy of our claims ie when we do not practice what we preach and someone asks us to practice what we preach.
I for one, have absolutely no problem with a creationists correcting me about evolution, or a Christian 'preaching' to me about atheism (if such a thing is possible).
I am comfortable with my beliefs and if someone can make me uncomfortable then I am ready to question my beliefs and possibly change them.
01 Sep 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf time is a property of the universe (as above) then causality is neccesarily a property too ie to talk about 'what caused the big bang' is meaningless (not unanswered). -----whitey-------------
Some people seem to be totally incapable of stepping outside the box. If I tell you that a line that goes in a circle has no end, you just keep on insisting that all lines have ends and there must be something after the end of a line that forms a circle.
If time is trully a property of the universe not a property of some larger entity of which the univer ...[text shortened]... e smallscale causes feed into larger scale effects. Hence our inablity to predict the weather.
This argument only works if time and causality are EXCLUSIVELY a property of the universe. Since we do not know if they are or not , the question "what caused the Big Bang" may have meaning it may not.
01 Sep 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadI do not have to believe in Jesus' teachings in order to preach his teachings to you,------------------whitey-----------------------
You do not own Jesus nor his teachings. I do not have to believe in Jesus' teachings in order to preach his teachings to you, nor do I need to believe every one of his teachings in order to believe in some of them (and preach them to others with full self belief in them).
We are most often inclinded to tell others to shut up when they point out the hyp ...[text shortened]... ne can make me uncomfortable then I am ready to question my beliefs and possibly change them.
And therein lies the departure point between fragmented thinking and intergrated spiritual thinking. Such a philosophy is foreign to any right thinking Christian and Jesus himself would not have agreed with you. Sure you can talk about Jesus but preach? Really? You would dare to preach what you do not practice or believe? Please go away and think about what you are saying.
01 Sep 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonActually, in this case, NEITHER of the options you consider above would “assume that nothingness would just CONTINUE not existing”: -note that for something to “CONTINUE” to exist requires time and there was no “before” the big bang. -----------hamilton----------------
[b]…The great mystery of existence is whether it's ever possible to get to a point in the causal chain and say " nothing caused this to happen" ( Uncaused Cause) To me the only other option is to get to a point where one can say " this thing is the first cause of everything and has no cause itself because it is eternal and has no beginning" (God -ete ...[text shortened]... didn’t come “FROM” anything or nothing or even “FROM zilch”! -it simply didn’t “come from”.
Nothingness cannot exist but it can "not" exist. Nothingness is the absence of anything at all. Non-existence. The fact that the English language is inadequate here should not distract us from what nothing really is (or isn't)
I did actually say "continue NOT existing" . I agree that for something to continue existing (unless it is frozen) it probably needs time. But you seem to be saying that it's absolutely impossible for existence to not exist because it would need "time" to "not exist" in.
Philosophically and scientifically that would mean that non-existence is impossible and that existence must be eternal and everlasting.
Try thinking about it this way. Let's say that the universe suddenly just dissappeared and didn't exist. No time , matter , energy etc. So that there was nothing left at all. Zilcho!!! Would you say that this was scientifically impossible because the nothingness would need time in order to not exist in? Why would one need time for there to be an absence of existence?
Then turn this around and think about the Big Bang. There was no before (no time) , no matter , no energy etc etc. You see when you say "there was no BEFORE the Big Bang this only goes to confirm how completely empty of anything the nothingness was. No time even.
The logical implications of this (and I think thats why you resist facing this) is that the Big Bang was in your view and uncaused event that had no reason or preceeding cause to it. It did not have any prior matter , energy or time from which to emerge. It just ....erhem...banged and that's all there is to it. We can never explain it because to explain it would be to invite a cause or reason for it to happen. It's an inpenetrable mystery. A bit like God really.
01 Sep 08
Originally posted by black beetleI would like to debate whether there are only 3 viable options to the problem of existence....
Hi twhitehead, AH, ToO and all.
Hi again KM;
You answered to our friend AH as following:
“Your mindset is such that you still assume that the answer to the problem lies in an "explanation". The problem with this is that any explanation requires further explanation (ad infinitum -infinite regress). Once you let go of this then the answer lies not in ...[text shortened]... kindly please answer to my post only if you feel like debating instead of preaching;
a)an Uncaused event that began for no reason (something from nothing)
b) an infinite regress of causes that stretch back in infinite time with no begining
c) an uncaused Cause that has no beginning (God or related idea about eternity)
I personally can't see too many other options and have no had any logical alternatives presented to me.
My point is that a) is irrational and illogical and both b) and c) suggest some kind of eternity and mystery. Also all 3 are inpenetrable to reason or any explanation.
(BTW- Don't patronise me or think my ideas are purely theological. I started thinking about this stuff 15 years before I was a Christian and my position has changed very little. )