God is not an element both in religious fanaticism and atheism alike

by exWTslave 80 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Viviane

  How would you feel about that traveler?

  How would you answer to that student?

  That they, like you, don't understand basic logic, authority or analogies.

  You may understand the principles of motion, but that does not prove the Prime Mover (who formulated those principles) does not exist.

  It doesn't prove anything. Not proving something doesn't exist doesn't mean by default that it does (see above: Kalos doesn't understand logic)

  but not everything moves through time. take light waves/radiation : it does not move through time, it arrives the moment it left.

  Wrong.

  *a recent article on bbc, "someting from nothing" reiterates that there were virtual fluctuations befor the appearance of the universe, fluctuations= time, time^2.

  Also wrong.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  I get it, prologos. But a believer cannot have his cake and eat it too. Applying the rules of no time in existence or something being outside of time as an answer to how God exists, always existed, or came to exist are much more ridiculous than scientific current answers using the big bang and something from nothing. I could just as easily apply the same rules to energy/matter and you would say "No, it only works for God."

  I personally think science is in its infancy understanding origins and much better answers should come in the distant future or maybe sooner. But "God did it and we can't understand God" is such a non answer.

  I dabble in these debates here, but mainly I accept that we can know that the Bible is fiction, evolution is true, there certainly is not the God of Christianity or Islam in existence.
• 

  NAVYTOWN

  Religion, in all of it's forms, really is 'Something about Nothing'.
• 

  prologos

  OTWO, agreed, science, it's research, theories will shed more and more light on origins and the regions beyond.

  That beyond did not only have instabilty, hence time but also [dark] energy, that the expanding universe now absorbs. These are conditions, not a creator, but show where all this reaching for the unknown, Science can lead. and

  as you said: the bible and it's religions are fiction (as Cosco confirmed) and the newer the research the more that is proven.
• 

  cofty

  take light waves/radiation : it does not move through time, it arrives the moment it left - prologos

  Did you really mean to say that?

  Kalos - You just keep adding further layers of gibberish on top of a foundation of woo.
• 

  prologos

  cofty, yes I did , if one could travel at the speed of light,[after acceleration], one would arrive at the moment one left. With dire consequences also to one's girth and mass during the impossible acceleration.

  Increase in speed through space decreases speed through time. With c as the upper speed limit through space and zero travel through time.

  that does not mean that time has vanished, but there is time, it was a pre-condiyion to the beginning of our universe, and there is various speeds of travel through it. In my view of thse 'givens.'
• 

  Kalos

  The question of WHO CREATED GOD cannot be answered by simply asserting that something or someone else created God (which will, in turn, raise the next question WHO CREATED THAT ….question itself will go into again eternity. So some find the easy solution suggesting that our ideas about God are fantasies, and religion is just a human construction and coping mechanism.

  But by removing the idea of God, the problem does not just go away. It will still result in Infinite questions: When and how did the universe begin?Who or what created the universe? What caused the Big Bang? What existed before the Big Bang? How did time and space begin? …..

  HENCE PROBLEM IS NOT WITH GOD, BUT IN UNDERSTANDING WHAT IT MEANS TO BE WE OURSELVES.

  Humans are contingent beings. Our existence is dependent on external factors or other beings. We require air to breathe; food and water to be nourished; and, in many cases, companionship or purpose to have meaningful life.

  As infants, we required caretakers; if left by ourselves none of us would have survived. Most foundationally, our existence is entirely contingent on our parents. None of us would exist were it not for the existence of other beings.

  But does the chain of contingency go infinitely backward? If every being in the universe was created by and dependent upon the preexistence of another being (or beings), then how do we explain how we got here? Is it contingent beings all the way back?

  We know this infinite regression does not work logically. If time and causation stretch backward into infinity, we would never have arrived at the current moment.

  The best explanation is that, somewhere along the way, there is a being that is not contingent. This God is definitely NOT like the God described by the religions, who almost looks like a man. It means God reveals Himself only to those who really desire and deserve (by action) His revelation. There is no injustice in this as there is infinite time ahead for them to CHOOSE to REALLY desire and deserve it.
• 

  Coded Logic

  How would you feel about that traveler?

  How would you answer to that student?

  If they were following your initial premise (You have to have a SOURCE behind all resources), when applied to your anology would be, "Every flight has to have a flight that preceeds it."

  Following your intial justification for the need of a creator, the question (what flight comes before the first flight) would be perfectly valid. You cannot say "everything needs a creator therefore God exists." And then cry foul when people ask "who created God?" This is known as Special Pleading: You make up some arbitrary claim to support your conclusion and then try and shield your conclusion from the very arbitrary claim that YOU made up.

  YOUR claim is either true or it's NOT true - and can be expressed in the following way:

  1.) Everything needs a creator

  2.) Everything doesn't need a creator

  If you're right and, #1 is true, then everything needs a creator - which means that God too needs a creator. If your wrong, and #2 is true, then everything doesn't need a creator - which means there is no need for God. Which is it?
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  Kalos - I'm no expert on Kingdom: Plantae or the processes of photosynthesis.

  However, I've learnt a little bit about plant tissues, organs and processes from two excellent lecturers. One specialises in the microphytobenthos of lakes and estuaries, the other in florigenic/antiflorigenic signalling in Arabidopsis.

  Plants have physical and chemical defence mechanisms against grazers - clear evidence that they were not put on earth by God for 'our enjoyment'.

  Also, photosynthesis is no miracle - miracles are events which do not obey scientific laws!
• 

  cofty

  The best explanation is that, somewhere along the way, there is a being that is not contingent

  That is the least useful or logical explanation.

  You actually began with an illogical and superstitous belief in a sky-daddy and then made up your pseudo-logic to try to make it sound less silly.