This doesn't prove His existence, but it might make it easier to close in on. The dogmatic Christian-Judea God that you refer to is actually not the supreme being. That God is names Jehovah Saboath, the Jews may refer to him as Yehovah, El Shaddai, a.k.a. The Lord God, etc... He was the god of the Jews, as well as the Church of Rome, but he was outranked and passed by Jesus Christ (who was not his son). The omnipotent God is unnamed except to himself, is supreme above all, and is nothing at all about violence, or war, or killing, or dogma. He's the one who just wants us to love him, and love each other. Period. Anyway, you asked how do we know there is a God outside of the universe? I guess I think of (the supreme one) as being of this universe, possibly even he is this universe. That's more and more my suspicion. He is pure light, he might be a star, or the source of all light in universe. No one will ever be able to look at him (like the sun). The one named Jehovah Saboath is in charge of the earth, the one who sent the ten commandments, and is Regent of the moon. Proving him is easy; as long as there's war and strife among men, he is still around. His name means war-like or something to do with war. As for the (supreme being), there is no proof, except the belief one holds in their heart. If you want more, then you're out of luck. That's why they talk about "faith" so much. It's the only requirement. Proof is a man made concept, and, while we may not know the nature of Him, we can definitely agree it's not man made. The only way anyone can answer you is with a lengthy involved (but educational) physics debate, or a bitchy answer like this one (I don't mean it that way). It's just because I'm telling you straight up, because no one can pretend to know the bottom line when they're on the bottom rung (earth is the bottom rung). But the bright side is, no one's going to hell--we're already there!!!
Hammer, I don't know enough about Hegel to really form an opinion. All I've read is something about an absolute, -Philosophy: An Introduction, Randall, Buchler, 1942. (This is not Hegel but an explaination of Hegel) So this is second hand from a college text. It goes on, but dosen't get into too much depth. I agree with most of what I've read about his ideas, but haven't seen much to support Main-line BDGod stuff. I have seen the statement made in several texts that many of these philosophers had to be very careful with what they said so as not to upset the Church or their peers. So I would have to read more Hegel to form an opinion on whether he is talking about BDGod or just throwing BDGod in at the end of his musing about an "absolute" to save his weekly pay check. Maybe you could start a thread on Hegel? It would be most interesting. Queenie, Well this is what I'm trying to get accross in this thread. I am mainly asking fundamentalist, what justification does anyone have for the statement of fact of a BDGod? I have no problem with belief in BDGod. I just don't think that BDGod can be stated as a fact. This is only important because fundamentalist, by definition, will not entertain any other type of God. This makes them the sole "owner" of the truth. You seem to be ready to entertain other ideas. I think that is great! I have read that the Jews had many Gods originally and that the God of Moses was but one. To all, I think this has been I great thread which has raised many questions and has been contributed to by many people who are willing to at least listen to others. A thread on what God is (and I know some will argue that there is no God) would be great but I have tried to limit this to the concept of a BDGod.
Hegel- rationalization based on rationalized arguments. Useless. Even if it's logical, it isn't reasonable. Disscussing opinons without evidence can lead only to more opinions. ------------------ Meagin, Your reasoning is faulty You sound like my wife! Be specific please." You assume rules a god to be a god must follow. Whatever the motive, you methods are the same as a die-hard christian. Faith Based. Not reasonable in the face of the reality all around us. It's true that an atheist belives every bit as hard as a fundementalist. Quote: We already Know basic "wants" of this alledged god. We call them the Laws of Physics. The basis for the things we are disscussing are clearly, if it means anything, god's will. "The laws of physics are man made. They are based on science and are changed as man redefines them. What is this God's will statement? Can man presume to know BDGod's will?" Therein lies your misunderstanding. The "laws" of physics are descriptions of observable events and there permissible consequences, just as "a pine needle is green" is a description and not a creation. Let's run an experiment: Hold an object at arms length. Now release the object. If there is a god, it is clearly his undenialble will that the object accelerate toward the largest near object. Try it- it works every time. Physicist call this, "the Universal Law of Gravitation". So if I believed in your BDgod I would point to this (and others things pop and I have been disscussing) and say, " this here, it is the undenial will of my god." Quote: Now we have a clue where he could (if he exist) be. Now we have a basis to search for god and and the basis for an argument that god could exist within our reality. "I missed that, please restate it in simple terms for my simple mind." Within the Universe, for the concept of "outside" is a fuzzy one at best, involving enough speculation to border sci-fi. There's no real evidence that such a "place" does or even can exist. Nor is there a demonstrable need for a god to reside elsewhere. There's is a piece of time/space within the universe where we can never see. It's all around us and within us. It's a "place" where seeming chaos rules, for it is beyond our possible relams. But to get to that requires more of the dreaded physics and cosmology. ----- So for now, let me ask this: what is the difference between the possible sigularity that began the universe and the Universe it bore?
Megain... "By universe, do you mean dimensions perhaps? Please tell me what a non-homocentric view is." I think other dimensions may exist, but I meant literally other big bangs and big collapses. I guess I mean this... Does space exist 1/2 inch beyond the expanding universe? If not, what is the universe expanding into? If space exists 1/2 inch ahead of our big bang then why not 1000 light years? Why not a billion? Why not infinite? If it is infinite, then thinking our little big bang is the only thing going on is as homocentric as thinking everything revolves around the earth. If there is only one big bang it seems there must be a beginning and end and it seems resoanble that an entity must exist outside of it as its creator/moderator. Then what is it made of? I do not beleive in this view. Yet I think this Other force must be bigger than our perceived universe or it is subject to an end just as our perceived universe is. It must be infinite, so our universe must be infinite too... ie: beyond the big bang we perceive. Dizzy: I don't think there is a 'clue' to God's hand hidden in physics. I think physics is the paintbrush that our universe is built on. Sure it is OUR interpretation of it, subject to change and completely made up, but there are calculations which prove true all the time. I agree that it is hard to study a system to find a force where a force permeates the system, but where else do you start? I heard a great quote one time: 'Debating the existence of God is like fish debating the existence of the ocean.' In this quote one whould have to got to the edge of the ocean (I see physics as the edge of our universal understanding) to begin debating whether or not what we experience is riddled with things which logically can be attributed to an outside force. I wish I knew more about Hegel and if I get the chance I will do some looking... Meagain... If a god exists we can know something if its will. Naturally the path life has taken must be in accordance with its will. We can also try to put ourselves in a gods shoes. If you were a god what would you do? I think this too can be a basis for supporting a god theory. A sentient being who transposed all of reality could arguably 'see' everything. What then is there to do? How do you not becoem bored? I know this sounds childishly simple, but stick with me... Your particular arrangement of cells and systems is unique to you, just as this moment is unique. Your emotions and what you see, taste, hear, feel, smell and sense are unique to you, never to be repeated, never to be relived. They are events which are unique in the WHOLE of the universe. If you are living a self-defined good life you are enjoying these senses more, you are experiencing as much as possible, you are experiencing love, empathy, joy, and hapiness. This feels good. Perhaps this force can feel what we feel, see what we see. It wants to feel good.. not bad. It wants to see more.. not less. This can explain why life has grown better and better at sensing it's environment. Why consciousness errupted and we were able to turn our perceptions inside and outside to see more. Science errupted so we could better understand reality and appreciate even more what surrounds us. Life.. always growing more, always seeing more, always knowing more. Why? Because a universe without change is boring and a universe without an ability to see itself is dead. We seek the comfort of our friends and family to share our experiences and hear about theirs. Why do we supposed God is so different? To look for God you must look at what is going on here and ask the unaswerable question of 'why'.
To me, the "why" is clear: to Create Life- a very low probability event. but this does not imply that human life is the end-all. (There are some that would argue that we are in the way.) Like he said in the movie,"Life will find a way". Perhaps this is an aspect of "god's will".
Okay, forgive me but this thread is very long and I'm a slow reader and there is a lot of strange scientific jargon being used, here. Could anyone please just explain (in layman's terms) what the theories here are that link science/cosmology with God's existence? I mean, basically, what are you guys talking about? (Sorry, this has to be the biggest lamer post I've ever made!)
Dizzyman, There are none, per se. So I look for allowances. If we accept the bare existence of god, without presupposing ANYTHING else about him/it then we must assume god has a "place" to be. For the religious, Heaven is a "place", but only the truly ignorant think god lives in the sky. As simply as possible, what everybody really means by "place" is "an existence in this time/space continum." Even if god existed outside the universe, he would still have to be capable of maintaining a presence within the Universe in some form in order to interact with it's inhabitants. The Bible has plenty of examples of this. The Uncertainty principle dictates that we can't know both position and velocity at the same time on a quantum level. (A "quanta" is the smallest amount of something which has certain properties i.e. an electron is the smallest concentration of energy that displays the properties we associate with mass). It also means we can not measure something smaller than our smallest "ruler". For example, if string theory is anywhere near correct, everything is made of ultra-micro strings. If god were "made of" "particles" smaller that a string, there would not even exist a theoretical possibility of detecting those particles directly. God could have a "body"(read: presence) that extended everywhere/when that does not violate the Rules of Reality that we have ascertained so far. That covers, "heaven and earth", "omnipotence" and "omniprescence". Now let's assume god is all powerful. He has undeniable will. So we look for examples and see that the physical laws describe undenialble forces. So a god that is in a "place" we can not see in life, here in the Universe with us, omnipotent, omnipresent, and of undenialble will is permissible. ---------- sorry about all the " ". since I don't know what a possible god is, I have to use terms like "made of", "place", and "body" to express the idea. But they are analogous words and not to be taken literally.
Geckman, ra·tion·al·ize (rsh-n-lz) v. ra·tion·al·ized, ra·tion·al·iz·ing, ra·tion·al·iz·es v. tr. To make rational. To interpret from a rational standpoint. To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for (one's behavior): “Many shoppers still rationalize luxury purchases as investments” (Janice Castro). Mathematics. To remove radicals, such as from a denominator, without changing the value of (an expression) or roots of (an equation). Chiefly British. To bring modern, efficient methods to (an industry, for example). I assume you mean diffinition #3? I don't understand in what context Hegel would be saying this and how it applies here. I agree, I am asking for evidence. Well, first of all This makes no sense to me at all. How did we get from one object accelerating toward another to the assumtion that it is a will of a God? I thought it had to do with mass. It does not work every time. This is a conditional occurance. I can site serveral examples of this not happening, such as when the larger object has less mass than the smaller, or when a magnetic attraction or repulsion overcomes the atractiion of gravity. I'm sure I can think of a few more, but I understand your point. You are saying that BDGod wills an object of larger mass to attract an object of lesser mass. What is your reason for stateing this? I can say "So if I believed in your Easter Bunny I would point to this (and others things pop and I have been disscussing) and say, ' this here, it is the undenial will of my Easter Bunny.'" And it makes just as much sense. and this "place" is where BDGod hangs out? Obviously there must be differences, or they would be the same thing, no? So what?
'sorry, I'm skipping over the whole thread back to the original question. why might I want to prove your description of what you call God? even the best words used to describe what is called by some "God" are mere sign-posts pointing the way. you cannot describe God with words, much less define God. what ever "God" is, the very fact that we are having this conversation is proof that something exists which brings life. maybe that is God.
Poppy, Space is a relative term dependant on consciousness. It is based on time and motion, which are relative as Einstein proved. All that exists is energy. Space is a form of energy. The Big Bang is a theory, it is not an established fact. You are back to a first cause argument. Do you want me to get into the error of cause and effect? Why would you say this? How can you presume this? Really? I thought Adam and Eve screwed the whole thing up and he had to send his son down here to fix things up. And now we must prove that we are worthy of salvation by humbling ourselves before him. Oh come on! I have been giving you way to much credit. If I were a God what would I do? I'd sure set up a better world than the one we have, that's fer sure! What kind of proof is this anyway? I say, why not? And how would this prove the existence of a BDGod anyway? Could be Zeus and all his co-horts or the Titans, whatever.
Gecky, Why? You are making an assumption to prove your point. Physical laws are man made explainations of observable facts subject to change with the introduction of new observations. Etc. This whole post proves nothing about a BDGod. Dizzy, That's what I'm trying to figure out. WarDude, I am asking why some people insist on stateing that there is, as an undenialable fact, such a thing as a Big Daddy God like the one that fundamentalist Christains, Jews, and Musleums claim. And note that they are all different. Convince me. Really? How? Here comes the Easter Bunny again...If we have a discussion about the Easter Bunny, does that prove he exists? Take care all!
you guys will never get it. you are looking to the ten thousand things. that is the wrong direction. look to the three, and the two, then maybe you will find the one.
can any one prove God does not exist? the way i see it if i believe in God and live a life according to his laws and he accepts me into heaven i have gained everything. if i do not believe and i go to hell i have lost everything if i live a Godly life and there is no life then i have lost nothing.
Ok, whatever, you don't but my hypothesis there. If there is a god, I pressume we must be able to see its will in what life is doing on this rock. If there is no god then all of this is an accident, if there is a god then we must assume thing are progressing according to its will. What is life doing? Progressing towards to most attentive, educated, perceptive, and populated state. So what would be the purpose of that? Seriously, why would god set up a perfect world? What fun is that? really? Ever had an ant farm? You watch them to see what THEY do. Perfection is very dry. Try real experience... experience which can never be replicated. Experience that is imperfect, overcomes problems, deals with reality. That is entertaining... Space is not at all energy. I agree that all that is contained within spase is energy, but space is just that. space. empty. nothing. My proofs were simply aimed at proving belief in a single big bang is lacking. Adam and eve? That is a story with a moral. There is stuff to be gained from it, but it is only a parable.
Meagin, you define god and object when someone finds possible examples of your description. State your true agenda. Let's face it, you're just another self-rationalizing bible basher. Who cares? The bible is of no import. I find your belief system as rigid and rationalized as the worst bible thumper. You make definative statements about what you believe god has to be like. I'm sorry to inform you, but you, too, are a believer. I just look for answers.
That is a false assumption. God has no need to exist inside our universe. He created it, and so naturally is external to it. That, again is a false assumption. God does not need to have any kind of presence in this universe in order to interact with it. God designed the entire universe — he controls everything, so has no need to visit us! If I wrote a book about people on a planet, I could quite easily interact with the people on the planet, without having to physically visit the planet. Any references in The Bible to God coming to Earth are obviously metaphors referring to communications and visions from God. God surely cannot enter our universe. By his very nature, God is not of our universe. He is something else. He doesn't exist in time, or in space. The universe is self-contained, so its creator could never inhabit it. If he was somehow able to get here, he would never be able to return since he would be trapped by this universe's physical laws. If he wasn't bound by these laws, then he would not actually have visited this universe in the first place. If I write a book, I can write a character into my book who represents me, but I can't physically jump into the book and live alongside the characters in it. I and the book would be completely different in our nature. I am a human and the events of a book are a concept. This is similar to God's realtionship with our universe. We are but a concept to him. He cannot live inside his own concept. There is no logical reason for God to enter and live inside our universe. What reason would God have to come here? God doesn't need to come here to make changes, he can do anything he wants from where he is. And anyway, he will never need to change the universe again since it's already perfect. He made 6 changes when he designed it, and after that he was pleased with what he made. We know that God will never make changes to the universe ever again since we exist — and if God was ever to change the universe again then we wouldn't be here, so this must be the final draft of the universe. I think all this scientific/cosmological talk is just silly. Physical science and spiritual science are totally unrelated. Spiritual science is the study of what cannot physically be proven, since it realates to matters beyond our universe. God can't be found in strings, branes and big bangs. These are part of his creation, not God himself. No, the big bang is accelerating. The expansion will never slow down. (And what do big bangs have to do with God anyway?) I see nothing wrong with the world God has given us. The only thing wrong with this planet is humans, and since God does not control us, we cannot blame him for our mess!
What if.... God is the universe?!?!?! Let us assume (falsely or otherwise), that is the actuality. There, also, is your proof! Look up.
Queenie, Sorry, I don't follow that. Geeky, I don't understand this either, did you mean redefine? Now, you made this statement: Thenyou made this one: Why would we accept this? It seems to be an example of the homowhatsit you described above. How is it not? And then this: I cannot see why the term God is needed! It seems very unwarrented to me! This is not my God, it is a definition accepted by many fundamentalist. I still don't see the relation between your examples and a BDG. All I did with the Bunny is to transpose terms. My point is that the statement makes the same logical sense with either term, which is none. I understand your analogy of place. I am saying that there is no BDG to inhabit such an area. A singularity that exists before the big bang is singular. The universe is not presently completely singular. Therefore they must be different or the big bang could not have occured.
Poppy, This all sounds like that homo stuff that the Geck was talking about. Space is not nothing. Space and matter exist together, you can not have one without the other. Impossible. What is matter? Energy. If space and matter must co-exist they are the same (at a fundamental level).