Is there a GOD?

[bulldoza]

So basically we are all born bad, we then need to prove we are good for our entire lives according to the directives laid out in the Bible for the chance to get eternal bliss or risk eternal damnation.

The way I see it is that it all hinges on the ultimate carrot - the afterlife. You place your faith in life after death being real and us not simply shutting down like unplugging the TV. Not a bad motivator, I imagine the fear of non-existence after death terrifies a lot of people.

Basically yes. I believe we are all born with Adam and Eve's Original Sin. Baptism removes that original sin, and then we are tested by God for the rest of our lives as I commented earlier.

For me at least, I accept that Jesus was risen from the dead by God and hence showing us all that there is life after death.

 

[Whiskers]

I don't know the 'official' answer to that question but I am guessing that since Jesus often refers to God as His Father and fathers are obviously males then God is portrayed as male.

Thanks for your honest admission there bulldoza.

So have you ever wondered about the logical extension and implications of that, ie whether gods 'male sexuality' is a false/inaccurate portrayl?

It seems logical that if god is a sexual thing then there is more than one of them. Is Satan female?

It seems to me that a god, creator or life force would be asexual.

 

[Wysiwyg]

It seems logical that if god is a sexual thing then there is more than one of them. Is Satan female?

With the emphasis on seems. Your logic is illogical and Whiskers question is childish.

 

[$20shoes]

I think so as well. A creator would surely understand our minds, and know that many of us just aren't capable of "believing". Give us a sign! I do think that if a god exists and reveals itself, humanity is in for a shock, and more so for the religious.

One possible belief, which I tend to subscribe to is Pantheism, where God is not of itself separate or transcendent from the universe but is himself all that is known and unkown with respect to THE universe and other universes. In this respect absolutely everything is God being God.

MS+Tradesim and I covered the cosmological question some pages back. Although he wouldn't agree with all these assertions we came close to the heart of the matter from a Pantheistic viewpoint ( and yes, just another belief). Here is a summary of my own assertions from that discussion:

One possible argument for God, possibly stems from the origin of Universe. For this, you accept that time is unfolding linearly; that there are things that are yet to be. And that things that were, are no longer. Before the Big Bang, there was nothing; science does not place space, nor time nor light nor matter before this event.
If you accept our current understanding of the universe - that is, at some finite point back in time, a universe was created, then before that point there must conceptually have been "no" time. However, if there was no time prior to this major event, intuitively time could not have elapsed to even allow that very first germination of our universe. If there was a point of no time, to take the concept a step further, then you must concede that it is possible for something to "live" outside of time, or come into being without time, for our universe came into existence from somewhere where time did not exist.
If you accept this, then it is logical to accept that some force was able to penetrate a continuum of pre-Big Bang nothingness to create time and somethingness held within the nothingness.

Within all this “nothingness” there was somehow, one infinitely dense and bloody hot ball of "something". That "something" contained all matter, and time would start ticking from the moment this matter was unfurled. But before this unfurling, this hot dense pea sized ball of matter/energy/time must have been enveloped by something (though, not space - there was no space). The nothing surrounding this something must, logically speaking, be so infinitely infinite in its nothingness that it could be quite capable of enveloping and absorbing the pea sized density as it unfurled and proceeded to infinitely expand. That is, there must be "something" into which we expand and hence there must be a finite border at the edge of the universe, which once crossed places us into "nothingness". So, if we flew our spaceship faster than the speed of light we would eventually move back in time and eventually come to a border crossing as an illegal alien, which once crossed, places us outside of time and space.

By any definition, the concept of God as "all encompassing" and transcending space and time gels with this very concept that beyond the infinite boundary of our universe there must still be something even more vastly infinite that we're expanding into. Could the mystery of God be that very "infinite" which is beyond our own infinite?

Then again, the vast interconnectedness of energies through billions of galaxies and billions of eons may have something to do with a construct we don't understand and externalise as GOD. For instance, the infiniteness of the universe may actually be the fabric of all that was, is and ever shall be. Infinite is infinite!! If the infinite actually already contains the ALL, then we have a limitation with our time construct. That is, what we perceived as having occurred in the past may be something that was and has always been contained in our infinite universe. If time has an infinite capacity in the infinite universe, then all is already encapsulated in the infinite. It did not happen and will not happen; It just is.

If it just is, there is a possibility that we're remembering/experiencing at a layered, complex level of revelation that stems from some universal movement of itself.

If we move to death as a concept, even at a physical level, the universe is infinite - then you have always been dead, and you have always been alive. You are just experiencing a layer of physical time that is possibly akin to what some might perceive as God trying to recreate God. That is, if the universe is infinite, it has within it, all that has and will happen. So, if you die, you are dead relative to a reference as we define it, but it is impossible to be dead in the infinite universe. You must still be alive somewhere? The universe has always been. If we are still alive then (whilst also being dead), then in what sense in what capacity are we alive? Every moment of life is a layer of revelation of Everything being Everything.

Part 2 continued next post

 

[$20shoes]

PART 2 - continuation:

More to the point then, the being of absolutely everything that was, is and will always be, is immemorial. For example, the light of a dying star reached us at a certain point in "time". But the universe as infinite, means that there is no end point to that light. It travels on and on and on and on and on and on and on. It is merely a revelation for us at that moment. What once was, is still being. We are already part of the infinite and unmeasureable, in this sense. If we accept we never were and will always be, we might be inclined to accept that something that transcends us also never existed and has forever existed.

My supposition of course purports that not only is space, as a measure of distance, expanding infinitely but that time is likely infinite on a separate plane (that is, there is more to "time" than a relative construct that helps ground us and enables us to experience linearly). But there is no end point to time. At a certain point of being, all things and time were then in being. The universe contained everything at this point of its being - time, matter, energy. Everything that was required in order to fulfill the universe, was there in the beginning. Of course, if you accept this, then by a strict definition there is not necessarily a past and future as we perceive it. There is possibly only that which we're creating, from something that is already in being. Why would something be creating or using something that is already in being? Why would the universe keep creating itself within itself, and with that which is already in being? Perhaps to be relative to that which it is. Far deeper than we can possibly hope to know or feel, there is a universal, whose myriad and infinite connections allow the universe to reveal, to die, to be born using that which is available. In a way where man acts with free will, the soul of the universe can draw that experience from that which is; for it has always been.


Everything is.

Time then is of obvious importance and holds as law with respect to grounding us in one plane. Might time though be more “elastic”, perhaps in a way we don’t yet perceive? That supposition of time would accept that all of time and all universal matter was there in the beginning. It was far more dense than it is today but you and I and dinosaurs and the year 3500 were already in existence. As the universe stretches into infinity so does time, much like a bungee cord being stretched. However its end points are unreachable - that is, if i wanted to traverse time to reach an end point, it would be impossible because you are trying to reach the end point of infinity. If it has always been then you might conceive that as infinity stretches into infinity, more of what exists is revealed, as the bungee cord expands. In this sense, time is not elapsing but is being revealed.


To accept that supposition, the "I" would exist in all areas of time but is only aware of experiencing the present. At some point in time, and for what ever reason, the "I" which has always been, "experiences" in the physical sense. In the metaphysical sense the "I" is not grounded whereas the physical incarnation appears to obey the rules of what we consider the here and now. That is, we are obviously adhering to the rules of the universe but, only in a physical and measurable capacity; which may be just the immediate layer of the onion.

Possibly the most apt construct is the metaphysical notion "All is One. One is All". If time is also part of the All, then perhaps we are revealed in time, since there cannot be a time where we are not part of the All. Perhaps the experience that the universe (you, me and all that is known and unknown) draws unto itself is a revelation that unfolds in time. Since everything simply "is", nothing is chaotic. We're simply creating our experience. Some rich tapestry of thought/emotion/spirit/energy/physical is constantly creating the experience that it needs, that makes sense, on an infinite and universal scale within, what Earth would call, each moment.

 

[bulldoza]

Thanks for your honest admission there bulldoza.

So have you ever wondered about the logical extension and implications of that, ie whether gods 'male sexuality' is a false/inaccurate portrayl?

No I haven't, and to be honest whether God as a 'supreme being' is portrayed as male, female or other, doesn't matter to me. No-one has ever seen God in his physical presence and so whether God has a gender or is physically of some other form I do not know.

As I commented before, I think the male portrayal of God is related to Jesus referring to God as His Father.

 

[derty]

$20shoes, you are talking about Spinoza's God or God as Einstein used the term?

As you stated your supposition relies on both space and time being infinite - essentially the universe being infinite.

While our current understanding of cosmology is likely very incomplete, the empirical evidence and working models we have of the universe indicate that it is indeed finite. It has a beginning. We can only postulate prior conditions. It may be that the current expansion will not slow and reverse and expansion may even be accelerating. So it may have no end however we have a fair idea what the beginning looked like and can see or measure much of the early structure of the universe.

What happens to Pantheism if the universe is finite?

 

[$20shoes]

$20shoes, you are talking about Spinoza's God or God as Einstein used the term?

As you stated your supposition relies on both space and time being infinite - essentially the universe being infinite.

While our current understanding of cosmology is likely very incomplete, the empirical evidence and working models we have of the universe indicate that it is indeed finite. It has a beginning. We can only postulate prior conditions. It may be that the current expansion will not slow and reverse and expansion may even be accelerating. So it may have no end however we have a fair idea what the beginning looked like and can see or measure much of the early structure of the universe.

What happens to Pantheism is the universe is finite?

Good points. "universe indicate that it is indeed finite. It has a beginning". What beginning? Science started a stop watch from the moment of the Big Bang. But this stopwatch doesn't account for the pre-BigBang "nothingness" which was obviously there. Therefore, science can only address up to a logical beginning point and in doing so concedes that it cannot account for anything before this point.

You are making an assumption that time has an arrow that traverses on one direction on one axis. This is logical and binds to the laws of physics. My supposition does have a lot of "unprovens".

If the universe is finite, then it still raises an interesting dilemma. We have indeed expanded into something, and there is an edge. If there is an edge, what is on the other side?

 

[wayneL]

(** I'm starting the count down to the spurious claim that the Bible is a universal instruction booklet. )

It's a no-brainer to put me down for the Bible as the "instruction booklet".

34 minutes. I wasn't far out.

BTW, You aren't following all the rules then... why aren't you out stoning adulteresses to death etc?

Why? Why wouldn't he/she/it create us with a burning desire to know stuff and hence in the journey of discovery find that he/she/it existed? Given that a supreme being most likely exists outside of time, there is no particular reason for he/she/it to be in a hurry?

I can go along with a version of that premise. If so, then each person's journey of discovery is a personal one and should not be subject to indoctrination from organised religion.

Besides which Wayne, surely you can't say that the moral code that exists inside each and every one of us (apart from a very small percentage of socio/psychopaths) is not a pretty good indication of a universal instruction? There is NO argument against the fact that the moral code exists - otherwise I could just get a rifle and go out and shoot all the bloody annoying people that piss me off

What is so immoral about shooting people? If one believes in an afterlife, then the shooter is just helping people get there. However, there are consequences of shooting people. They might shoot back, lock you up, whatever. I believe the so called moral code is nothing more than a/ self realization and b/ avoiding negative consequences.

One possible belief, which I tend to subscribe to is Pantheism, where God is not of itself separate or transcendent from the universe but is himself all that is known and unkown with respect to THE universe and other universes. In this respect absolutely everything is God being God.

I like this line of thought. For me at least, it makes a lot of sense. It works on a whole bunch of levels. I am also aware that it is still just a belief.

 

[bulldoza]

34 minutes. I wasn't far out.

BTW, You aren't following all the rules then... why aren't you out stoning adulteresses to death etc?

It would've been less time but my typing finger is a little sore after the last few days

Stoning adulteresses???? I think I know where you are coming from - but when the group of people gathered to stone an alleged adulteress didn't Jesus go up to them and ask that he who is without sin to cast the first stone, after which the mob dispersed pretty quickly.?

One of the 10 commandments is Thou Shalt Not Kill.

 

[Wysiwyg]

PART 2 - continuation:

More to the point then, the being of absolutely everything that was, is and will always be, is immemorial. For example, the light of a dying star reached us at a certain point in "time". But the universe as infinite, means that there is no end point to that light. It travels on and on and on and on and on and on and on. It is merely a revelation for us at that moment. What once was, is still being.

But this cannot be. From the moment the light begins it's journey the "fuel" that created the light begins to diminish. Therefore the light source is not as it was and may no longer exist. What once was has changed, and there are no boundaries to change. The light has stopped being emitted and like when a torch is switched off, is gone forever. No source, no light. This is the lag of distance from event. Nothing remains the same.

Time then is of obvious importance and holds as law with respect to grounding us in one plane. Might time though be more “elastic”, perhaps in a way we don’t yet perceive? That supposition of time would accept that all of time and all universal matter was there in the beginning.

If duration was stopped what would happen?
Would everything disappear or would the existing elements be frozen forever? I can't prove this but I know that duration is required for the suns to burn fuel and for life to exist. So to stop duration now would freeze everything in the Universe. Duration is the most crucial requirement for continuity.

There can be only one time (duration) everywhere because the recording device, our mind through the senses, is a lagging instrument. We see what has already happened due to the duration from emitting to receiving. This is governed by distance.The emittance happened at a precise point in the (let's call it Universe) but the receptor could be any distance from the emittance. That is the illusion of time being different due to distance. The Universal time now is the same 4 million light years away. It cannot be sped up or slowed down. It is fixed. Each human ( I ) will get a different recording due to elapsed time and distance though we generally agree on the earth/sun/moon revolution duration. Happy to be quizzed on this.

However its end points are unreachable - that is, if i wanted to traverse time to reach an end point, it would be impossible because you are trying to reach the end point of infinity.

You would need speed.

For example the duration taken to reach a shop (end point) is within the duration of a biped's existence. Now place that shop (end point) at a distance incapable of a biped reaching in a lifetime then the biped dies on the way to the shop. But given infinite speed, one could traverse to and beyond the universal end point. That is if an end point exists. Time is relevant to people and not the Universal flow.

Thanks for your insights Shoes.

 

[derty]

getting away from the topic here.

Good points. "universe indicate that it is indeed finite. It has a beginning". What beginning? Science started a stop watch from the moment of the Big Bang. But this stopwatch doesn't account for the pre-BigBang "nothingness" which was obviously there. Therefore, science can only address up to a logical beginning point and in doing so concedes that it cannot account for anything before this point.

Yes science can only account up to the Big bang. Though to assume that there is a 'before' 'outside' the universe assumes that time exists outside the universe and that there is an outside to the universe. You are applying the internal conditions of our universe to what may be 'outside' of it.

Invoking infinity is difficult as it is infinite. In an infinite universe everything is possible an infinite number of times. There will be infinite copies of yourself living on infinite identical worlds doing exactly what you are doing while an infinite number of other you's will be living infinitely variable lives on infinitely different worlds. it quickly becomes preposterous.

Infinity, while it is a neat concept, does not work.

You are making an assumption that time has an arrow that traverses on one direction on one axis. This is logical and binds to the laws of physics. My supposition does have a lot of "unprovens".

So far it seems that in our universe time goes one way. While there are hypotheses regarding wormholes and ancient cosmic strings e.t.c. linking bits of the universe via the 'outside' they represent localised links and not a general reversal of the flow of time.

If the universe is finite, then it still raises an interesting dilemma. We have indeed expanded into something, and there is an edge. If there is an edge, what is on the other side?

You are limiting your thought to three dimensions here and assuming that the universe exists within three dimensions.

There is a handy little analogue that was explained to me about the nature of the inconceivability of dimensions. You start with a 1 dimensional universe (essentially a line with no height or width) populated by 1 dimensional beings who can only travel in one dimension along this universe. They see their universe in zero dimensions (i.e. a dot) though they understand that their universe actually is one dimensional. Now if that universe was curved in the second dimension (i.e. it was actually shaped like a circle) the one dimensional beings could keep going in one direction and return to their starting point, unable to comprehend how they got there. So you have a one dimensional universe populated by one dimensional beings that travel in one dimension, view their universe in zero dimensions and perceive their universe to be one dimensional while it is curved in two dimensions.

Now if you have a two dimensional universe (a flat plane with no height) populated by two dimensional beings. They will be able to move in two dimensions, they will see their universe in one dimension (a line) and will understand that their universe is two dimensional. That universe can be curved in the third dimension (a ball shape) though the two dimensional beings would not be able to comprehend this.

Then you get to us. We live in a three dimensional universe, we move in three dimensions. We understand that our universe is three dimensional while we view it in two dimensions (we see 3D as we have two eyes producing a stereoscopic image from the two 2D images out eyes collect). Now try and imagine the universe curved in the fourth dimension.

A neat little exercise, it may seem a little pointless until you consider that the most successful models at describing the universe we see today require much more than 4 dimensions. Superstring theory has the fundamental building blocks of the universe vibrating in the 3 main dimensions that we know, and also in 8 or more tiny curled up dimensions that we cannot perceive. Then you start talking M-brane or p-brane theory where they have postulated that the universe may be created by two 4 dimensional branes (4-branes) bumping into each other within a 5 dimensional space.

Sounds hair braned but these models explain what is being seen at the quantum levels. They work.

It seems a lot of religions have issues with the implications of evolution. Though evolution seems like such a straight forward concept that works. Quite irrefutable. When you start looking at the universe at the quantum level - that is when it starts to get really weird. You have super strings vibrating in 10 dimensions, you have quantum fluctuations generating particle pairs out of nothing, you have sub atomic particles that need to be spun 720 degrees before they appear as they did before they were spun. This is the stuff that I expect would send people scurrying back to their bibles claiming it is god at work. Not the simplistic Theory of Evolution.

 

[Wysiwyg]

They will be able to move in two dimensions, they will see their universe in one dimension (a line) and will understand that their universe is two dimensional.

How can a line be one dimensional and still be visible? Can one dimension be seen or represented in some way here?

 

[bulldoza]

If bulldozer had been born in India, he would be spruking Hinduism, Iran he would have been a devout Muslim. If born in China, bulldozer would probably would have been a Buddhist.

Not true roland - if I was allowed access to learn about Christianity and live my life as a Christian in those countries then I would, as I do now.
If not, then I would be a non-believer.

Imo you are making a very incorrect assumption that just because I have strong beliefs in God that I would be prepared to believe in any god, depending on my surroundings.

 

[roland]

Not true roland - if I was allowed access to learn about Christianity and live my life as a Christian in those countries then I would, as I do now.
If not, then I would be a non-believer.

Imo you are making a very incorrect assumption that just because I have strong beliefs in God that I would be prepared to believe in any god, depending on my surroundings.

Yes, you are correct - I am sorry for making any assumptions.

I do wonder though, how you know that your GOD would be still same with an alternate religious upbringing.

 

[symmetry]

eerrr thanks for deleting my post, : ( what dont like an alternative view )

 

[roland]

eerrr thanks for deleting my post, : ( what dont like an alternative view )

bugger - missed it, it must have been good

 

[explod]

Not true roland that just because I have strong beliefs in God .

And that is just it Bulldozer, your faith is a belief no more nor less. And as a belief it takes the argument of "Is there a God" nowhere.

When (from what age) and from where, may I ask, did you gain your faith in God bulldozer?

 

[roland]

Not true roland - if I was allowed access to learn about Christianity and live my life as a Christian in those countries then I would, as I do now.
If not, then I would be a non-believer.

If the "truth" is so apparent, why is it that so many others that have learnt, as you did, ended up as non-believers?

 

[derty]

How can a line be one dimensional and still be visible? Can one dimension be seen or represented in some way here?

It is a hypothetical exercise.