If god was omnipotent and perfect then why would he create man? He is probably just like us but a lot more powerful. Just like people watch jersey shore for drama he probably does the same thing with people. Hence we have a contradiction that god is not perfect.
Because there is no reality without an outside observer. If you never related your experiences with some else you could never be sure that you didn't imagine them.
Oh, you bet it can... In the hands of idiots (which, sadly, this country has to spare), the Bible is a very, VERY dangerous thing.
Well, statistically speaking, if we go by the assumption that everyone of less-than-average intelligence is an idiot, and that, by definition, half the people are less-than-average, you stand a 50/50 shot of encountering an idiot at the average Church service. :grin:
Hit it on the nail! I was raised catholic and tried so hard to beleive and follow. When I took a step back and looked at other faiths, and the history of ancient cultures. I think the answere became very obvious. Very tough battle to win in our society
Uh... 1) the earth isn't round. Its an oblate spheroid. 2) we don't just take other people's word for it, people provide video cam footage and pictures that show the oblate spheroid-like shape of the earth. Its not like Neil Armstrong came back from the moon and said The earth is flat folks, trust me on this". Science is based on facts. Religion...not so much.
Except you didn't answer anything. God is eternal? Proven by what? We should just have faith? Just because we can't currently explain what started the universe doesn't prove that it was by some eternal being named Yahweh or Allah or Ra. It just means we don't know yet. You're making blind assumptions. At least Hawking provides data to back his up.
So what can help me? I am a rational person that visited many churches.......many places of worship from many different faith's......and I feel it is all bull****! Was it the fact that I missed the church that had it right? The ONE CHURCH that had the holy spirit tickle me a certain way? I don't believe in Christ. I think the Bible has as much fact in it as the the 9/11 Commission Report. This is coming from someone who spent most of their adult life looking for the reason. Why am I .....according to you.....missing the message. The fact is I see is you're part of those mindless fear-mongering people that take so much faith in their own faith.....that they can't have a thought outside the box and contribute to a conversation about something your faith does not understand. I feel sad for you......
No God would be eternal because whatever caused the universe would have to be outside of time... Which is another way of saying eternal. What data did Hawking provide exactly? That because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself? That sounds an awful lot like he is making an assumption, and that he can't know either. What makes his theory more viable than the one I proposed? Is it the fact that natural science operates on the presupposition that there is no supernatural? Well, if the argument I proposed has any merit, than there is a supernatural being... ie one that exists outside the natural realm, that natural forces cannot account for. Of course there is no scientific proof for it, because science tests things that can be proven naturally, and therefore cannot say one way or the other what was before our universe. Now if science somehow proves Hawking right, that the universe caused itself, or even that it is eternal, then that is a completely different story. But given what the modern state of cosmology, The Big Bang Theory, suggests, we can rightfully assume that the universe had a beginning, and therefore had a cause. And I am not trying to prove a Christian God with this argument, although that is the God I believe in. The only thing this argument shows is that some amazingly powerful, eternal, unembodied being would have to be the cause of the universe if it were outside the universe. If Hawking is right and the universe did somehow cause itself, which seems like a logical contradiction as the universe would have to exist before it existed in order to cause itself, then the argument shows that the universe was its own cause.
Up until the time Hawking proves the equation 0=1, his conclusion is merely speculation. I can explain price fluctuations to my dog Rowdy all day long and he would have no understanding of what I imparted to him. There could well be concepts humanity cannot yet grasp, but, because we can't understand them, that doesn't mean those concepts don't exist. Like Hawking can't prove 0=1, I can't prove the existence of God, but I believe it. I don't ask you to do so, but I hope you consider that there is ... a force if you will ... greater and far grander than us.
His theory is more viable than the one you proposed because his is built into a theoretical framework that makes falsifiable predictions, i.e. his can be either supported or proven wrong experimentally.
Can you explain why exactly you want Hawking to prove 0=1? I'm quite confused why you keep mentioning that. That doesn't seem at all related to proving the existence of God.
anthropomorphism - Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena. Brane Theory suggest a repeating process of universe formation and dissipation that is cyclical.
So, because it can't be proven scientifically, that proves it exists? To say a creator exists outside of the universe which (magically, and rather conveniently for the believers) cannot be measured scientifically is like saying you have an invisible friend only you can see. It's pure imagination. Hawking is at least trying to apply scientific theories, measurements, and FACTS to the beginning of the universe. You're trying to ascribe it to Harvey the rabbit.
This is what I don't understand. What I am saying is that the universe has a beginning, and that everything that has a beginning has a cause, therefore the universe has a cause. If the cause is outside the universe, as it would seem to have to be, then it is not natural, nor is it bound by any natural laws that only govern our universe. So, seeing as how time was created at the Big Bang, I naturally concluded that whatever caused the Big Bang would be timeless, or outside of time. And since whatever caused the Big Bang would have to be greater than the thing that it caused (the universe), I concluded that it was immensely powerful. How are those conclusions wrong? I realize there is absolutely zero scientific evidence for anything at anytime before the big bang. But since natural science can only deal with what is natural, we should expect this as whatever caused the Big Bang would seem to be supernatural (I mean supernatural in the sense that it is outside of the universe), and thereby not scientifically provable. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be able to draw conclusions.
There is no determination that there has to be a cause. It's an assumption of the human perspective. And if there were, there is no reason to assume that a cause would have to be a conscious entity, i.e. God rather than a function of physics. Time is defined by the observer, there is no time unless an observer compares the relative movement of two different masses, the event and the clock. And there is no comfort in any of this. You believe what you want to believe. I read this 11 dimension Brane Theory stuff and I think this is just nuevo physicist trolling the Big Bang guys to get their notoriety. And I really cannot wrap my head around any of it. They make the Big Bang just one pop in a endless sheet of bubble wrap.
