Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
Lista keskustelualueista
Sinulla ei ole oikeutta kirjoittaa tälle alueelle. Tälle alueelle kirjoittamiseen vaadittu minimi jäsenyystaso on Brain-Sotilas.
Otsikko: Re: In what way? Well, the proof of existence of anything is generally easier than the proof of non-existence, don't you think so?
Artful Dodger: I can live with the fact that I don't know how come that time and space and everything in it exists and that I will never know it either. It doesn't bother me. I do agree that the Big Bang theory is the most reasonable of all the theories out there, but there still are too many grey areas.
The problem with our view of the time as finite or unfinite is this: we cannot imagine either of these possibilities. Can you imagine the creation of time? To me, it seems exactly as impossible as infinity of time.
I also fail to imagine how anything can create itself. :)
Otsikko: Re: In what way? Well, the proof of existence of anything is generally easier than the proof of non-existence, don't you think so?
Pedro Martínez: every effect that we can study we can identify that it had a cause. We know of no uncaused effect. It's more reasonable to believed the Big Bang was caused than it "just happened." That "just happened" scenario takes a huge leap of faith.
Here's something else we're certain of: Time had a beginning. Time is not infinate and in fact, it's an impossibility.
Even the language you use gives it away. You say "creation" of time and space. In my view, an all knowing all powerful First Cause created. In your view, it created itself.
Otsikko: Re: I googled for a better way of saying it.
Tuesday: Do believe that. You will never figure out that the Bible, as well as any other “holy book“, is a hoax and you will find comfort in the belief that God exists and will take you to his kingdom after you die.
Otsikko: Re: In what way? Well, the proof of existence of anything is generally easier than the proof of non-existence, don't you think so?
Pedro Martínez: And, in addition to that, if I admitted for a moment that God indeed was the cause we're talking about, there would still remain a question to be answered: what was the cause of God's creation and existence?
Artful Dodger: I meant that we clearly agree that proving existence is easier than proving non-existence.
As for cosmological arguments, I'm not a big fan of them. First of all, even though I view the Big Bang theory as the most likely scenario, it still is only a theory. And there is a vast unexplained area in the theory, too. I have already found out that I will never fully understand what made the universe look the way it looks and how it actually looks. And nobody will ever understand that – it's simply beyond our limited thinking. Secondly and (maybe) more importantly, my problem with cosmological arguments is that I don't think there had to be a cause. I know that our experience tells us that every action brings reaction and that effect must have a cause, but how do we know this was also the case under as exteme conditions as at the time of the creation of time and space?
Otsikko: Re: In what way? Well, the proof of existence of anything is generally easier than the proof of non-existence, don't you think so?
Pedro Martínez: I'm not sure we fully agree. I say that proof of the existence of something can take many forms. In the case of God, the kalam cosmological argument comes to mind. We know from science that this universe had a beginning in time. We can trace events back to the singularity. We can't go farther back than that. And we know that the universe is expanding. To expand, it must have necessarily come from a starting point. (scientists can back up the process mathematically and they come up to a single point - the singularity). That singularity contained in it all the matter and energy that is now contained in our universe. Before the "Big Bang" there was likely nothing. We can't know. But something set off the Big Bang. You don't get an effect without a cause. God is that Uncaused Cause.
Otsikko: Re:maybe a weak analogy, but my point is, the existance of an environment condusive to the creation of human beings is no more telling than a corpse that is friendly to the creation of maggots
Jim Dandy: I like it. But I do think both tell us something. For example, we now know maggots like dead people.
Tuesday: They can all have elements of truth, but none of them are perfect or have a monopoly on truth.
To quote a song I heard recently: It's not your Yahweh who scares me. It's not your Allah who scares me. It's not your Jesus that scares me. I'm afraid of what you do in the name of your God.
Tuesday: maybe a weak analogy, but my point is, the existance of an environment condusive to the creation of human beings is no more telling than a corpse that is friendly to the creation of maggots
Tuesday: There can be (and there probably are) billions of suns and planets like that in the universe. This has nothing to do with God. And by the way, if you wait long enough, you will see the Sun grow bigger and burn “us” up.
Otsikko: Re: religions were on a collision course from the start
Jim Dandy: It's impossible to engage in the world of ideas without engaging in some sort of conflict from time to time. Take religion out of it and you would still have conflicts.
Otsikko: Re: religions were on a collision course from the start
Artful Dodger: non evangelical religions generally avoid world conflict.Judaism of course is an exception due to the issues it has faced since the inception of Israel, but it's not due to any crusade to convert
Pedro Martínez: call it a placebo, but I do agree that for some it really doesn't matter if "God" exists.The comfort the belief provides is beneficial for them to get through the day
Jim Dandy: I agree. It has enormous advantages, and as I said, I would love to believe. From the point of view of an individual, religious beliefs are very helpful.
Tuesday: You know, I would love to believe in God. In my opinion, believers have, in general, a better life than non-believers. But I just can't lie to myself when I know that people created their Gods for the very purpose to make their lives happier. I can't give you the proof of non-existence, obviously, but the proof of existence should be much simpler and easier to do, right? The fact that nobody has come up with such proof makes my assumptions more probable.
(piilota) Jos haluat löytää lisätietoja jostakin pelistä, voit katsoa löytyisikö linkit-osiosta mitään mielenkiintoista. (pauloaguia) (näytä kaikki vinkit)