Athiests.. How do you explain the beginning of time?

[soulcougher73]

If your statement was strictly religion then you'd have a leg to stand on. But you said God AND religion, thus your shortfall.

I don't need to prove desks don't have emotions because I never made that claim. Nor do I need to prove that the flying spaghetti monster isn't real, as I didn't make that claim either.

Also, just because an idea is old, doesn't mean it was made up.

I know im not the one you quoted. But you did say you have your proof of Gods existence. Care to share what it is at all?

 

[soulcougher73]

Given that after translations a majority of the religions come up with very different conclusions (between major religions, not divisions), I don't think this makes sense.

It doesn't seem plausible that all religions came from one religion. It does give merit to the idea people have a need for a creator, though.

Do we have a need for a creator as a whole or did someone decide to invent a creator as a use to gain power/wealth? I have no need for a creator personally.

 

[yhelothar]

Existence is perhaps the most mind-boggling, profound question humankind can ever seek to answer. I cannot even begin to fathom how science alone may ever answer this question. But on the other hand, I can't fathom how cosmologists are able to make the discoveries that they do from the orchestra of scientific instruments that we have for observing the universe. I mean, if we're able to mathematically derive higher dimensions and to observe before the time we think the universe actually came into existence, and we did almost all of this in less than 100 yrs, it makes me feel hopeful that science does indeed have a chance of uncovering the greatest mystery of humanity.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Well for instance.. Islam and Christianity both adhere to the idea of one single God and they are very similar in nature.

Not very strange since they are both based on the same original texts, the Torah, you can add Judaism to those two.

Judaism and Islam are a lot more similar than either of them is to Christianity which in which God is a strange concoction of three gods in one.

 

[Tweak155]

I know im not the one you quoted. But you did say you have your proof of Gods existence. Care to share what it is at all?

I have what I consider as proof. I've shared it before, and honestly I really don't mind doing it, but you find the audience here has only one goal - make other people wrong. I'm not against that either, but it gets old after a while.

Do we have a need for a creator as a whole or did someone decide to invent a creator as a use to gain power/wealth? I have no need for a creator personally.

I didn't come up with the idea but its mentioned frequently. I find that it gives merit to that idea, whether the idea is true or not.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

If there is no God and all of this happened by chance...

I don't know if anyone else made this point yet, but it bears repeating anyway. "No God" |= "Everything happens by chance." In fact, since you cannot predict the decisions by your God to affect reality arbitrarily, the fact that this particular universe exists happened on the chance that your God happened to create it.

...then what's the point of being?

For those of us who have confidence and security in our own existence, we do not require anyone else to dictate to us the purpose of our own being. We decide it ourselves. Someday, you may be able to set aside your children's fables and begin to live your life like a grown up.

Biologically, it's to reproduce, but consciously, why are we aware?

You are aware because you are being.

Why do we have emotions, etc? Seems pointless if this is all chance, or some kind of godless alignment of information.

On the contrary, there are literally limiteless purposes for existence when every individual consciousness is free to decide it for himself.

I'm being open minded here and that's why I asked the question in the OP. I'm trying to reason with myself.

You're not being open-minded; you're being small-minded.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Meh. What are you guys worrying about? We're in a computer simulation. The "universe" is simply there to prevent us from discovering this fact. Also, the physics in our universe has been altered so that we can never achieve FTL travel.

I'm not crazy. I was told this by a good friend of mine. His name was Bleeb and he's a goldfish that lives in my closet.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Again it depends on your definition of science, for me philosophy is a branch of science, in the same way that theoretical physics is a branch of science and it does not require basis in empirical evidence.....

That's not relevant. For it to be an accepted scientific theory it must be held up to evidence. The only thing held up to evidence in your philosophy example is that there is logic behind the belief in god's existence, not the actual existence of god. The existence of god in real terms is not an accepted scientific theory, whereas the concept of god is. That people believe in the concept of god, and therefore that makes the concept real but that does not make god real.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

This is exactly what I think, "Anything is possible until you can observe it, test, it or falsify it [Or give a perfectly logical argument that can't be disproven.] [Until such a time one of these criteria is met] it's not real.

In that case, there is no God.

That my dear sir, is exactly my feeling on the subject as well, Until such a time as the common concept of God changes we can't argue that God exists, as the current concept of a God is a relatively illogical one (relative to other explanations for similar premises)

That makes absolutely no sense what so ever, the concept of God is an intelligence, or awareness if you will, outside our universe that has (or once had) an influence in our universe.

Sure, you could redefine it and say that god is a cactus, it can be observed and thus, god is real, but what would be the point?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I agree to a point. Information can't be created or destroyed, simply re-arranged, recompiled, etc. Where did this information come from? It's not logical to say it's just "always been".

Information is not a conserved quantity. A radium atom generates terabytes of information every second. A particle's spin information can also be erased.

 

[videogames101]

By the world I live in. I don't buy that this all happened by "chance" and life has no meaning.

So you choose to believe something that is statistically impossible? Cool story bro.


Until you care whether or not what you believe is true, there is no point in talking with you.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Well for instance.. Islam and Christianity both adhere to the idea of one single God and they are very similar in nature.

I see you have not studied comparative religion.
The Abrahamic religions (like Islam and Christianity) are similar because they are all offshoots of the same religious teachings. But, if you look at the Greek, Egyptian, Hindu, the many Native American religions you will see that they don’t agree with the Abrahamic religions, or each other, even a little bit.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

The God vs no God debate is irrelevant for numerous reasons.

First, one of the core principles of religion and God is to live your life according to a set of rules to get into the good afterlife. So, why is a God and/or religion needed to tell you this? If an afterlife does exist, then by most religions standards living your life morally and without causing others harm (i.e. the Golden Rule type stuff) is required. Likewise, if there is not an afterlife, most would agree that you should live your life morally and without causing others harm. The sole difference is one group believes that in addition to the "Golden Rule" principle, you have to believe in a certain religion.

Second, it does not matter if God created the universe or if it "just happened" as both situations have no bearing on your life. If a God did it, then they have been basically hands off since then. If it "just happened", then the universe doesn't care about you individually (or about anything at all since it just is and has no will/intelligence). Either way, your life is not going to be impacted by one or the other.

Third, it does no benefit to the species to argue for one or the other. Regardless if there is a God or not, science is the only proven way to further our species. Without it, we wouldn't even be in the stone age (even if it wasn't modern scientific methods that got us there). We learned how to harness fire, grow crops, etc through observation and testing theories until we found the best one. Humans did not get to this point of progress through saying "God did it." So far, there is not any evidence that factually supports a God type being from getting pissed off about advancing our society. If this God did not want our society to advance to question him/her, then the being would not have allowed it to happen. Thus, it's irrelevant if God does or does not exist, as advancing our society from caveman days to today has not had any negative effects from God that can be proven to be his/her direct intervention.

Fourth, either you believe that there is free will or that everything that has and will be is part of an ultimate "destiny" regardless of it being due to God or it "just is." If you believe in the free will side of this discussion, then you have the free will to believe or not believe in God. A God who gives a society/species free, and is a just God, cannot punish you for exercising your free will to believe what you want (even if those beliefs do not include him/her). If you believe that the universe is deterministic, and you have a destiny/fate, then your belief has already been determined as have your actions/inactions. That would mean your afterlife has already been determined as well since most religions having you going to the good/bad afterlife based on your actions/inactions during life which were already determined.

So, arguing for/against God is as ultimately pointless as life in a universe that "just happened", since it does not benefit you or society as God is a matter of personal choice or has already been determined and you have no choice in your beliefs. Living your life to ensure that you live it to the best of your ability, and trying to leave the world in a better place than the one you came into is the best policy for either God or no God based beliefs. All beliefs are adaptable, even religious ones (Catholic church dogma has progressed from Earth-centric, flat Earth, etc to today where it accepts that the Earth is not flat, and the Sun is the center of this solar system).

To answer the OP though, there are 3 options for how "time" works:
1: No beginning, no end.
2: A beginning, but no end.
3: A beginning, and an end.

All 3 of these depend on your perspective, and things that we as a species do not know yet. All 3 are equally valid depending on how you frame the arguement. The universe we currently live in does have a beginning, but if there are cycles/multiverse/strings/membrances then it could have existed forever and there is no way to know as we are bound (to the best of our knowledge) to this universe. It will either end through contracting and the "big crunch" type event (where there would be an end to the universe we live in) or it would end in heat death (where there would be no end to the universe, even if it is "dead/dark").

For me personally, based on everything I know, time "began" when this universe started (i.e. big bang) since information about anything prior to that was almost certainly lost. There is no imaginary clock that is ticking, time is relative to what you are discussing though because it is a human construct (just like math) to explain the world we live in.

 

[videogames101]

I see you have not studied comparative religion.
The Abrahamic religions (like Islam and Christianity) are similar because they are all offshoots of the same religious teachings. But, if you look at the Greek, Egyptian, Hindu, the many Native American religions you will see that they don’t agree with the Abrahamic religions, or each other, even a little bit.

That they are all religions and developed in different geographical locations, is the point to be made; not how similar their belief systems are.

 

[HAL9000]

That's not relevant. For it to be an accepted scientific theory it must be held up to evidence. The only thing held up to evidence in your philosophy example is that there is logic behind the belief in god's existence, not the actual existence of god. The existence of god in real terms is not an accepted scientific theory, whereas the concept of god is. That people believe in the concept of god, and therefore that makes the concept real but that does not make god real.

Define "actual existence" the idea of God being "real" presupposes a definition of real, for me philosophical arguments can prove that something is real, and so are valid scientifically.

In that case, there is no God.

Agreed.

That makes absolutely no sense what so ever, the concept of God is an intelligence, or awareness if you will, outside our universe that has (or once had) an influence in our universe.

Sure, you could redefine it and say that god is a cactus, it can be observed and thus, god is real, but what would be the point?

I'm not arguing about what the definition of God isn't I'm simply saying that with the current commonly accepted definition God doesn't exist, and unless that definition gets redifined, which is possible it's going to stay that way.

 

[skace]

Out universe is like a soap bubble floating around in higher dimensional space, it was empty, so empty there was not even emptiness.

Then it bumped into another universe and the energy of that collision created all the energy, matter and space in our observable universe.

As to where those higher dimensional bubbles came from... "god made them" is as good an answer as any right now.

Correct, as long as you don't then domino "god made them" from that aspect into justification for a thousand other things. Which is inevitable in a religious discussion. Once you give credence to god making something, religious will consider that justification for everything god possibly did or wants them to do.

 

[videogames101]

Define "actual existence" the idea of God being "real" presupposes a definition of real, for me philosophical arguments can prove that something is real, and so are valid scientifically.



Agreed.



I'm not arguing about what the definition of God isn't I'm simply saying that with the current commonly accepted definition God doesn't exist, and unless that definition gets redifined, which is possible it's going to stay that way.

You guys are arguing semantics, you won't get anywhere till you agree on some definitions. The trouble is, most people think using a definition they don't agree with is somehow making their beliefs invalid.

Time to let go of words folks, talk ideas here.

 

[bfdd]

How does believing in God explain the beginning of time? God would have existed before the beginning of time as is per definition of God. So how do you explain the beginning of time believing in a God?

 

[videogames101]

Out universe is like a soap bubble floating around in higher dimensional space, it was empty, so empty there was not even emptiness.

Then it bumped into another universe and the energy of that collision created all the energy, matter and space in our observable universe.

As to where those higher dimensional bubbles came from... "god made them" is as good an answer as any right now.

Actually, no, it's not.

Occam's razor, how likely is it that an omnipotent being exists?

Exactly, just about null.

 

[HAL9000]

You guys are arguing semantics, you won't get anywhere till you agree on some definitions. The trouble is, most people think using a definition they don't agree with is somehow making their beliefs invalid.

Time to let go of words folks, talk ideas here.

I agree, but the problem is it is impossible to argue ideas without words and it's impossible to use words without the meaning being apparent to both parties... So until we agree on a definition for these words arguing about ideas using the words is pointless...

 

[SMOGZINN]

That they are all religions and developed in different geographical locations, is the point to be made; not how similar their belief systems are.

Which is evidence for nothing other then man has imagination. That we lump all of these things into the catagory 'religion' is more a property to language then proof of something existing. These are things that people belive to be true with out any evidence, so we call them religion. We now mostly put the Greek, Roman, and Norse religions in the catagory of 'Myth' because for the most part people no longer belive in them, showing how tenitive the definition of 'religion' really is.
People came up with Scientology as well, and it is also called a religion.

 

[soulcougher73]

Which is evidence for nothing other then man has imagination. That we lump all of these things into the catagory 'religion' is more a property to language then proof of something existing. These are things that people belive to be true with out any evidence, so we call them religion. We now mostly put the Greek, Roman, and Norse religions in the catagory of 'Myth' because for the most part people no longer belive in them, showing how tenitive the definition of 'religion' really is.
People came up with Scientology as well, and it is also called a religion.

Give it time and someday too Christanity will be a 'Myth'. I pray to god for that day...oh wait...

 

[videogames101]

Which is evidence for nothing other then man has imagination. That we lump all of these things into the catagory 'religion' is more a property to language then proof of something existing. These are things that people belive to be true with out any evidence, so we call them religion. We now mostly put the Greek, Roman, and Norse religions in the catagory of 'Myth' because for the most part people no longer belive in them, showing how tenitive the definition of 'religion' really is.
People came up with Scientology as well, and it is also called a religion.

I'm not sure we disagree here? I was simply pointing out the apparently universal need for explanation.

 

[darkxshade]

This reminds me of that one thread a long time ago that poses if God could create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift. Either answer disproves his existence as he is no longer omnipotent either way.

 

[Blackjack200]

This reminds me of that one thread a long time ago that poses if God could create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift. Either answer disproves his existence as he is no longer omnipotent either way.

It's a contradiction, but like the ontological proof of god, I don't think it's worth anything.

If we posit an omnipotent being, it is a semantic game to say "can he make an object so big that even he cannot lift it?" An omnipotent being can make a rock of any size and lift a rock of any size.

I think a much better contradiction is the concept of a benevolent and omnipotent god existing alongside a world with large amount of innocent human suffering. Confront a theist with that contradiction and you may get some interesting rationalizations.