Religion?

[PatrickJameson]

Alright, but explain how Colton (name of the kid) saw his father's father when he [supposedly]* went to Heaven. Colton had never seen or heard of his father's father, and when he came back from Heaven, he asked his father about 'Pops', which is what Colton's father called him. Also, explain how Colton met his big sister in Heaven, who had been miscarriaged before Colton was even born. Colton's parents never told him about his big sister, fearing he would not understand.



*I say this for those who would end up probably correcting me. I truly believe he went to Heaven.

There are plenty of plausible explanations for how this ended up happening.

1) Colton could have overheard their parents discussing "Pops" or his older sister.
2) Colton could have heard only a little bit and filled it in with what he has seen on TV, etc. I know many children who tell absurd stories as if they were real.
3) He could have stumbled upon pictures of Pop if he described him.
4) Their parents could have dismissed many of the incorrect statements Colton made when first talking to his parents about this. This dismissal often happens with people who believe a psychic is actually talking to the dead or something. If you want to know more about psychics I'd suggest watching Penn and Teller's BS episode on the topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb39htpY6dU. It's a really great episode that explains how psychics trick people into thinking that the psychics have supernatural powers.

This was just me thinking about it for a few minutes. These types of things convincing people heaven is real is a bit crazy considering all of the possible explanations without anything supernatural being involved.

 

[RubikZz]

Wat is atheism.
I don't have a religion, I'm not baptized(??), so iI have nothing.

 

[Hershey]

Wat is atheism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

 

[zmikecuber]

It makes it to paragraph 4 before demonstrating it's first logical fallacy: the false dicotemy. 'either there is no first cause or god is the first cause'. It doesn't take into account that the big bang itself could be the first cause, it ignores the fact that if a major premise is that everything must have a cause then God must have a cause (otherwise you have special pleading). Also it assumes if there is a supernatural first cause then it must be the Judeo-Christian god (while if you follow this argument there is no reason why it shouldn't be Chronos, Odin, etc.)... You're right First Cause is a really easy one, I bearly mentioned half of the known logical problems with it.

The big bang may be the biggest proof of God's existence yet. who discovered the big bang? it was actually a Catholic priest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

If as you say the big bang was the first cause, then the big bang must have caused itself to happen. how can a thing cause itself to happen?

if the big bang is the first cause, which put the universe into existence, and is the ultimate cause of the universe, then the big bang must be eternal. do you get what I mean? what caused the big bang? if it caused itself, then it seems it would be almighty, since what can cause itself to exist? wow the big bang is sounding alot more like a being than a thing now...

I believe that Thomas Aquinas answers your question much better than me in his Summa. http://newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm please read article three.

 

[Weston]

The big bang may be the biggest proof of God's existence yet. who discovered the big bang? it was actually a Catholic priest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

Him being a Catholic priest isn't the least bit significant.

If as you say the big bang was the first cause, then the big bang must have caused itself to happen. how can a thing cause itself to happen?

if the big bang is the first cause, which put the universe into existence, and is the ultimate cause of the universe, then the big bang must be eternal. do you get what I mean? what caused the big bang? if it caused itself, then it seems it would be almighty, since what can cause itself to exist? wow the big bang is sounding alot more like a being than a thing now...

What? No?
Are you trying to say that the big bang is god?
This is just like the cosmological argument, which is a terrible argument.

I almost think you're trolling.

 

[collinbxyz]

I guess nobody read my earlier posts *sigh*

You say that nothing can cause itself into existence, yes? Than how did god come, before everything else?

 

[Escher]

St. Thomas Aquinas aka "If God did exist then he would have the property of existing therefore God cannot not exist" lol.

 

[5BLD]

Him being a Catholic priest isn't the least bit significant.

What? No?
Are you trying to say that the big bang is god?
This is just like the cosmological argument, which is a terrible argument.

I almost think you're trolling.

No, he's saying... If there's the big bang at the beginning, then is that really at the beginning? How can you have a beginning with nothing then suddenly something?
Don't tell me a God (or ultimate being or thing or even the universe) has existed forever, because forever with nothing happening means... No time at all.
With nothing happening time doesn't pass. Everything, by the looks of it, is up to our own observation. Think about that... It really gets your mind going!

Things need to happen in order for time to actually pass. Thats what I came to when I looked at it...
Therefore what was there at the beginning? Nothing? Therefore how can something come out of nothing.
Everything has a cause, you see.
I doubt he's trying to troll.

 

[Yuxuibbs]

If as you say the big bang was the first cause, then the big bang must have caused itself to happen. how can a thing cause itself to happen?

The big bang was caused by hot and dense things that exploded in the universe and expanded. The universe was created out of luck and coincidence.

or the universe was created by a time traveler (family guy).

 

[Muesli]

The big bang may be the biggest proof of God's existence yet. who discovered the big bang? it was actually a Catholic priest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

If as you say the big bang was the first cause, then the big bang must have caused itself to happen. how can a thing cause itself to happen?

if the big bang is the first cause, which put the universe into existence, and is the ultimate cause of the universe, then the big bang must be eternal. do you get what I mean? what caused the big bang? if it caused itself, then it seems it would be almighty, since what can cause itself to exist? wow the big bang is sounding alot more like a being than a thing now...

I believe that Thomas Aquinas answers your question much better than me in his Summa. http://newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm please read article three.

We don't know. Repeat after me. We...Don't...Know.

Why are you trying to call the Big Bang your god? We already have a name for it.

 

[zmikecuber]

No, he's saying... If there's the big bang at the beginning, then is that really at the beginning? How can you have a beginning with nothing then suddenly something?
Don't tell me a God (or ultimate being or thing or even the universe) has existed forever, because forever with nothing happening means... No time at all.
With nothing happening time doesn't pass. Everything, by the looks of it, is up to our own observation. Think about that... It really gets your mind going!

Things need to happen in order for time to actually pass. Thats what I came to when I looked at it...
Therefore what was there at the beginning? Nothing? Therefore how can something come out of nothing.
Everything has a cause, you see.
I doubt he's trying to troll.

That is what Im trying to say, thanks. And no, Im not trying to troll I just find this theory fascinating, and the more you think about it the more you understand of it.

I wont say that God has existed forever. I would say that with the creation of matter came the creation of time. "space time" as scientists call it. thus God must be outside of time if He truly created "space time".

something to remember is that God doesnt exist in matter. he created it. (with the big bang) things exist other than matter.

how can we prove this? well first lets try to disprove it.

so lets say that matter and space is all that exists. we can just say "matter is all that exists". this concept, this understanding isnt just in our minds though. its a CONCEPT. thus its not matter, and its contradicting itself. by its own words it cant exist, since its a concept, and isnt made of matter. yet the concept "matter is all that exists" does exist. we can understand that with simple apprehension. thus "matter is all the exists" must be false.

The big bang was caused by hot and dense things that exploded in the universe and expanded. The universe was created out of luck and coincidence.

how did that "hot and dense" things get put into existence? what was it's cause? has it always existed?

You say that nothing can cause itself into existence, yes? Than how did god come, before everything else?

God didnt cause himself into existence. Could we say he IS existence? the source of all existence? how do we have existence if it doesnt come from a source? (or an ultimate uncaused cause)

sooo yeah... I actually have to go to bed now. I'll reply tomorrow if the thread doesnt die out.. Im not trying to troll, and Im definitely not offended by anybody being an atheist.

 

[Weston]

I wont say that God has existed forever. I would say that with the creation of matter came the creation of time. "space time" as scientists call it. thus God must be outside of time if He truly created "space time".

something to remember is that God doesnt exist in matter. he created it. (with the big bang) things exist other than matter.

how can we prove this? well first lets try to disprove it.

so lets say that matter and space is all that exists. we can just say "matter is all that exists". this concept, this understanding isnt just in our minds though. its a CONCEPT. thus its not matter, and its contradicting itself. by its own words it cant exist, since its a concept, and isnt made of matter. yet the concept "matter is all that exists" does exist. we can understand that with simple apprehension. thus "matter is all the exists" must be false.

What is your definition of "exists?"
You're just creating wordplay.

how did that "hot and dense" things get put into existence? what was it's cause? has it always existed?



God didnt cause himself into existence. Could we say he IS existence? the source of all existence? how do we have existence if it doesnt come from a source? (or an ultimate uncaused cause)

aaand do you have evidence for any of this? You can't just assert things to be true just because make sense in your head. They have to be based off of substantial evidence. Please don't try to use the Bible as evidence. Also, how does this relate to Christianity?

 

[AgentKuo]

Lol, wow, this thread is still going? I got bored 10 pages ago...

 

[Godmil]

Agh too early to type big replays on iPod... But there is more than matter in the universe there are lots of energies (though admittedly they are tied to matter; E=MC^2) and forces (though I may be wrong - Higgs Boson and such like) but anyway it's besides the point... The 'Idea being not matter' argument is flat out wrong, MRI scans clearly show when people think about things there is detectable physical activity in the brain.

how can we prove this? well first lets try to disprove it.

Fraud not, by definition you can't disprove a negative. (I could invent ideas all day that you could never disprove, it wouldn't make them right. Flying Spaghetti Monster is a perfect example of this.)
The burden of proof I'm afraid is on the person making the claims. To be rationally justified in a belief a person must demonstrate why their idea is more reasonable than not.

 

[shelley]

Lol, wow, this thread is still going? I got bored 10 pages ago...

Religion is a topic that a lot of people feel strongly about. What exactly were you expecting?

 

[stoic]

there is more than matter in the universe there are lots of energies (though admittedly they are tied to matter; E=MC^2) and forces (though I may be wrong - Higgs Boson and such like)

Interesting research this week suggests E=MC^2 might be wrong

The burden of proof I'm afraid is on the person making the claims. To be rationally justified in a belief a person must demonstrate why their idea is more reasonable than not.

There's the rub. Religion places a higher value on "faith" (i.e. deliberately believing something despite evidence to the contrary) than on rational justification.

 

[Godmil]

Interesting research this week suggests E=MC^2 might be wrong

Yeah I heard about that. Can't wait to see how it turns out. Just to be pedantic though, it doesn't mean the equation is wrong (it still works perfectly in nearly every experiment)... it could just point to holes/special cases in relativity.
Really interesting though... faster than light speeds... exciting time to be a physicist.

There's the rub. Religion places a higher value on "faith" (i.e. deliberately believing something despite evidence to the contrary) than on rational justification.

True, and that's fine as long as they then don't claim to have a rational justification... and definitely not claim to have any scientific proof.

 

[Muesli]

God didnt cause himself into existence. Could we say he IS existence? the source of all existence? how do we have existence if it doesnt come from a source? (or an ultimate uncaused cause)

You're just pushing the process back a step. We already have a word for existence, and that's the universe. Why can't I say that the universe brought itself into existence, removing your god from the equation with no logical consequence?

I'd love an answer from you for this point, or any of the other points I've made.

 

[Escher]

God didnt cause himself into existence. Could we say he IS existence? the source of all existence? how do we have existence if it doesnt come from a source? (or an ultimate uncaused cause)

The 'prime mover' argument rests on the idea that A always causes and precedes B. Until we actually understand causality and time and can either rule out or explain apparent exceptions then it's presumptuous to use it.

Another point; existence is not a predicate.

 

[stoic]

Yeah I heard about that. Can't wait to see how it turns out. Just to be pedantic though, it doesn't mean the equation is wrong (it still works perfectly in nearly every experiment)... it could just point to holes/special cases in relativity.
Really interesting though... faster than light speeds... exciting time to be a physicist.
.

Yeah really fascinating work being done at the moment. I guess the closer you get to a Big Bang/singularity event the more concepts like speed and time get messed up.