Is it Logical To Beleive In A Creator - GOD ? In This Scientific Age ? (page 4)

Fisherman

That can also be said about the physical ,material universe

Think about it.

TonusOH

slimboyfat: Either everything that exists arose by itself without any external cause, or a being outside of time and space brought the universe into existence. Either option is miraculous, in the sense that it is outside physical cause and effect.

I agree, which is why I don't take an absolute stance on the issue of the existence of god. For most of my life, I believed that god existed because I'd been told that god existed, and accepted that without question. When I stopped assuming that god existed, I was not able to present a definitive argument for a god. That did not make the alternative option automatically true- I had rejected that kind of thinking already.

I am left with three options: the universe began when a super-dense dot of mass/energy began to expand, or a being outside of existence created everything, or some third, unknown option. None of these fit with the human concept that everything has an absolute beginning. From that perspective, none of them make sense. Yet, here we are. I don't see why I need to choose one of those to the exclusion of the others. There isn't enough knowledge or understanding on my part to do so.

The most compelling arguments for the existence of god take the shape of "god has to exist." In other words, a god is necessary for the universe to make sense. The individual arguments all have their flaws, mostly based on our lack of knowledge about the universe. But for me, it must suffice. However, if that is the best argument for a god, it leaves us with no information as to who or what it or they are. I must therefore judge the human concept of god on its merits, and I find those lacking. That doesn't mean there isn't a god, it just means we haven't figured out its nature.

That being the case, it seems to me that god is not as interested in us as we would like to think. Perhaps god will make itself known in time, perhaps not. Until it does, I will live my life as best I can and not worry too much about it.

waton

That can also be said about the physical ,material universe , is that not also true ?

not true.

we have measured the effect that energy can not be destroyed, or created, is eternal, therefore time is eternal, but

the present local form of energy as matter, in a 3 dimensional space is not.

soon it might be coffee time, but spacetime is only 13.8 billion years old. time itself, energy uncreated.

Evidence of a, the creator is a personal quest, will be given on a personal level, second hand "witnessing" will not be needed, counted, believed.

punkofnice

This is where we get into definitions of 'creators' and all that stuff.

It can end up being a battle of semantics and personal philosophy.

Where do you end up?

Back to square 1 often because of our biases.

I remain ever the sceptic. Heck, I don't even believe what I'm told by newsreaders.

Until it is proven to my satisfaction (yes, I used the term 'my'), then it will all remain in the realms of fiction.

Fisherman

All guesses and science fiction of the mind aka what happened before the big bang. We think in terms of the rules of reality as we know it. Logically though either the universe existed eternally or God existed eternally

Fisherman

In other words, a god is necessary for the universe to make sense.

Not if the universe always existed—that is to say the substance of the universe and its properties which changes and transforms according to its drive. Now given the universe and then taking it away and creating a void for example to illustrate a condition without the universe, how then can the universe come to existence from that void. That is not logical. I’m not saying it is not possible but it doesn’t make sense. Miracles from God can’t be understood, that is to say the mechanics of it but since there is a mechanism that causes it —God, it makes sense.

peacefulpete

To me it makes most sense to think that existence, and human consciousness, are the result of the intention of a supreme being who is outside of time and space.

To argue against the (highly speculative) scientific models of origins of space/time and matter/energy by asserting a complex deity with intention and will existing without existence in space/time matter/energy you are not just being speculative you are compounding that speculation with projections of a highly derivative Judeo/Christian conceptionualization that evolved some 13 billion years later. We know much about how religions evolved from simple animistic, totemic attempts to control the environment to more elaborate philosophical ones through millennia of human ingenuity and imagination.

IOW though we don't presently know, and may never know, exactly what mechanism spawned the spark of the physical universe (or even if that is a valid question), we do know what it couldn't have been. It's like supposing the military success of Assyrians to their having F16s.

waton

Logically though either the universe existed eternally or God existed eternally

wrong choice! the universe did not exist eternally, uncreated energy available to the creator is eternal though.

Now given the universe and then taking it away and creating a void for example to illustrate a condition without the universe, that is not logical

removing the universe would free the portion of energy locked up presently in spacetime & matter and return it to its pristine, pre-big -bang form, akin to the heat death of the universe. recycling the energy.

peacefulpete

As soon as you grant something might exist outside our understanding of time/energy/matter your timeline necessarily ends. Temporal debates about what existed 'before' that point are by definition wrong. Theoretical physics maintains a consistent nonmagical paradigm in postulating an as yet unknown, and likely fundamental, nontemporal explanation whereas theologians postulate a magical complex being (or beings) who just happens to act like us, look like us and love us. Who is behaving more logically?

slimboyfat

What I mean by saying that God is not a thing is that he cannot be compared with things in the world. He is not different in terms of being older, wiser, bigger, or any other comparison with humans or other beings. He is different entirely so that comparisons are not possible. The language of creation or beginning does not apply to God, that’s a misunderstanding about what the concept of God is.

Is it Logical To Beleive In A Creator - GOD ? In This Scientific Age ?

Share this