Infinity.

[tommy5x]

In the beginning there was nothing. More importantly, nothing that didn't exist, and was simultaneously infinate.

Infinity, surely requires infinate probability, and thus every possibility must occur simultaneously at every point in infinity.

If this is true, what the hell is going on inside me? How can we percieve anything that appears to exist? How can there fail to be a God? How can there be a God?

[Anmon]

There is no such thing as nothing.

[tommy5x]

God needs a source. Perhaps that was the singularity.

[Anmon]

If you believe in God, I think its easier to believe God just always existed, what frightens the scientific community, is that this could be proof of God.
Because you just cant have a beginning of something in this case, because that means something must have been around before it, and before that and so on and so on, so where does it end?
Its basically beyond us, a riddle wrapped up in a mystery, and surrounded by a conundrum.

[tommy5x]

A bit like infinite nothing then hey?

Hurrah for existential oxymorons.

[gallo]

Quote by: Anmon If you believe in God, I think its easier to believe God just always existed, what frightens the scientific community, is that this could be proof of God.

Three points:

1) that doesn't frighten the scientific community. Why would it, since it isn't science and isn't even rational?

2) it isn't proof of god; not yours, not anyone else's. In fact, there isn't even any evidence that your easy belief is true. It may be easier for you to believe it, but it reduces to magic in the light of reason (which is also why the idea doesn't "frighten" the scientific community - science deals with reality).

3) it is just as easy to believe that some protouniverse has always existed and that what we see as our universe is just the result of of natural events in that larger, older reality. That's even easier to believe, without evidence, and that frightens theists.

Because you just cant have a beginning of something in this case, because that means something must have been around before it, and before that and so on and so on, so where does it end?

That is exactly why your belief is nonsense. If god did it, where did god come from.

Its basically beyond us, a riddle wrapped up in a mystery, and surrounded by a conundrum.

No it's not. You're just trying to make it mysterious and magic so that it fits your god.

[gallo]

Quote by: Anmon There is no such thing as nothing.

A philosopher once instructed me:

Half a loaf is better than nothing.
Nothing is better than heaven.
ergo --------------------------------------
Half a loaf is better than heaven.

You and Tommy seem to be making the same logical error as the above syllogism. By the way, the syllogism is valid.

[gallo]

Quote by: tommy5x A bit like infinite nothing then hey? Hurrah for existential oxymorons.

I like it.

[Anmon]

Quote by: gallo A philosopher once instructed me: Half a loaf is better than nothing. Nothing is better than heaven. ergo -------------------------------------- Half a loaf is better than heaven.

the logic here is truly astounding, I hope when I die now, instead of going to heaven and paradise, I go to half a loaf instead.

[tommy5x]

Quote by: gallo A philosopher once instructed me: Half a loaf is better than nothing. Nothing is better than heaven. ergo -------------------------------------- Half a loaf is better than heaven. You and Tommy seem to be making the same logical error as the above syllogism. By the way, the syllogism is valid.

It's valid only by pedantic grammatical interpretation.

[Anmon]

what he said

[stevemckay]

Quote by: gallo That is exactly why your belief is nonsense. If god did it, where did god come from.

If the big bang model is correct than the moment before the big bang was a point in “time” when time and space did not yet exist. Now taking the Judeo-Christian (or agnostic in my case) ID view… God had to create the Big Bang and all the laws which drove the evolution of the universe.

If God did indeed create the Big Bang then he created time. So asking where did God come from is the same as asking when did he get there… which, if there was no time, is an illogical question.

[Jack]

The Big Bang was also the birth of energy and matter. If gods exist outside time and aren't energy or matter, then they/it exist in a condition that cannot interact with this universe. That doesn't agree with any dogma I'm aware of.

[stevemckay]

Hello Isherwood
(oops… now it’s Jack?!?!? you changed that half way through my edit... This place is so confusing): I am glad to hear from you. I know I only have 4 posts and you have almost 12,000 but to tell the truth reading your posts over the last 2 months was one of the prime motivations for me to join. You tick me off and yet stimulate my thought process at the same time.

To the point now:

Quote by: Isherwood The Big Bang was also the birth of energy and matter. If gods exist outside time and aren't energy or matter, then they/it exist in a condition that cannot interact with this universe. That doesn't agree with any dogma I'm aware of.

I would assume that if one actually does believe that there is a creator then one must
also believe that the creator also created the laws of our universe… which would include the laws that govern matter and energy. If that is the case than why would said creator be constrained by the laws he created? (did I use "create" enough there?)

When I write a program is my physical life constrained by the laws of the .Net framework I utilize in the software I generate? (I know you’re a Mac guy so go with me)

I say no!

In my physical existence I am constrained by the laws of my physical reality (i.e I have to crap but my code does not) whereas the programs I write are bounded by: the code I create, the C syntax I use, and the .Net framework windows provides me (in my analogy I am God so I also created C, .Net, the Windows OS, and the x86 architecture of the computer I am using.. if you follow my point)

Does that make me, as the programmer, any less real? Does that mean that since I am in the physical world and the program I write is in the .Net world that we cannot interact in a way that I choose? Because I am carbon based and the program I write is binary based does that invalidate either or both of us.

To make a final point of it: I think you are wrong. If there is a creator... with ultimate knowledge, power and skills.. then he can interact as he chooses because he writes the rules.

[LadiesMan217]

Quote by: stevemckay I would assume that if one actually does believe that there is a creator then one must also believe that the creator also created the laws of our universe… which would include the laws that govern matter and energy. If that is the case than why would said creator be constrained by the laws he created? (did I use "create" enough there?) When I write a program is my physical life constrained by the laws of the .Net framework I utilize for the software I generate? (I know you’re a Mac guy so go with me) I say no! In my physical existence I am constrained by the laws of my physical reality (i.e I have to crap but my code does not) whereas the programs I write are bounded by: the code I create, the C syntax I use, and the .Net framework windows provides me (in my analogy I am God so I also created C, .Net, the Windows OS, and the x86 architecture of the computer I am using.. if you follow my point) Does that make me, as the programmer, any less real? Does that mean that since I am in the physical world and the program I write is in the .Net world that we cannot interact in a way that I choose? Because I am carbon based and the program I write is binary based does that invalidate either or both of us. To make a final point of it: I think you are wrong. If there is a creator... with ultimate knowledge, power and skills.. then he can interact as he chooses because he writes the rules.

Very good post stevemckay, I enjoyed that analogy. So if there is a creator it would be impossible for us to use scientific methods to try and prove it, we can only know for certain if there is a god if he should choose to make his existence known, but it seems to be logical to assume the existence of a god possible and agnosticism would be a more intellectually honest belief than atheism.

[Voluntary]

Quote by: stevemckay To make a final point of it: I think you are wrong. If there is a creator... with ultimate knowledge, power and skills.. then he can interact as he chooses because he writes the rules.

How does this creator interact? Does he interact with humanity? Did he interact with the dinosaurs? Who created this creator? Is there only one creator or does this creator have friends?

Or are you arguing for a deistic creator?

EDIT: Is this the best universe that this creator could have devised? Programmers are susceptible to mistakes and need to constantly improve their programming skills. Does this same logic hold for a creator in the sense that this creator is constantly learning like a programmer?

[Voluntary]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 Very good post stevemckay, I enjoyed that analogy. So if there is a creator it would be impossible for us to use scientific methods to try and prove it,

How do you know that god is unknowable?

we can only know for certain if there is a god if he should choose to make his existence known,

When and how will he do this?

but it seems to be logical to assume the existence of a god possible and agnosticism would be a more intellectually honest belief than atheism.

I would suggest that you learn the meaning of agnosticism and atheism before you make judgments on intellectually honesty. Agnosticism does not mean there is a "possibility". Gnosticism has Greek origins and means "knowledge". A-gnosticism mean "without knowledge".

[LadiesMan217]

Quote by: Voluntary How do you know that god is unknowable?

I didn't say he was.

When and how will he do this?

I didn't say he will or if he will ever will, I do not know what a god thinks if one exists.

I would suggest that you learn the meaning of agnosticism and atheism before you make judgments on intellectually honesty. Agnosticism does not mean there is a "possibility". Gnosticism has Greek origins and means "knowledge". A-gnosticism mean "without knowledge".

Thanks for the history lesson, but you know as well as everyone else on this forum that when someone says they are agnostic that they acknowledge that there could be a god, so please do not go off topic with these semantics.

[Voluntary]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 Thanks for the history lesson, but you know as well as everyone else on this forum that when someone says they are agnostic that they acknowledge that there could be a god, so please do not go off topic with these semantics.

It is not semantics. Please take time to learn what atheism and agnosticism is before you make invalid judgments. You think agnostics are more intellectual honest than atheists since you don't have valid definitions for either of them.

Just show me the evidence and I will stop being an atheist since I am without knowledge of god.

[LadiesMan217]

It is not semantics. You think agnostics are more intellectual honest than atheists since you don't have valid definition for either of them. Just show me the evidence and I will stop being an atheist since I am without knowledge of god.

If you don't like the way I use the word agnostic, then I won't use it.

Let's put is this way, it is more intellectually honest to accept the possibility of a god rather than say there is no god when there is no evidence to prove either.