Why you believe what you believe I

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

brownie, I can ask one.

You seem to accept the world we experience as reality, but you are also aware that what you are responding to is a construct built out of selective perception in your own head. How do you know it isn't an illusion? Is it possible that one day you'll turn around and see the shapes casting the shadows on the cave wall and they won't be anything like what you thought? Could this whole life be just a big test, or a riddle, or a game? What I'm ultimately asking is, aren't people of science also making statements of faith when they talk about "the world" even though they know that their brains only get a highly distilled and infinitesimally small samping of the world, if it even exists at all?

very good point! yes and no, i would say

we ultimately do not know if this is all an illusion, or a test, or a game... so in this way, all we express is nothing more than "conjecture"

that said, we do notice consistancies, i.e. gravity... and we try our best to formulate theories that predict future events around these consistancies... this does not mean that gravity might just cease to exist next week... but for the moment, we are pretty safe in accepting that it will

this does not apply to god or the creation of the universe, since there is nothing in the first case, and very little in the second case, to observe directly in order to formulate consistancies

theory based on theory based on theory, as opposed the theory based upon observable and repeatable "reality"

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

I posted this question earlier but I don't think Brownie saw it.

Brownie, if there is no creator, then how do you explain anything, even the Big Bang theory? Something has to be at the beginning.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

I posted this question earlier but I don't think Brownie saw it.

Brownie, if there is no creator, then how do you explain anything, even the Big Bang theory? Something has to be at the beginning.

i don't think there necessarily has to be a beginning... or and ending for that matter... it goes back to what i was alluding to earlier when i spoke of us conceptualizing reality from our own pov/experience... our own lives have a beginning/ending, so we assume the same for the universe

after all, even those who believe in a creator cannot explain how this creator was created... the standard response is "he was always there"... and if one can accept that, it isn't a huge leap to say "the universe was always there, not created"

[Pytt]

Good answer Bj. I have never thought of the simplisity of turning it that way. thanks

[Elfhelm]

brownie, I promise I won't beat this dead horse, but I'm going to hold the line on the illusion issue for a bit, ok?

observable and repeatable reality

When someone does transcendental meditation, they are repeating something that is like an experience. I can describe it to you, even. The "world" of the senses becomes irrelevant, your being expands to fill a space that seems three dimensional, there is a "sea" of energy that seems to be more "real" than the world of the senses. It seems to be all loving and peaceful. Beyond that, I don't know, but it is "observable and repeatable".

My only problem with that "experience" is that I used to abuse drugs so my personal experience can't be trusted.

But there are yogis who say you can do this and that it proves that the material world is just an illusion. And it follows, doesn't it, that calling this energy sea "God" and living in a state of grace is as reasonable a conjecture as trusting the senses to the extent of rejecting this conjecture a priori?

Food for thought. I'll be interested in hearing your take on it.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i don't think there necessarily has to be a beginning... or and ending for that matter... it goes back to what i was alluding to earlier when i spoke of us conceptualizing reality from our own pov/experience... our own lives have a beginning/ending, so we assume the same for the universe

But we have parents. I can't see the universe haveing parents.

after all, even those who believe in a creator cannot explain how this creator was created... the standard response is "he was always there"... and if one can accept that, it isn't a huge leap to say "the universe was always there, not created"

But we (those who believe in a creator) believe that s/he is all powerful and can do things that other could not and things the earth could not.

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

But we have parents. I can't see the universe haveing parents.

Hm, I don't really see the relevance here...So, because the universe doesn't have parents it must be similar to humans and have a beginning/end?

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

But we (those who believe in a creator) believe that s/he is all powerful and can do things that other could not and things the earth could not.

And we who don't believe in a creator (or at least seriously doubt it), believe that the universe doesn't need any omnipotent being in order to exist without a beginning/end. It's too big for us to comprehend, because humans need something within their own experience to compare it with. It just exists, like everything else.

[Elfhelm]

In my last post I said "beyond that, I don't know", but to be completely honest, I must say this: Beyond that point one must shed one's identity in order to continue, and that makes any sentence discussing it nearly impossible to write because our syntax requires a subject. And almost every word I wrote attempting to describe it was merely metaphorical. Even writing "peaceful and loving" is a grab at existing concepts in our language to convey things that are not exactly the same as what is described by those words.

I had to amend this facet because my wife and I had a hour long discussion about the post. hehehe She's rigorously intellectual and I'm a little lazy at times.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownie

i don't think there necessarily has to be a beginning... or and ending for that matter...

Brownie - do you believe that something had to be non-created (i.e., did NOT have a beginning), whether it be the origin of the Big Bang, or God, or something else?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Brownie - do you believe that something had to be non-created, whether it be the origin of the Big Bang, or God, or something else?

our existance may very well be cyclical... in fact, logic says it is, since everytime you claim a creation point, there is always a "what before"

so in reality maybe everything is non-created and life is just the same "stuff" being rearranged over and over again

[firstagerules]

Okay, there are a couple of things you need to get straight when talking about this:

1. There is no physical eviedence of evolution. It is and always will be a theory.

2. This planet and all we see was created by God in 6 literal days of 24 hrs each. The Bible is very specific about this and the use of the term "day".

3. The physical eviedence we do see around us supports creation in six days and the fact that there is a God.

[firstagerules]

Oh, and by the way, Genesis 1:1 answers the question where God came from. He was there in the begining. The laws of Physics also support this.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

hi there and welcome to the moot.

do yu have physical evidence for these inferences
i am a non-christian, a buddhist in fact
and so do not persoally believe in this theory.
nice to have another opinion/view/stance on board, though

[Rían]

Alright - the last of the relatives left this morning, and it's time to return to this thread!

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

our existance may very well be cyclical... in fact, logic says it is, since everytime you claim a creation point, there is always a "what before"

I disagree that logic says that our existence is necessarily cyclical. The cyclical model does not get some magic exemption from the "what came before" question. How did the material that cycles over and over get here? If you want to answer, "it was always there", then I can just as easily answer, "I think God was always there." I think no matter what model you want, there must ALWAYS be something that was "always there" - i.e., something that is uncreated.

There's another thing that bugs me about your cyclical model, tho, as I muse about it. The statement "every effect has a cause" is true BY DEFINITION. What is the cause behind the effect(s) that cause the universe to cycle? See, the God model proposes an unchanging "always something there" that is behind the creation of the universe. Your cyclical model proposes something that is always changing as the "always something there". But change necessarily implies that the thing is inside time ... Also, there's a problem, it seems to me, with the changing - if something has changed, there MUST be a cause behind it - how can something that supposedly is the cause behind everything be its own cause? Now THAT is logically impossible, it seems to me. What do you think?

The only thing that I see that logic says is necessarily true is that there is SOMETHING that is uncreated - i.e., is NOT the result of an effect. Which also seems to imply that it is unchanging.

so in reality maybe everything is non-created and life is just the same "stuff" being rearranged over and over again

But the rearranging is an effect that necessarily has a cause. What is behind it?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by firstagerules

Oh, and by the way, Genesis 1:1 answers the question where God came from.

That explanation is not sufficient for those who do not believe the Bible is true

(BTW, I believe it's true )

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

The only thing that I see that logic says is necessarily true is that there is SOMETHING that is uncreated - i.e., is NOT the result of an effect. Which also seems to imply that it is unchanging.

a reasonable argument... however, you have pointed out in the past that theories like evolution must be wrong because something complicated can't just "evolve" into existance without intelligent design... if such is the case, one would have to apply this same theory to god, who is certainly very complicated

so whether you believe my theory of the universe always existing or yours of god always existing, it must be accepted that complicated things do not always have to be "intelligently designed"... as you say, something is uncreated, something complicated

then, taking logic a step further, god is an unecessary element in the equation... if we accept that complicated things can just develop (i.e. the universe), what sense is there in inserting a second unknown and unprovable element into the equation that adds nothing in the way of explanation (i.e. god)?

[inked]

Brownjenkins,

Your statement:"if we accept that complicated things can just develop (i.e. the universe), what sense is there in inserting a second unknown and unprovable element into the equation that adds nothing in the way of explanation (i.e. god)?" is basically a statement of two alternative faiths.
1) "complicated things can just develop"
2) "a second unknown and unprovable element...that adds nothing in the way of explanation (i.e. god)".

The first is an undoubted statement of faith based on your acceptance of the evidentiary materials and theoretical constructs of man's current grasp of the way the universe works. It is the first "unknown and unprovable element" in your primary sentence.

I have no difficulty with this stance if you acknowledge that it is indeed a faith stance since by your definition it is "unknowable and unprovable". It seems to me however, that though the arguments are evidentiary in their mode and unobservable or unrepeatable in observation, they are clearly faith statements. In fact, lots of faith is required in the development of the data points (the evidentiary material), the hypothetical and theoretical constructs (and evolutionary theory is split into many denominations, is it not?), and the belief that certain missing evidences are taken to exist.

The second statement seems to me to be more of an a priori assertion that being unknowable and unprovable exists only in relation to god. A simple assertion that this is the case - God is philosophically excluded - does not render that line of faith untenable, merely not applicable to the persons asserting the same. Rather like Freud's assertion that God is the universal human neurosis. An a priori assumption, but baldly stated.

The discussion then becomes a battle of a priori assertions - one on-going at least since Plato recorded Socrates discussions of these possibilities. The data prior to that time indicate the predominance of the "god hypothesis" - which is still dominant in the world today.

[EarthBound]

As long as Time is long and we can only flit about on that band for a wee-bit of it, we're going to be doing a great deal postulating, theorizing, and guessimating, eh.

Faith, it takes everyone in a different direction and sometimes clearly separates us in thought and morals. Faith in a concept not expressed in the Bible is still just that. Evidence is grim to obtain towards our building blocks (strings?) in that we can't (as yet) devise a test of such theories to obtain "prove-ability". It's amazing where the heart & mind takes people in such different avenues of faith . . . often summing into opposing energies.

While I'm uncomfortable with the question "where did God come from?", I'm very comfortable with God existing. It's an ongoing exercise to find God in life, science, and thought. Why not explore thoughts like "holographic universe" theories, and such. Sometimes the models work only 'all to well'. But the unified theory that shows where the designer behind the design came from is particularly unanswerable (to me at least) until a paradigm shift of some sorts rocks my own personal universe (death?).

Note: I'm bummed to find I still am uncomfortable discussing my faith in God to others. So certain, I am apparently, that the majority of people immediately cast me as "small, simple, and weak minded". Wow, I'm evidence that there has been some success to suppress spiritual thought (the second one professes Christianity). Then again, I work in and around academia and government types. (hmmmm...cofession or venting )

For me, the separation of God and Science is a bit short-sighted when it is taken as a conclusion before we are even able to test any of our unification theories.

While we have unification theories such as string, particle, and wave (holographic) that work to strike a complete model, the scientific community itself realizes that physics has become akin to philosophy in all too many regards (opinions of many leading physicists). Technology sciences withstanding, of course (nano, etc.)

[brownjenkins]

i agree with you in principle inked, any theories on the ultimate source of everything are just that "theories"

however, i accept mine as just a "theory" (i.e. it may or may not be true)... there is no "faith" involved... i'm calling it a guess

those of the religious persuasion tend to rely on faith (i.e. their stance is unprovable, but true in their minds)

that's a big difference

on my "complicated things can just develop (or always exist)"... one could almost go so far to say this is a fact... it does not take "faith" to accept this statement... we are complicated, we are here, so we either developed or always existed... or, if not us, the thing (or process) that created us... or the thing that created that ... so the statement is "true", we just don't know where along the course of our universe to place it

on the specifics, in science we typically try to simplify problems by removing unnecessary variables (i.e. god)... if one accepts the "near-fact" that "complicated things can just develop (or always exist)", then a good theory should start at the point of the unknown, without adding any extra unknowns (even though they may very well exist... god may have created the universe, and another group of gods may have created the "god" who created our universe, etc.)

we know we live in a universe we can observe, so we theorize about how it came about, and when we hit a conceptual wall, pre-big-bang for example, we label it the "unknown for the moment"... and since we know "complicated things can just develop (or always exist)", we need not assign any intelligence to this unknown

we can muse about it, but the musing is just that... it is no longer even a real theory because it is 100% conjecture, as opposed to conjecture with some observable "supporting proofs"

all this does not mean that one can not believe in god... it just means that god's existance is irrelavent to any theories about the origins of our existance

[inked]

brownjenkins:

"however, i accept mine as just a "theory" (i.e. it may or may not be true)... there is no "faith" involved... i'm calling it a guess

those of the religious persuasion tend to rely on faith (i.e. their stance is unprovable, but true in their minds)

that's a big difference"


you are going to have to clarify the difference between reliance on the "unprovable" and reliance on a "guess", Dude! I think it a distinction without a difference!



Earthbound:

Testimony to one's faith is not merely verbal, you know! Actions speak louder than words. And, I doubt you are so insignificant in your witness as you think! Academia was a tough environment because many assume that "expert" in one field means expert in all, but professors are merely humans with certain expertises! not the Demigods they make pretence to!
Everyone associated with academian KNOWS that secretaries have all the real knowledge and power!