quick way to prove creation

[MrGoodBytes]

And the puddle wonders how the sidewalk could have been designed to fit its shape so perfectly.


eudaimonia,

Mark

This, this, a thousand times this.

 

[peaceful soul]

Originally Posted by Legion.As.One

And about here I'll create a random question:

If before the Bing Bang (really a big expansion), there was no thing. No dimensions of time or space. No thing. Chaos and order, in one big but small thing of nothingness. How can "god" exist, if there was no place for it to exist?


God is eternal and is spirit. There is no requirement for God to have to fill a space-time cordinate system. There is more to the world than a material/physical realm. If you can understand or accept that possiblility, then you could reason why and how God could exist whether there was a physical realm or not. Space and time are not confinements for God--only for His creation. Just think of our 3D world as only a portion of a larger infinite dimensional world. Imagine that if a 2D object could communicate with a 3K object, the 2D object would only be able to relate to the 3D in the 2D properties that define the 2D's existence. To the 3D object, the 2D object would be experiencing an incomplete pictrue of the world according to the 3D perspective. A similar situation would exist with dimensions in higher dimensions than our 3D world. We would not see the complete picture; thus, we wold not be able to relate to higher dimensions. We could not see what those dimensions would contain. To us, it would be invisible or nonexistant. Just ponder on that for a while.

I don't have much time right now to say much, but will try to help you make more sense of things.
​

 

[Legion.As.One]

If something is in another dimension, it all acts on things in this universe. All (aprox.11) dimension were created at the beginning of time and the "Big Bang". Our 3D world is part of an infinite universe, ever expanding, you can never reach its end. IF someone takes the viwe point that "god" is in all dimensions, then, he is the universe itself, and therefore not a sentient being.

Not even a thought could have existed outside the beginning of time.
1. There was no one to think it
2. It couldn't possibley have been
Thats what I mean by no thing. Time is a thing and it wasn't created until the Big Bang.
No thing can be non-existant while there is a place for it to exist (eg. another dimension). No thing can exist when there is no place for it to exist. No thing can exist outside the universe.

 

[durangodawood]

There is nothing in contemporary cosmology thats solid enough to be useful as PROOF for anything spiritual. Its a dead end.
.
But... it certainly provides food for thought, and inspiration.
.

 

[peaceful soul]

If something is in another dimension, it all acts on things in this universe. All (aprox.11) dimension were created at the beginning of time and the "Big Bang". Our 3D world is part of an infinite universe, ever expanding, you can never reach its end. IF someone takes the viwe point that "god" is in all dimensions, then, he is the universe itself, and therefore not a sentient being.

Not even a thought could have existed outside the beginning of time.
1. There was no one to think it
2. It couldn't possibley have been
Thats what I mean by no thing. Time is a thing and it wasn't created until the Big Bang.
No thing can be non-existant while there is a place for it to exist (eg. another dimension). No thing can exist when there is no place for it to exist. No thing can exist outside the universe.

The analogy was meant to show that something in a lesser dimension would not be able to comprehend the totality of a greater dimension. That lesser dimension figure would be limited to comprehending a greater dimension by a factor directly related to its own dimensional perspective. That is, a 2-D figure could understand 2-D concepts if it were present in a 3-D world, but couldn't comprehend the 3rd dimension. To that object, the 3rd dimension would not make sense. That object woud not be able to relate to it.

I see that you extended this concept to conclude that God was within the dimensions, which is not true. God is not bound by time, space, and other physical and metaphysical barriers that human minds conceive. God is! There is no means to explain in human terms. It is beyond our comprehension, thus the need for an analogy of dimensions from my POV was given. In perspective to my analysis, God would be greater than any dimension that we could fathom. God is not defined by any of his creation, but he is able to intervene within it at will. That is why we have Jesus being able to exist with creation (finite dimensional) while still being outside of it in what Christians understand as a hypostatic union (union of man and God where neither man's or God's nature are intertwined or compromised in any way). To Christians, God does not exist within His creation as if He is a part of it. He exists outside of it but can interact with it. The idea that God is contained within the dimensions of His creation is unheard of in Christianity. That is more of a Eastern mystic concept.

Time is not a factor in God's realm. From a Christian perspective, God sees events in a different way. One analogy has been used is the concept of a parade. Humans see the parade from one perspective when they are participating in it, but God sees the beginning of the parade as well as the end simultaneously. He sees things both before they happen and after they happen as if there is no distinction. In addition there is not limit to how far in the future or past He can see. There is no such thing as limited view in God's realm or a past present and future.

 

[peaceful soul]

There is nothing in contemporary cosmology thats solid enough to be useful as PROOF for anything spiritual. Its a dead end.
.
But... it certainly provides food for thought, and inspiration.
.

Not all things are proved by what we called the scientific method. The scientific and other related methods rely upon physical and to some degree nonphysical things appear to affect the physical realm such as gravity. Non physical things such as soul, conscience, morality, and spirits are not readily testable in a scientific setting. An evolutionist would have no choice but to conclude that these things must have a naturalistic explanation rather than concede that they may have supernatural aspects associated with them. To understand concepts such as god and spirits, one must employ some other testing procedure. I think the problem among secularist is that they depend too heavily upon science as means of testing and verifying the world; therefore, their rationale is limited in understand things outside their realm of thought. People who are spiritual can attest that there is a spiritual realm; and the scientific method has no authority in this realm.

 

[MostRadicalManEver]

If you can prove that time had a beginning, you can prove that the universe was created.

I just use the uncaused cause theory. See all the stuff moving around you? Each moment before had things causing other things to move. If you run the movie of creation far enough back, frame by frame, you will see that there are successive movements each in turn with its respective causes of motion. Then we get back to the original movement that precedes all other movement. This first motion was caused by the uncaused cause.

AKA Abba Father.

 

[Legion.As.One]

peaceful_soul,
You said figures from other dimensions can't comprehend other dimensions. Why then, do we humans have concepts such as space and/or time?

How can you be outside dimensions? NOTHING is outside the dimensions, the dimensions make up the universe, there is nothing, i repeat, nothing outside th universe. No can be outside because there isn't anything oustide nor any way to get outside.
How can 'god' see everything, past, present and future? It is impossible to know where every single sub-atomic particle in the universe is going to be in a certain point in the future. Someone/thing would have to be omnipotent >> in every dimension AND sentient- which I have already explained is impossible.

You are saying, for example, that if the universe is like the parade then 'god' is an observer. But how can you observe the universe from the outside? There is no outside!

 

[peaceful soul]

Sure, and consider this. If God exists outside of time as something eternal, meaning timeless, how can God think, since thinking is an activity that takes place in time? Is God a statue?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Thinking is not a parameter of time. From our perspective thinking occurs in time, but is neither controlled by it nor dependent on it . We age in time, but aging is not controlled by time. It has to do with our genes and nonphysical aspects of our ontology as well as sin. Sin destroyed the harmony that God's creation had at the beginning of creation.

I see that you are using human thought to ascertain God. It doesn't work in a linear fashion when you think that God must do as you do or be confined to the same restraints that you and I have. In some limited instances, we can relate to God in human terms, but our logical foundation has to give way to the supernatural in other instances. God is greater than us. We cannot fully comprehend Him. For that reason, He gave us revelation (both direct and scriptural) so that we could at least relate to him. This goes back to my dimension analogy. We can only see at most what resides within out dimension. Even then, we can't fully comprehend. What greater problem do we have in relating to greater dimensions of reality outside of our 3D perspective?

 

[peaceful soul]

I see that there are several very good questions. I will answer all of you when I get back after some sleep. I also have a post to address to Rasta from before the site went down. I will respond as best as I can when I return.

Thanks for the questions. I really like inquisitive minds.

 

[Legion.As.One]

Sure thing

 

[Eudaimonist]

Thinking is not a parameter of time. From our perspective thinking occurs in time, but is neither controlled by it nor dependent on it . We age in time, but aging is not controlled by time.

Time is a measure of change. Age is one type of change. I wouldn't speak of time "controlling" anything, but aging certainly requires "time".

I see that you are using human thought to ascertain God.

Given that I am a human being and have no alternative, this shouldn't be surprising.

It doesn't work in a linear fashion when you think that God must do as you do or be confined to the same restraints that you and I have.

I don't see how. Thought also involves change, and that means that thought only exists across time. It's easy to say that God does not have our constraints, but this is an unintelligible claim since it tosses out even minimal constraints.

In some limited instances, we can relate to God in human terms, but our logical foundation has to give way to the supernatural in other instances.

This is literally insanity you are recommending. To abandon logic is to embrace contradiction.

God is greater than us. We cannot fully comprehend Him.

This is a copout. I could argue (though I won't) that a godless universe is greater than you, and you cannot fully comprehend a godless universe. Therefore, you should abandon logic and accept a godless universe.

Abandoning logic opens the door to mental chaos.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[franklin]

So the big bang theory and logic used earlier both support that the universe has a beginning, which was its creation by GOD.

A question you may ask is this: since time had a beginning, doesn't that mean that GOD didn't exist forever either?
No, it doesn't. Prior to the creation, God existed beyond matter and beyond time.

He was just there. All of his time prior to creation can be compressed into a single moment, because nothing happened.

Sounds like a wild guess to me. Where is your proof it was a God that created everything?

Making assertions isn't proof. Just more assertions replacing assertions with more assertions. God belief doesn't answer questions it just replaces one mystery with another mystery.

That said, present your proof it was God that did it all.

 

[durangodawood]

Not all things are proved by what we called the scientific method. The scientific and other related methods rely upon physical and to some degree nonphysical things appear to affect the physical realm such as gravity. Non physical things such as soul, conscience, morality, and spirits are not readily testable in a scientific setting. An evolutionist would have no choice but to conclude that these things must have a naturalistic explanation rather than concede that they may have supernatural aspects associated with them. To understand concepts such as god and spirits, one must employ some other testing procedure. I think the problem among secularist is that they depend too heavily upon science as means of testing and verifying the world; therefore, their rationale is limited in understand things outside their realm of thought. People who are spiritual can attest that there is a spiritual realm; and the scientific method has no authority in this realm.

Well, I was responding to the OP, which states that the findings of physics and cosmology already provide the basis for a simple proof of God. This of course is nonsense.
.
As for soul, conscience, morality.... these may (or may not) be "merely" properties of a living human brain in its environment.
.

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by durangodawood

Well, I was responding to the OP, which states that the findings of physics and cosmology already provide the basis for a simple proof of God. This of course is nonsense.

OK. Got it! However, I do think that if you look at nature and it's complexity and laws that humans have discovered that it follows, it is a created thing rather than something that just exists with no cause behind it. It is people who don't want to recognize this or try to leave God out of the picture that see this as nonsense. It is nonsense as well then to think that what we live in is happenstance or some combination of natural selection and evolution. It goes against common knowledge that even science has affirmed. Everything that we humans have developed and created has some careful thought and planning in its formation. Nothing that we do is without design. Even when a scientist tries to prove evolution, he does some planning, design, and preparation in order to hopefully to get the right result. We know through science that abiogenisis doesn't have any merit; so, why would we ignore such things when looking at nature and our world surrounding us? The main problem that I see with your comment is that supernatural explanations must be suppressed in discussions and honest attempts to arrive at what is true or is more likely to be true. People who don't believe that God exists have already stacked a bunch of presuppositions on their plate that they are not willing to part from under any circumstances, thus the logical error in their thinking and reasoning concerning God and the supernatural.

As for soul, conscience, morality.... these may (or may not) be "merely" properties of a living human brain in its environment.
.

They are parts of our humanity; otherwise they wouldn't be attached to our self. If they are not accounted for, then we can't have a reality. We cannot exist in the realm of thinking, loving, caring, and existing as ethical/moral beings without that part of us. Again, I think that you and others make the fatal mistake of trying to squeeze out naturalistic explanations for everything that does exist. Those things are more of a metaphysical aspect of our humanity. That is not accounting for our spirit. These have no physical explanations but have a relation to the physical brain while being separate from the physical brain. We have nonphysical aspect of our being. Not every part of our being is a physical and naturalistic in origin.

 

[peaceful soul]

Sounds like a wild guess to me. Where is your proof it was a God that created everything?

Making assertions isn't proof. Just more assertions replacing assertions with more assertions. God belief doesn't answer questions it just replaces one mystery with another mystery.

That said, present your proof it was God that did it all.

Now apply that to your beliefs. Prove that there is no God. The problem that I have with your approach and others is that there is no way to prove anything to anyone who will not consider those points. The way that I see it is that you are just on the other side of the tracks with the same issue that you would charge a Christian or theist with.

Christians have reason to believe that God created everything. For us, at least, it is not just some hopeless concept; for we have come to understand that there is more that just a physical realm to base our lives and understanding of this world on. For you, it probably defaults to naturalism. Any true Christian understands that our faith in God results from His self revelation to us in a predominately nonphysical realm, which you are most likely to say doesn't exist or is a skeptical construct perhaps of our imagination. I don't want to put words into your mouth, but I suspect this is close to your line of reasoning and understanding.

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by Eudaimonist

Time is a measure of change. Age is one type of change. I wouldn't speak of time "controlling" anything, but aging certainly requires "time".

I don't want to nitpick, but age is a change measured by time, but is not limited by time. If there was no time we could still see the agents of change since our genes determine change plus environmental effects that act upon our genes such as radiation. I understand time to be a relational aspect and not a causation aspect.

Given that I am a human being and have no alternative, this shouldn't be surprising.

I can't fault you for that. What I am addressing is the idea that human reasoning is not the proof of life and reality; for it is above our reasoning that explains reality. I see it as being God and what He reveals to us that enables us to discern what we can. Human philosophy can only deal with finite humanity and not God. That is why God has to interact with His creation to bring him to that higher level of understanding and discernment that many religious people claim to have and secularist claim otherwise.

I don't see how. Thought also involves change, and that means that thought only exists across time. It's easy to say that God does not have our constraints, but this is an unintelligible claim since it tosses out even minimal constraints.

I can agree with your understanding if thought is dependent upon time. Time is just a measurement. From God's perspective, it has no relevance in His function. It only becomes significant when He relates to us. An infinite being has no limitation of a finite concept such as time. Eternity has no such concept as time.

If God created everything, then He defines the sets of logic--not us. That is the proposition and conclusion that I am following. He is outside of the picture looking in. We are inside trying to look outward. The moment that you employ purely human thinking to answer the God question, you limit yourself to human thoughts. Naturally, you try to resolve God into human thoughts and actions. That is the fallacy of secular thinking, IMO.

This is literally insanity you are recommending. To abandon logic is to embrace contradiction.

What I am hearing from you is that supernatural explanations and experiences are impossible! is that right? if so, then how do you know? What I find as insane is not to confess that you don't know and that supernatural possibilities are not an issue if God is true and sovereign. If God is sovereign as He claims in the Bible, then He is easily able to make laws to govern His creation. In fact, there would not be a creation without Him being able to create laws for it. That is the protocol of any intelligent design process. Once you grab the concept of the Biblical god, then your line or reasoning increases multi fold. I call it "seeing the big picture" or "coming to the knowledge of truth".

Again, human logic is finite and eventually becomes flawed since it cannot work outside of the human framework of 3D and time. This is where God's revelation and interaction with humanity comes in. That is how we can start to fathom what is outside of our finite realm. This is why Christians can make what some non Christians would see as insane. A Christian's reasoning comes from our understanding of God and from personal experience along with the Bible. We read, study, and form concepts of God and how we are suppose to relate to God. God in return affirms these concepts with miracles, personal revelations, spiritual interactions, etc.

This is a copout. I could argue (though I won't) that a godless universe is greater than you, and you cannot fully comprehend a godless universe. Therefore, you should abandon logic and accept a godless universe.

If all you have is human logic to guide you, then you would probably appear correct. Christians, Muslims, followers of Santana Dharma and other spiritual disciplines would not agree with you. God, by definition is greater; so, I fail to see your objection. A cop out would be if I just left the statement without anything to back it up. I have a Bible. Muslims have their Qu'ran, as two examples. I am not arguing their veracity in stating this specific statement; but, I am providing a baseline by which we make our claims and generate our reasoning above the human level.

Abandoning logic opens the door to mental chaos.

That may be true if you have no other realm of reality, which Christians do have. I do think that you would be correct if there is nothing else but human thought that determines truth and logic. If God exists, then His logic would be of more significance than yours or mine.

I also want to point out to you that Christians don't abandon logic when we claim a relation to the supernatural. Your premise is that human logic is the only means of reasoning and rational there is. It is analogous to an evolutionist who dismisses the possibility of God and then goes on to explain everything that he can't fully explain in evolutionary terms as processes of natural selection and nature. The point would be that the evolutionary aspect is abandoned for another explanation that doesn't involve the supernatural, thus God.

eudaimonia

,

Mark

I think that you have some good questions, eudaimonia. I am not surprised with your conclusions, but just keep in mind that I and other religious people outside of Christianity see a far deeper realm than just the naturalistic and philosophical. Man of us have contact with the spiritual realm and see a whole new set of laws that govern this world. I feel that what you see mainly in the physical realm is just a tip of the iceberg in what constitutes sound logic and reasoning.

Fell free to ask other questions. I am also interested in what other perspectives you may have concerning the OP.

 

[21stcenturyfire]

the atheist are much better versed in science than the theist it appears

 

[Wiccan_Child]

OK. Got it! However, I do think that if you look at nature and it's complexity and laws that humans have discovered that it follows, it is a created thing rather than something that just exists with no cause behind it.

Why? I heard this claim, and others like it, a thousand times over. But I've never heard just what it is that indicates a Creator: yes, nature is complex. But so what? The theory of evolution aptly demonstrates that very complex systems can arise by purely mundane and undirected processes (whether this actually occurred is, for the moment, irrelevant).

It is people who don't want to recognize this or try to leave God out of the picture that see this as nonsense.

Perhaps, but it's not so much that people don't want to conclude a deity, but that people see no reason to conclude a deity (any more than they see a reason to conclude, ghosts, fairies, and elves). The scientific community drops theories if they become untenable, regardless of what we'd 'like' to be true.

It is nonsense as well then to think that what we live in is happenstance or some combination of natural selection and evolution. It goes against common knowledge that even science has affirmed.

By all means, present us with this science.
It should also be noted that "common knowledge" is a poor substitute for actual knowledge: everyone knows that pre-Columbus civilisations thought the world was flat, but that is simply false (the West knew the Earth was round by the third century BCE). Everyone knows that heavier things fall faster, but that is also false (g=9.81ms[sup]-2[/sup], regardless of one's mass).

Common sense is useful in a pinch, but but rubbish at acquiring actual knowledge.

Everything that we humans have developed and created has some careful thought and planning in its formation. Nothing that we do is without design. Even when a scientist tries to prove evolution, he does some planning, design, and preparation in order to hopefully to get the right result.

A scientists hopes to get a result. A scientist plans her experiment, but she would be mad if she didn't design it to simulate actual events. Evolutionary biologists leave isolated populations and see how they've evolved, naturally, by themselves (some even speciate).

We know through science that abiogenisis doesn't have any merit; so,

Again, just what science are you referring to? Abiogenesis has born astounding fruit since the famous Miller-Urey experiments. Indeed, a recent study has found 22 amino acids have formed by simulating prebiotic conditions and leaving it to stew (terrestrial life uses only 20).

why would we ignore such things when looking at nature and our world surrounding us? The main problem that I see with your comment is that supernatural explanations must be suppressed in discussions and honest attempts to arrive at what is true or is more likely to be true. People who don't believe that God exists have already stacked a bunch of presuppositions on their plate that they are not willing to part from under any circumstances, thus the logical error in their thinking and reasoning concerning God and the supernatural.

The logical error is in assuming they won't give up their presuppositions. Many people have been convinced by what looks like evidence of the supernatural: ghosts, angels, deities, etc.

They are parts of our humanity; otherwise they wouldn't be attached to our self. If they are not accounted for, then we can't have a reality. We cannot exist in the realm of thinking, loving, caring, and existing as ethical/moral beings without that part of us. Again, I think that you and others make the fatal mistake of trying to squeeze out naturalistic explanations for everything that does exist. Those things are more of a metaphysical aspect of our humanity. That is not accounting for our spirit. These have no physical explanations but have a relation to the physical brain while being separate from the physical brain. We have nonphysical aspect of our being. Not every part of our being is a physical and naturalistic in origin.

No, you simply assert we have a non-physical aspect, a 'spirit'. Have you seen it? Have you observed* it in any way, shape, or form? Have you observed mine?

*Obviously, i mean 'observe' in the scientific sense.

 

[durangodawood]

OK. Got it! However, I do think that if you look at nature and it's complexity and laws that humans have discovered that it follows, it is a created thing rather than something that just exists with no cause behind it. It is people who don't want to recognize this or try to leave God out of the picture that see this as nonsense. It is nonsense as well then to think that what we live in is happenstance or some combination of natural selection and evolution. It goes against common knowledge that even science has affirmed. Everything that we humans have developed and created has some careful thought and planning in its formation. Nothing that we do is without design. Even when a scientist tries to prove evolution, he does some planning, design, and preparation in order to hopefully to get the right result. We know through science that abiogenisis doesn't have any merit; so, why would we ignore such things when looking at nature and our world surrounding us? The main problem that I see with your comment is that supernatural explanations must be suppressed in discussions and honest attempts to arrive at what is true or is more likely to be true. People who don't believe that God exists have already stacked a bunch of presuppositions on their plate that they are not willing to part from under any circumstances, thus the logical error in their thinking and reasoning concerning God and the supernatural.

A few things:
.
There is NO scientific conclusion on abiogenesis. So science offers no basis for proof of anything, in that department.
.
People are designers, so the things we make are often designed. But that says nothing about the necessity for design as the foundation for the universe.
.
I dont have any presuppositions about this. I'd be happy to part with my provisional conclusions given any sort of convincing evidence, objective OR subjective.
.
The question for you is: are you permanently attached to your presuppositions about God and his role in the world.
.

They are parts of our humanity; otherwise they wouldn't be attached to our self. If they are not accounted for, then we can't have a reality. We cannot exist in the realm of thinking, loving, caring, and existing as ethical/moral beings without that part of us. Again, I think that you and others make the fatal mistake of trying to squeeze out naturalistic explanations for everything that does exist. Those things are more of a metaphysical aspect of our humanity. That is not accounting for our spirit. These have no physical explanations but have a relation to the physical brain while being separate from the physical brain. We have nonphysical aspect of our being. Not every part of our being is a physical and naturalistic in origin.

Yes, the soul, morality, conscience ARE part of our humanity. But that doesnt mean they necessarily have a supernatural basis. I do not deny them.
.
Just as life and intelligence emerge from highly organized matter, spirit emerges from the natural world, as a property of nature. I dont deny spirit at all.
.
Matter -> life -> intelligence -> soul. It seems entirely plausible that this is a natural process. Dont let the infancy of our natural sciences set limits on what might be known in the future. On the other hand, there might be a God who just gave us a soul, but I have no basis for that belief.
.