[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] When should we change our reasoning / beliefs?

[ToddNotTodd]

Thats fine, I still think you're intelligent. Its unreasonable to think that I can perfectly explain myself and that you can perfectly understand me when neither of us are perfect beings. Eventually one of us has to admit that their wrong or else peace/agreement on what is true can never be achieved.

Personally, I'm quite willing to change any of my views if presented with a compelling argument that contradicts it. But the argument has to be coherent.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Thats fine, I still think you're intelligent. Its unreasonable to think that I can perfectly explain myself and that you can perfectly understand me when neither of us are perfect beings. Eventually one of us has to admit that their wrong or else peace/agreement on what is true can never be achieved.

Notice that you're still dodging. I'm sorry, but given all your bluster, I'm going to keep calling you out on it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm not asserting anything, I'm claiming what I believe and backing my beliefs with reason.

"Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof" (Oxford Dictionary). You asserted, "... the concept of God has been around ever since humans came into existence." You have not backed that claim with anything.

So are we in agreement that its more reasonable to assume the universe began and that its less reasonable to assume the universe is eternal or infinite?

No. As I said, what is commonly called the beginning of the universe (the big bang) is the beginning of our ability to describe the universe. The cosmology that tells us about the big bang tells us we can't (yet) say anything about what, if anything, preceded it; we don't know.

My reasoning for it being more reasonable to assume it began is because we observe it having an apparent beginning. This reasoning is very subtle but it does make sense.

To you, perhaps. It's an apparent beginning in the sense that it was the start of the universe as we know it - in the same way that something coming over the horizon or appearing out of heavy fog has an apparent beginning, a point beyond which you can't say what it was doing, if anything.

There are semantic issues that can potentially confuse things; if the big bang was an event in some pre-existing spacetime, do we call that another (previous) universe, or is it the same universe? This becomes problematic when considering the multiverse - as below.

So if we agree its more reasonable to assume the universe had a beginning and this then means the universe is not eternal or infinite.

We don't know, and we have no way to judge whether it had a beginning or not. Your 'subtle reasoning' is not well-founded. Cosmologically, there are many different hypotheses for the universe and its origin; for example, a temporally infinite universe with repeating big bangs; a Hawking-style temporally finite closed universe that has no beginning and 'just is'; various versions of multiverse where our universe is an expanding 'bubble' of space time that started within a greater timeless 'bulk' metaverse; a version where higher-dimensional membranes ('branes') collide and create universes like ours at their contact points; a version where our universe originates from something like a black hole in 'another' universe, and many more. In the vast majority of them, our observable universe is a part of a greater system, that may be temporally infinite, or atemporal; and our perspective of time is an artefact of our limited viewpoint, either in the Hawking closed-universe sense, with no beginning of time; or in the sense that time 'begins' for every universe in the multiverse with the generation of an ultra low-entropy state matching the big bang.

The multiverse or metaverse idea clearly introduces more semantic difficulties - 'universe' becomes an instance, it no longer denotes everything, and time becomes a 'local' phenomenon, relative to universe instances within a timeless or temporally infinite bulk.

We can then safely assume the beginning of the universe was caused by something. It would then be safe to assume that this cause could be an infinite timeless force that is separate from the universe.

That is one option (for a colloquial use of 'force'), that corresponds to a multiverse or metaverse.

Again this is all based on safe assumptions, therefore, it becomes reasonable to believe in an infinite timeless force capable of creating the universe, this force would be God. This is my very subtle, but significant reasoning for my belief that God created the universe. Its also just one reason of many reasons that I believe in God.

You can call the multiverse or metaverse God if you like; I guess it's a pantheist interpretation.

But as I explained above its actually less reasonable to assume the Big Bang was just an event in an eternal universe.

Not really, no.

Can you link to these god concepts so I can determine if they are right or wrong then I'll let you know my findings

Yes, do let me know if you find them to be wrong Here you go: Spinozism, Pantheism. You'll may find a little background on the early-modern rationalist ideas of 'substance' helpful.

Are you saying my reasoning is fantasy?

No; the reasoning is flawed, fantasy is the result.

If I realize a nuance in reasoning that has been missed by many because I've been deeply praying for Jesus to protect my mind from evil and for God my Father to teach me His truth, I think thats pretty good evidence that you should consider this God that I'm saying is very real.

Forgive me if I don't take your prayer-induced 'nuances' as evidence of anything anything objectively real

Many Christians have said in the past that the God we believe in does make sense and He is reasonable and we just really want you to believe in Him because He can literally explain everything from why the universe began to good and evil to why we exist to miracles to why we haven't found aliens yet to why Islamic extremists are so evil to why a man and a women make a perfect pair when married under His authority to why love exists to why hate exists to the purpose of Jesus dying on the Cross and raising from the dead so that all who believe can have eternal life, I could literally go on and on.

Yers... bear in mind that the number of people saying stuff is not any guide to its accuracy or reliability; and that such claims are backed only by some old, much-disputed books and a lot of wishful thinking.

 

[anonymous person]

You are forgetting something; I don't find the claims of the bible and or Christianity to be credible, so I do not believe them to be true.

Just as, you don't find the claims of other religions and other holy books, to be credible.

It is a hypothetical question.

Care to answer it?

 

[bhsmte]

It is a hypothetical question.

Care to answer it?

Sure.

If the Christian God existed, I would imagine, he would be in a position to know what is best for me.

Since I don't believe this God exists, it is a moot point.

 

[anonymous person]

Guys this is not hard.

Chriliman and myself are saying that Jesus of Nazareth is the proof that you all have been asking for of God's existence.

You guys are saying that he is not proof.

We have reasons for saying what we do.

You guys have reasons for saying what you do.

We can't all be right.

This means that either Chriliman and I are right and you guys are wrong, or vice versa.

Can we agree on this much?

 

[anonymous person]

Sure.

If the Christian God existed, I would imagine, he would be in a position to know what is best for me.

Since I don't believe this God exists, it is a moot point.

Awesome.

Is it too hard for you to imagine that He might be speaking to you through me?

 

[bhsmte]

Guys this is not hard.

Chriliman and myself are saying that Jesus of Nazareth is the proof that you all have been asking for of God's existence.

You guys are saying that he is not proof.

We have reasons for saying what we do.

You guys have reasons for saying what you do.

We can't all be right.

This means that either Chriliman and I are right and you guys are wrong, or vice versa.

Can we agree on this much?

Sure.

As I have stated, I was a christian most of my life, but am no longer.

Could I be wrong, yes I could, but I have seen nothing to believe that I am and the more I have educated myself on the topic, the more confident I am that I am right.

 

[bhsmte]

Awesome.

Is it too hard for you to imagine that He might be speaking to you through me?

Well, since I don't buy the Christian story, yes it would be very difficult to believe he is speaking to me through you.

At some point, you have to move away from a hypothetical and move towards what you see as credible.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If the Christian God existed, I would imagine, he would be in a position to know what is best for me.

It's pretty much tautological, as that seems to be how the Christian God is defined - He who knows Best...

 

[Davian]

You have something specific in mind?

Something that might demonstrate that your experiences were not simply imagined. If these experiences are a form of communication, is it two-way?

 

[Davian]

Resurrection

The resurrection is now historical? When did that happen? Was this in the news?

 

[Chriliman]

You can call the multiverse or metaverse God if you like; I guess it's a pantheist interpretation.

Everything you said is mostly reasonable except this. Here you assume that the existence of the multiverse must be more reasonable and that I'm calling it God. Whereas its actually more reasonable that God exists and you are calling Him a multiverse. The reason I say this is because the Bible has already told us that God is infinite and timeless before science told us that the multiverse could be infinite and timeless, do you see why I would believe the Bible over science because it explained infinite timelessness before science did?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Everything you said is mostly reasonable except this. Here you assume that the existence of the multiverse must be more reasonable and that I'm calling it God. Whereas its actually more reasonable that God exists and you are calling Him a multiverse. The reason I say this is because the Bible has already told us that God is infinite and timeless before science told us that the multiverse could be infinite and timeless, do you see why I would believe the Bible over science because it explained infinite timelessness before science did?

It didn't explain anything and neither have you.

 

[quatona]

This thread suffers from the fact that the OP doesn´t (can´t or won´t) distinguish between an assertion and an explanation.

 

[Davian]

If you're unwilling to really think about what I'm saying for fear of figuring out you're actually wrong <snip>

What is there to fear? Why would I not want for there to be something more to human existence than this brief biological stint on Earth?

 

[quatona]

Whereas its actually more reasonable that God exists and you are calling Him a multiverse. The reason I say this is because the Bible has already told us that God is infinite and timeless before science told us that the multiverse could be infinite and timeless, do you see why I would believe the Bible over science because it explained infinite timelessness before science did?

No- that is not by any means a reasonable conclusion.

 

[Chriliman]

It didn't explain anything and neither have you.

You seem pretty confident that I'm wrong for someone who admits to not actually know if God exists or not.

 

[quatona]

You seem pretty confident that I'm wrong for someone who admits to not actually know if God exists or not.

No, to tell from the statement he made, he just is confident that the bible doesn´t explain anything about it, and that neither do you.
Completely different thing - at least for persons who care about logic and reason.

 

[anonymous person]

Something that might demonstrate that your experiences were not simply imagined. If these experiences are a form of communication, is it two-way?

Several hundred people saw Jesus alive after He died on the cross. I have no good reason to think that this was simply a result of their imagination.

Sometimes it is two-way, sometimes it is not.