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

[Tweak155]

Ok, but so what? You point out that we can't say with certainty what happened at the birth of the universe. For the sake of discussion, let's say that god exists and he did create the universe. We still don't know who he is, why he created the universe, why there is no physical evidence of his existence, what role, if any he had in the evolution of our species, or for that matter, anything at all about him.

That's the problem with bringing god into any discussion about science, philosophy, or almost any other discipline, (history being one obvious example of an exception) it's a complete dead end.

Agreed...? I don't know why you replied to this. I wasn't trying to state a fact or start an argument. However I would probably disagree that the start of the universe is strictly scientific. It wouldn't make sense to use a creation theory as a scientific one if that is what you are saying.

 

[soulcougher73]

Life has meaning, the purpose of life is to procreate.

I dont personally agree with that either. It is one of the parts of life, but it is not the meaning of it. I chose not to procreate so does that mean my life has no meaning?

 

[surfsatwerk]

I dont personally agree with that either. It is one of the parts of life, but it is not the meaning of it. I chose not to procreate so does that mean my life has no meaning?

Bingo

 

[soulcougher73]

Agreed...? I don't know why you replied to this. I wasn't trying to state a fact or start an argument. However I would probably disagree that the start of the universe is strictly scientific. It wouldn't make sense to use a creation theory as a scientific one if that is what you are saying.

I think his point was even if there was a God and he did create all this. We have no way to prove it even if it is true. So why bother beleiving something you can never prove. That would be my guess of what he was going for. And i agree with it as well.

 

[Tweak155]

I dont personally agree with that either. It is one of the parts of life, but it is not the meaning of it. I chose not to procreate so does that mean my life has no meaning?

In the end life has no meaning following the big bang theory along with evolution. Eventually all life is going to end at some point (even if it is billions of years down the road). And even if it did not (we start planet hoping, etc), what is the goal? Strictly to survive? Procreation in a sense would provide a purpose, but in the end it will be defeated with time.

 

[Tweak155]

I think his point was even if there was a God and he did create all this. We have no way to prove it even if it is true. So why bother beleiving something you can never prove. That would be my guess of what he was going for. And i agree with it as well.

If you follow the bible accounts it will eventually be proven (assuming it is true).

If life continues the way it is now, then yes it will most likely never be proven.

I use the bible as an example. If there is a creator (outside of the bible), however, they may choose never to reveal themselves, or do so at some point in time.

 

[soulcougher73]

In the end life has no meaning following the big bang theory along with evolution. Eventually all life is going to end at some point (even if it is billions of years down the road). And even if it did not (we start planet hoping, etc), what is the goal? Strictly to survive? Procreation in a sense would provide a purpose, but in the end it will be defeated with time.

I dont know. Im just happy to be alive. I dont need a meaning for it. It is what it is, and i intend not to waste what little time i have. I dont need to have some purpose for it to all be relivant.

 

[Kirby]

This topic is about as important to me as which pair of socks to wear.

I care just enough to post my indifference, but not much more than that.

 

[Tweak155]

I dont know. Im just happy to be alive. I dont need a meaning for it. It is what it is, and i intend not to waste what little time i have. I dont need to have some purpose for it to all be relivant.

Now this is sound logic.

 

[Cattlegod]

Here is simple proof that things can just 'pop' into existence (big bang) - your consciousness. Prior to your birth, your consciousness did not exist, then all of a sudden 'poof' you became self aware.

 

[Blackjack200]

Agreed...? I don't know why you replied to this. I wasn't trying to state a fact or start an argument. However I would probably disagree that the start of the universe is strictly scientific. It wouldn't make sense to use a creation theory as a scientific one if that is what you are saying.

I think what I'm trying to say is that it seems pointless to believe in god if we cannot know anything about him and there is no evidence for his existence.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the start of the universe is not 'strictly scientific'. The start of the universe (whether you're referring to the finite expanse of space-time that encompasses our ovservable universe or a broader definition) consisted of events. Science is how we attempt to rationally determine what those events were.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Here is simple proof that things can just 'pop' into existence (big bang) - your consciousness. Prior to your birth, your consciousness did not exist, then all of a sudden 'poof' you became self aware.

Yeah that doesn't work dude.

 

[Tweak155]

Here is simple proof that things can just 'pop' into existence (big bang) - your consciousness. Prior to your birth, your consciousness did not exist, then all of a sudden 'poof' you became self aware.

Consciousness is not tangible whereas the universe and the parts of it we live on are.

 

[disappoint]

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 can't be created nor destroyed?

Give me some info here: ARE YOU REALLY THAT STUPID?

The likes of you should concentrate on things like tying your shoes and breathing.

 

[HAL9000]

You still don't get it. In the event of me or anyone having 100% proof of a god, it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks or what the majority definition is. It is what it is.

I'm done replying to this. For someone that believes so strongly in logic you keep avoiding the glaringly obvious or cannot follow simple logic. I don't mean this in a derogatory fashion, this just isn't getting anywhere.

In the end I can't prove or dis prove either, and someone that believes strongly in the big bang theory will most likely continue to do so, and the same with a creationist. The end result is people will believe what they want to believe. This will not, however, change in any way shape or form what actually took place.

I agree, the definition would change but until such time as it does we can only use current definitions to discuss this subject....

 

[Tweak155]

I think what I'm trying to say is that it seems pointless to believe in god if we cannot know anything about him and there is no evidence for his existence.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the start of the universe is not 'strictly scientific'. The start of the universe (whether you're referring to the finite expanse of space-time that encompasses our ovservable universe or a broader definition) consisted of events. Science is how we attempt to rationally determine what those events were.

Conceding that creation is not a form of scientific debate (yet) does not mean it is simply removed as a possibility. Therefor the way in which our universe came into existence doesn't have to be regarded as scientific, even though it may seem the most likely.

If we have proof a god created the universe but cannot scientifically describe how it occurred, is the event still scientific? Interesting thought but irrelevant I suppose. I guess I'd have to lean towards not caring if it is considered strictly scientific or not.

 

[Cattlegod]

Consciousness is not tangible whereas the universe and the parts of it we live on are.

Time is not tangible

 

[darkswordsman17]

It depends really, if you would say that logic has a scientific basis then you could say there are logical arguments for the existence of a god, and so this argument could be under scientific proof.

Philosophy is often considered a science for example.

That's not real scientific theory though. There is no empirical evidence, just evidence of belief or rationality for belief, but not for what the belief itself is.

Here is simple proof that things can just 'pop' into existence (big bang) - your consciousness. Prior to your birth, your consciousness did not exist, then all of a sudden 'poof' you became self aware.

That's not really true though. Your consciousness didn't just pop into existence, it is derived from the development of various physical things.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Time is not tangible

Yeah it is. I can measure time and my observations of time's properties can be reproduced by a third party using the same methods.

 

[zCypher]

It's interesting how we can ask what created the thing that created such and such to no end as if any existence outside our own extends beyond infinity yet at the same time we have to believe there has to be a beginning.

For all we know, we could be a sentient being that exists within a larger sentient being that doesn't even realize we exist because we're too small to be detected by it. Kinda like something that's magnitudes of order smaller than an atom that exists within us who believes we are god because we created them just because we exist. To them they are living in a universe that seems to be expanding and realize that one day it will collapse... or maybe because I was born and I grew and one day I will die. I may be god to them and I may have created them by existing but I have no control over their fate yet the athiests of their world curse me because I don't do anything for them or reveal myself as their creator.

So maybe God does exist, but not the way we want him to exist(through the Bible). I choose to believe in Idontcarism

Exactly this!

 

[soulcougher73]

Conceding that creation is not a form of scientific debate (yet) does not mean it is simply removed as a possibility. Therefor the way in which our universe came into existence doesn't have to be regarded as scientific, even though it may seem the most likely.

If we have proof a god created the universe but cannot scientifically describe how it occurred, is the event still scientific? Interesting thought but irrelevant I suppose. I guess I'd have to lean towards not caring if it is considered strictly scientific or not.

Would we really have proof if we could not scientifically describe it or would it just be some guys word that he did?

 

[Cattlegod]

Yeah it is. I can measure time and my observations of time's properties can be reproduced by a third party using the same methods.

I don't think that is the definition of tangible. In any rate - dark matter is another example of something intangible.

 

[Tweak155]

Would we really have proof if we could not scientifically describe it or would it just be some guys word that he did?

You slay me Mr. SoulCougher. I think I might just be your fan

 

[HAL9000]

That's not real scientific theory though. There is no empirical evidence, just evidence of belief or rationality for belief, but not for what the belief itself is.

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.....

 

[surfsatwerk]

I don't think that is the definition of tangible. In any rate - dark matter is another example of something intangible.

Demonstrating that something is real makes it tangible. Time is real and I can demonstrate it for you.