In fact, using logic and reasoning I have come to the conclusion that the existence of a god (or gods) is much larger than he/she/it/them not exisiting.
well actually, using logic god/gods dont exist. Because everything must have a beginning, so who created god/gods? You can say that god has always been there, but thats just not very logical, is it?
"If God thinks logically, then logic must have existed before God and God did not create logic. If there is a logical reason why God exists, then logic is more potent than God and restrains God. If there is no logical reason why God exists, then it holds that the Universe could exist for no logical reason and therefore require no creator. If it is true that God exists outside of time and therefore "everything has a cause" does not apply to God then it is equally possible that logic, not God, is what exists outside of time and requires no cause."
Personally i think the Big Bang theory and Theory of Evolution prove the existence of God.
First thing a lot of people will want to throw out there would be that the bible says God created everything in six days and rested on the 7th. For anyone who’s actually read the bible from one end to the other you will recall that Peter made the statement that a day to God could be 1000 years and a 1000 years could be a day. To me Peter was giving an example to how God exist outside our perception of time. Jesus once said that the Sabbath (resting on the 7th day) was made for man. To me Jesus was saying that the story of Creation was given to man in parable form for man to understand. Why would God do that? Not to hard to fathom or figure out. When we explain things to our children in terms and concepts that they are capable of grasping.
Parable: generally referring to something that might naturally occur, by which spiritual and moral matters might be conveyed.
The Big Bang theory basically says the universe sprang from an single exploding atom. The only thing science can't figure out is where that atom came from. "And God created the Earth and Heavens" The Bible says after he created the earth and the heavens and then He made day. Which our sun is most likely a third generation star spawned by a super nova. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun so would have come after the formation of planets. God summed that up as a days work in the story of creation.
Interestingly enough the order given in the story of creation follows an order of evolution. The sea was the first place he created animals. Evolution shows us that life beyond a cellular level sprang from the sea. Then comes creatures on land which again evolution tells us that sea animals evolved into land animals. The last thing God created was man. Which again falls in line with Evolution that animals began in the sea and then land and eventually man. The bible says God formed man from the dust of the earth. Evolution shows us that life began with single cell organisms as result of proteins congealing around a spec of dust. These evolved to life in the sea which evolved to life on land that eventually man sprang from. And again evolution and the story of creation coincide. God didn’t create man with intelligence that came later. If you read Genesis closely you’ll notice that Adam is not created until after God has rested and that God created man before he rested. Adam was the first man God gave a soul to. This is why scientist are unable to find the missing link between modern man and his predecessors in my opinion.
Anyways just my point of view on it. Believe what you want to Ill believe what my heart and mind agree on That one proves the other.
First thing a lot of people will want to throw out there would be that the bible says God created everything in six days and rested on the 7th. For anyone whos actualy read the bible from one end to the other you will recall that Peter made the statement that a day to God could be 1000 years and a 1000 years could be a day. To me Peter was giving an example to how God exist outside our perception of time.
read in genesis where god created the plants and the sun. it says the plants were created on the day AFTER the sun. If one day were 1000 years then we can reason that plants managed to thrive 1000 years without photosynthesis. That’s is impossible.
Here’s what I think….people try and distort science to fit something they want to be true. Unfortunatley, nature is indifferent to our wants. So instead of deciding on what’s true based on what we want to believe (in this case, the bible)…maybe we should critically examine the evidence and see where it leads. This is also what seperates science from religion. Science starts with the question and works forward, religion starts with the answer and works backwards.
I’ve heard a lot of statements about entities who exist outside of time/space.
In order for anything to EXIST, it must be taking up space. In order for it to do anything (for example, create a universe) it requires time. Therefore, this is a contradictory and self-refuting idea. (not to mention a retarded )
Interesting assertion....Why does something have to take up space to exist? Why does it require time in order to do anything?
If something exists outside time it doesnt need time. It possibly is time.
For example if you do something backwards in time it will have taken a negative amount of time. Learning about the dimensons you will see that a lot of them deal with possibilities. So in the end a god simply needs to use the possibility for something to achieve it.
I’ve heard a lot of statements about entities who exist outside of time/space.
In order for anything to EXIST, it must be taking up space. In order for it to do anything (for example, create a universe) it requires time. Therefore, this is a contradictory and self-refuting idea. (not to mention a retarded )
Interesting assertion....Why does something have to take up space to exist? Why does it require time in order to do anything?
I would say they're true by definition and observation.
In nature, something that exists takes up space.
In nature, something causing an action requires time to preform that action.
If you have another take on it, I’d be open minded enough to consider it…however, it should be observable and/or based in nature. Because invoking the supernatural is absurd.
If something exists outside time it doesnt need time. It possibly is time.
For example if you do something backwards in time it will have taken a negative amount of time. Learning about the dimensons you will see that a lot of them deal with possibilities. So in the end a god simply needs to use the possibility for something to achieve it.
i'll take a look at it when i get home...not allowed to watch vids at work. thanks
Who keeps posting religios threads? There have been many arguments over this before you know. I'll leave with an explanation that I believe and follow the thread until it's through,posting whenever.
There have been many religous threads and they start out has a simple question and then when people are just answering someone looking for an argument bumps up disagreeing. I don't have faith,but it seems that other athiests and christians(I say christains cause your the only ones arguing against athiests) seem to want to convert. Why? Does it bother you that someone else believes something you don't? Is it because your a dick and just wanted to attack it? If your athiest let them belive in there religionand when they die you can laugh at them. If your christain,even though your supposed to,quit saying we're wrong.Let us belive when we die we die and thats it. idon't see how a simple thing stretches so far,seeing as how it's the same thing over and over,but don't argue over there religion.
P.S.don't argue that you weren't trying to convert or anything. Infact don't reply to this.Just read it and continue the thread if you want.
My mind has changed so much. Yet I'm still acting like I'm the same.
I’ve heard a lot of statements about entities who exist outside of time/space.
In order for anything to EXIST, it must be taking up space. In order for it to do anything (for example, create a universe) it requires time. Therefore, this is a contradictory and self-refuting idea. (not to mention a retarded )
Interesting assertion....Why does something have to take up space to exist? Why does it require time in order to do anything?
I would say they're true by definition and observation.
In nature, something that exists takes up space.
In nature, something causing an action requires time to preform that action.
If you have another take on it, I’d be open minded enough to consider it…however, it should be observable and/or based in nature. Because invoking the supernatural is absurd.
Surely that's only true for a material object, or by your definition do emotions, ideas, truth, beauty, heat, pressure and the present time not exist? Thought is the one and only thing (except for ourselves) we can be absolutely certain of existing, and yet it takes up no space.
As far as outside time, let's take as an example a real time strategy kind of simulation game that you are playing. The game could have a set time-line with a beginning and and end, however you have fast forward and back buttons and can go into it at any point on that timeline and put in a building or a creature. To those simulated people in the game, this creation may have happened instantly or it may take time in their timeline. You would be outside of time in respect to that game's timeline and yet you could create things and influence the outcome.
First thing a lot of people will want to throw out there would be that the bible says God created everything in six days and rested on the 7th. For anyone whos actualy read the bible from one end to the other you will recall that Peter made the statement that a day to God could be 1000 years and a 1000 years could be a day. To me Peter was giving an example to how God exist outside our perception of time. read in genesis where god created the plants and the sun. it says the plants were created on the day AFTER the sun. If one day were 1000 years then we can reason that plants managed to thrive 1000 years without photosynthesis. That’s is impossible. Here’s what I think….people try and distort science to fit something they want to be true. Unfortunatley, nature is indifferent to our wants. So instead of deciding on what’s true based on what we want to believe (in this case, the bible)…maybe we should critically examine the evidence and see where it leads. This is also what seperates science from religion. Science starts with the question and works forward, religion starts with the answer and works backwards.
Peter was conveying a concept not a literal number. Obviously you did not comprehend the scope of that. The first day was a parable condensing the story from Big Bang till the appearance of our sun. In to terms that early man could understand. I will make an attempt to explain it in a concept you might understand more easily. We as man work everything into our concept of time, because its what we know based on our experiences. Our measurement of time wich is a concept that's based on our orbit around our sun being a year and a day based on earth making a complete revolution on its axis. If there is life out there else where in the universe and say they develop there own concept of time similarly as we have based on there planets orbit around there sun. There planets day (time it takes for a planet to complete one revolution on its axis in hours etc as we measure it.) May be only 19 hours as compared to our 24. If it took there planet 1580 days to complete its orbit around there sun there concept of time would be much different than our own. Time is a concept not an absolute.
Now back to your statement about plants. After the sun the next thing covered in the story of creation is the firmament separating the water from below and above. Sounds like oceans and atmosphere to me. And the appearance of land follows and then came plants. Following the same order that science tells us they would have appeared in. The order laid out in the story of creation is the same that science tells us it happened. Take into consideration when genesis was written. Consider that the story of creation was handed down by word of mouth long before Mosses wrote it down. Then contemplate what the odds are the order out lined in the story of creation would be so on track with what science tells us. A story thousands of years old told long before we were ever able to work this order out on our own.
And for your information you need to study history a little closer. Science and religion are close companions through out most of history, with good reason.
Who keeps posting religios threads? There have been many arguments over this before you know. I'll leave with an explanation that I believe and follow the thread until it's through,posting whenever.
There have been many religous threads and they start out has a simple question and then when people are just answering someone looking for an argument bumps up disagreeing. I don't have faith,but it seems that other athiests and christians(I say christains cause your the only ones arguing against athiests) seem to want to convert. Why? Does it bother you that someone else believes something you don't? Is it because your a dick and just wanted to attack it? If your athiest let them belive in there religionand when they die you can laugh at them. If your christain,even though your supposed to,quit saying we're wrong.Let us belive when we die we die and thats it. idon't see how a simple thing stretches so far,seeing as how it's the same thing over and over,but don't argue over there religion.
P.S.don't argue that you weren't trying to convert or anything. Infact don't reply to this.Just read it and continue the thread if you want.
Hate to burst your bubble, but these type arguements have been going on way before any of us were born, and have been on online forums since they were created. I doubt very seriously they're going to ever end.
Occaisionally, these threads can be interesting, but if you really can't stand them, I would suggest just skipping over them.
We barely remember who or what came before this precious moment; We are choosing to be here right now -Tool, Parabola
Okay. But that post goes for all religious threads. If you read some i the past it looked like both sides attacked the other.
Why get so upset about people exchanging there Ideas? If someone says the sky is going to blue tomorrow and give there reasoning behind it and the next guy gives his reasoning why he thinks its going to be red it might just lead someone else to come up with why the sky is going to be purple. The exchange of Ideas and reasoning lead to understanding and more Ideas. Maybe someone expressing there Ideals may not lead to conversion of others but it most certainly can open up understanding and appreciation to why they belive the way they do.
Surely that's only true for a material object, or by your definition do emotions, ideas, truth, beauty, heat, pressure and the present time not exist? Thought is the one and only thing (except for ourselves) we can be absolutely certain of existing, and yet it takes up no space.
Here's the way I understand it:
Emotions, ideas, beauty, and truth values are not tangible things. They exist as interpretations of the human mind. Heat is the result of "excited" molecules (which I fully agree molecules exist ). Now, people can touch a stove and the heat molecules can cause a sensation known as "hot"…but that feeling of heat is also an interpretation of the human mind.
Could the Creator be like heat? formed of something natural in a certain state? Maybe, but then he'd still be restricted by the natural world, he would take up space and require time to do anything.
Could the Creator be like emotion, idea, beauty, truth, etc..? Interpretations of the human mind?
I would agree that's exactly what it is.
As far as outside time, let's take as an example a real time strategy kind of simulation game that you are playing. The game could have a set time-line with a beginning and and end, however you have fast forward and back buttons and can go into it at any point on that timeline and put in a building or a creature. To those simulated people in the game, this creation may have happened instantly or it may take time in their timeline. You would be outside of time in respect to that game's timeline and yet you could create things and influence the outcome.
I really do see your point here. But here’s the problem. What’s in question is the phenomena of time itself. True, their time might be happening at a different instance than ours…we might even have control over it.
But we’re still in the realm of the same phenomena known as time .
Also, you seem to suggest this time is linear. I kind of agree with you here, but I know some people don’t. It’s something that really interests me... I’ll have to read up more on it sometime.
Anyway, it’s going to be very hard to form an analogy for the time example because we don’t have anything to point to and say “There, that thing exists outside time”. Time forms the very fabric of existence.
First thing a lot of people will want to throw out there would be that the bible says God created everything in six days and rested on the 7th. For anyone whos actualy read the bible from one end to the other you will recall that Peter made the statement that a day to God could be 1000 years and a 1000 years could be a day. To me Peter was giving an example to how God exist outside our perception of time. read in genesis where god created the plants and the sun. it says the plants were created on the day AFTER the sun. If one day were 1000 years then we can reason that plants managed to thrive 1000 years without photosynthesis. That’s is impossible. Here’s what I think….people try and distort science to fit something they want to be true. Unfortunatley, nature is indifferent to our wants. So instead of deciding on what’s true based on what we want to believe (in this case, the bible)…maybe we should critically examine the evidence and see where it leads. This is also what seperates science from religion. Science starts with the question and works forward, religion starts with the answer and works backwards.
Now back to your statement about plants. After the sun the next thing covered in the story of creation is the firmament separating the water from below and above. Sounds like oceans and atmosphere to me. And the appearance of land follows and then came plants. Following the same order that science tells us they would have appeared in. The order laid out in the story of creation is the same that science tells us it happened. Take into consideration when genesis was written. Consider that the story of creation was handed down by word of mouth long before Mosses wrote it down. Then contemplate what the odds are the order out lined in the story of creation would be so on track with what science tells us. A story thousands of years old told long before we were ever able to work this order out on our own.
And for your information you need to study history a little closer. Science and religion are close companions through out most of history, with good reason.
nah...i don't consider the bible a source of anything accept for myth. by the way, genesis does not lay it out in the right order, the sun existed before the plants....that's a fact. and the firmament was considered a dome of water over a circle earth...this is impossible. also, the relationship science and religion have had in the past does not validate any creation story...maybe just bad politics.
There are two distinct views on the meaning of time. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence, and time itself is something that can be measured. This is the realist's view, to which Sir Isaac Newton subscribed.[1]
A contrasting view is that time is part of the fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which we sequence events, quantify the duration of events and the intervals between them, and compare the motions of objects. In this view, time does not refer to any kind of entity that "flows", that objects "move through", or that is a "container" for events. This view is in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[2] and Immanuel Kant,[3][4] in which time, rather than being an objective thing to be measured, is part of the mental measuring system. The question, perhaps overly simplified and allowing for no middle ground, is thus: is time a "real thing" that is "all around us", or is it nothing more than a way of speaking about and measuring events?
Many fields avoid the problem of defining time itself by using operational definitions that specify the units of measurement that quantify time. Regularly recurring events and objects with apparent periodic motion have long served as standards for units of time. Examples are the apparent motion of the sun across the sky, the phases of the moon, and the swing of a pendulum.
Time has long been a major subject of science, philosophy and art. The measurement of time has occupied scientists and technologists, and was a prime motivation in astronomy. Time is also of significant social importance, having economic value ("time is money") as well as personal value, due to an awareness of the limited time in each day and in human lifespans.
Surely that's only true for a material object, or by your definition do emotions, ideas, truth, beauty, heat, pressure and the present time not exist? Thought is the one and only thing (except for ourselves) we can be absolutely certain of existing, and yet it takes up no space.
Here's the way I understand it:
Emotions, ideas, beauty, and truth values are not tangible things. They exist as interpretations of the human mind. Heat is the result of "excited" molecules (which I fully agree molecules exist ). Now, people can touch a stove and the heat molecules can cause a sensation known as "hot"…but that feeling of heat is also an interpretation of the human mind.
Could the Creator be like heat? formed of something natural in a certain state? Maybe, but then he'd still be restricted by the natural world, he would take up space and require time to do anything.
Could the Creator be like emotion, idea, beauty, truth, etc..? Interpretations of the human mind?
I would agree that's exactly what it is.
As far as outside time, let's take as an example a real time strategy kind of simulation game that you are playing. The game could have a set time-line with a beginning and and end, however you have fast forward and back buttons and can go into it at any point on that timeline and put in a building or a creature. To those simulated people in the game, this creation may have happened instantly or it may take time in their timeline. You would be outside of time in respect to that game's timeline and yet you could create things and influence the outcome.
I really do see your point here. But here’s the problem. What’s in question is the phenomena of time itself. True, their time might be happening at a different instance than ours…we might even have control over it.
But we’re still in the realm of the same phenomena known as time .
Also, you seem to suggest this time is linear. I kind of agree with you here, but I know some people don’t. It’s something that really interests me... I’ll have to read up more on it sometime.
Anyway, it’s going to be very hard to form an analogy for the time example because we don’t have anything to point to and say “There, that thing exists outside time”. Time forms the very fabric of existence.
If time forms the very fabric of existance, then would you say time exists or is time an interpretation of the human mind? And what about the human mind itself... at least thought, not the physical brain...I'm not sure we could say thought is an interpretation.
Just as another point, until fairly recently, we had never observed atoms. Not observing something doesn't make it not exist.
Originally posted by EggFtegg If time forms the very fabric of existance, then would you say time exists or is time an interpretation of the human mind? And what about the human mind itself... at least thought, not the physical brain...I'm not sure we could say thought is an interpretation. Just as another point, until fairly recently, we had never observed atoms. Not observing something doesn't make it not exist.
to be honest, i have no idea what the true nature of time is. it's axiomatic. but plugging in Creator where there's an unknown doesn't explain anything, it just adds more to the mystery.
This might lead one to ask, then how do you know it exists...how is it any more valid than the Creator.
The difference is that we can measure time...we can't do that with Creator.
as for the mind vs. brain. I don't see a difference. we are our brain, and i've never heard a convincing argument otherwise.
First thing a lot of people will want to throw out there would be that the bible says God created everything in six days and rested on the 7th. For anyone whos actualy read the bible from one end to the other you will recall that Peter made the statement that a day to God could be 1000 years and a 1000 years could be a day. To me Peter was giving an example to how God exist outside our perception of time. read in genesis where god created the plants and the sun. it says the plants were created on the day AFTER the sun. If one day were 1000 years then we can reason that plants managed to thrive 1000 years without photosynthesis. That’s is impossible. Here’s what I think….people try and distort science to fit something they want to be true. Unfortunatley, nature is indifferent to our wants. So instead of deciding on what’s true based on what we want to believe (in this case, the bible)…maybe we should critically examine the evidence and see where it leads. This is also what seperates science from religion. Science starts with the question and works forward, religion starts with the answer and works backwards.
Now back to your statement about plants. After the sun the next thing covered in the story of creation is the firmament separating the water from below and above. Sounds like oceans and atmosphere to me. And the appearance of land follows and then came plants. Following the same order that science tells us they would have appeared in. The order laid out in the story of creation is the same that science tells us it happened. Take into consideration when genesis was written. Consider that the story of creation was handed down by word of mouth long before Mosses wrote it down. Then contemplate what the odds are the order out lined in the story of creation would be so on track with what science tells us. A story thousands of years old told long before we were ever able to work this order out on our own.
And for your information you need to study history a little closer. Science and religion are close companions through out most of history, with good reason.
nah...i don't consider the bible a source of anything accept for myth. by the way, genesis does not lay it out in the right order, the sun existed before the plants....that's a fact. and the firmament was considered a dome of water over a circle earth...this is impossible. also, the relationship science and religion have had in the past does not validate any creation story...maybe just bad politics.
I just feel the need to clear up your misconception about the 6 days thing...
There are distinct styles of hebrew that denote literal translation and poetic metaphore, the style of hebrew that the creation story was written in is the style used to denote literal translation, when the bible says 6 days, it means 6 Earthly days.
Also, if you want some more credibility, learn the difference between accept and except.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Actually, I'd be impressed if you would read that article AND be able to write an inteligent reply in its defense. I don't even think its possible.
As though I have not done that time and time again on these forums, only to have my logic rejected by personal opinions of those who do not believe in a creator God. It would be an exercise in futility, one that I am not currently willing to venture into at this point in time.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
Actually, I'd be impressed if you would read that article AND be able to write an inteligent reply in its defense. I don't even think its possible.
As though I have not done that time and time again on these forums, only to have my logic rejected by personal opinions of those who do not believe in a creator God. It would be an exercise in futility, one that I am not currently willing to venture into at this point in time.
Thats not what I'm saying. the theory in the article posted here is so incredibly rediculous, that it could be used by a comedian.
to be honest, i have no idea what the true nature of time is. it's axiomatic. but plugging in Creator where there's an unknown doesn't explain anything, it just adds more to the mystery.
This might lead one to ask, then how do you know it exists...how is it any more valid than the Creator.
The difference is that we can measure time...we can't do that with Creator.
as for the mind vs. brain. I don't see a difference. we are our brain, and i've never heard a convincing argument otherwise.
We're not discussing plugging a creator into whatever we don't understand, we're discussing the possibility of something existing outside time or not taking up space and the nature of "existence".
So if we can measure something, surely we can say it exists?
mind vs brain....the brain takes up space. Thought doesn't. An idea can be extremely valuable. We have long expensive court cases over the ownsership of ideas. From a legal point of view we recognise their existence. If an idea is an interpretation, what is it an interpretation of and does that exist?
Makes me wonder if ALL humans have been given the gift of natural reasoning.
Well, at least 84% of the population of the world believe in a higher force. Its the 16% that do not believe in anything that is a minority.
Now who is to say what natural reasoning is? The believers, not the non-believers.
just a small point to make about your stament. do you think 84% of the worlds population goes to church (etc) weekley? because if not there not real belivers are they (at least in my opinion) i wonder how many people put a religion down knkowing full well there not really following it. and here is my point, here in the UK more people say they are a Jedi then seek but i have yet to see a "Jedi Temple" in the uk.
Makes me wonder if ALL humans have been given the gift of natural reasoning.
Well, at least 84% of the population of the world believe in a higher force. Its the 16% that do not believe in anything that is a minority.
Now who is to say what natural reasoning is? The believers, not the non-believers.
just a small point to make about your stament. do you think 84% of the worlds population goes to church (etc) weekley? because if not there not real belivers are they (at least in my opinion) i wonder how many people put a religion down knkowing full well there not really following it. and here is my point, here in the UK more people say they are a Jedi then seek but i have yet to see a "Jedi Temple" in the uk.
It depends what figure you're trying to get. There's a difference between actively following a religion and believing that some kind of higher force exists. In the case of the latter, the behaviour of the individual has no bearing on their belief. Actually. according to those figures, it would be 92%, as supposedly half of the "non-religious" also believed in some higher power. I've no idea how reliable or accurate those figures are though.
Also, it's worth mentioning the old "going to church no more makes someone a Christian than going to McDonalds makes them a hamburger" and to point out that some people follow their religion with great devotion and don't go to any temple. The Jedi thing was a joke campaign to try to get it recognised as an official religion. Somehow, I think putting down "muslim" if you weren't one, probably wouldn't have quite the same humour appeal.
Comments
That would largely depend on ones perception of logic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
"If God thinks logically, then logic must have existed before God and God did not create logic. If there is a logical reason why God exists, then logic is more potent than God and restrains God. If there is no logical reason why God exists, then it holds that the Universe could exist for no logical reason and therefore require no creator. If it is true that God exists outside of time and therefore "everything has a cause" does not apply to God then it is equally possible that logic, not God, is what exists outside of time and requires no cause."
Take use the above logic against the "Big Bang Theory" Where the known universe expanded from a single Atom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
Personally i think the Big Bang theory and Theory of Evolution prove the existence of God.
First thing a lot of people will want to throw out there would be that the bible says God created everything in six days and rested on the 7th. For anyone who’s actually read the bible from one end to the other you will recall that Peter made the statement that a day to God could be 1000 years and a 1000 years could be a day. To me Peter was giving an example to how God exist outside our perception of time. Jesus once said that the Sabbath (resting on the 7th day) was made for man. To me Jesus was saying that the story of Creation was given to man in parable form for man to understand. Why would God do that? Not to hard to fathom or figure out. When we explain things to our children in terms and concepts that they are capable of grasping.
Parable: generally referring to something that might naturally occur, by which spiritual and moral matters might be conveyed.
The Big Bang theory basically says the universe sprang from an single exploding atom. The only thing science can't figure out is where that atom came from. "And God created the Earth and Heavens" The Bible says after he created the earth and the heavens and then He made day. Which our sun is most likely a third generation star spawned by a super nova. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun so would have come after the formation of planets. God summed that up as a days work in the story of creation.
Interestingly enough the order given in the story of creation follows an order of evolution. The sea was the first place he created animals. Evolution shows us that life beyond a cellular level sprang from the sea. Then comes creatures on land which again evolution tells us that sea animals evolved into land animals. The last thing God created was man. Which again falls in line with Evolution that animals began in the sea and then land and eventually man. The bible says God formed man from the dust of the earth. Evolution shows us that life began with single cell organisms as result of proteins congealing around a spec of dust. These evolved to life in the sea which evolved to life on land that eventually man sprang from. And again evolution and the story of creation coincide. God didn’t create man with intelligence that came later. If you read Genesis closely you’ll notice that Adam is not created until after God has rested and that God created man before he rested. Adam was the first man God gave a soul to. This is why scientist are unable to find the missing link between modern man and his predecessors in my opinion.
Anyways just my point of view on it. Believe what you want to Ill believe what my heart and mind agree on That one proves the other.
First thing a lot of people will want to throw out there would be that the bible says God created everything in six days and rested on the 7th. For anyone whos actualy read the bible from one end to the other you will recall that Peter made the statement that a day to God could be 1000 years and a 1000 years could be a day. To me Peter was giving an example to how God exist outside our perception of time.
read in genesis where god created the plants and the sun. it says the plants were created on the day AFTER the sun. If one day were 1000 years then we can reason that plants managed to thrive 1000 years without photosynthesis. That’s is impossible.
Here’s what I think….people try and distort science to fit something they want to be true. Unfortunatley, nature is indifferent to our wants. So instead of deciding on what’s true based on what we want to believe (in this case, the bible)…maybe we should critically examine the evidence and see where it leads. This is also what seperates science from religion. Science starts with the question and works forward, religion starts with the answer and works backwards.
==========================
Interesting assertion....Why does something have to take up space to exist? Why does it require time in order to do anything?
http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/74436/The_Tenth_Dimension.html
This might shed some light on your confusion.
If something exists outside time it doesnt need time. It possibly is time.
For example if you do something backwards in time it will have taken a negative amount of time. Learning about the dimensons you will see that a lot of them deal with possibilities. So in the end a god simply needs to use the possibility for something to achieve it.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
Interesting assertion....Why does something have to take up space to exist? Why does it require time in order to do anything?
I would say they're true by definition and observation.
In nature, something that exists takes up space.
In nature, something causing an action requires time to preform that action.
If you have another take on it, I’d be open minded enough to consider it…however, it should be observable and/or based in nature. Because invoking the supernatural is absurd.
==========================
==========================
There have been many religous threads and they start out has a simple question and then when people are just answering someone looking for an argument bumps up disagreeing. I don't have faith,but it seems that other athiests and christians(I say christains cause your the only ones arguing against athiests) seem to want to convert. Why? Does it bother you that someone else believes something you don't? Is it because your a dick and just wanted to attack it? If your athiest let them belive in there religionand when they die you can laugh at them. If your christain,even though your supposed to,quit saying we're wrong.Let us belive when we die we die and thats it. idon't see how a simple thing stretches so far,seeing as how it's the same thing over and over,but don't argue over there religion.
P.S.don't argue that you weren't trying to convert or anything. Infact don't reply to this.Just read it and continue the thread if you want.
My mind has changed so much. Yet I'm still acting like I'm the same.
Interesting assertion....Why does something have to take up space to exist? Why does it require time in order to do anything?
I would say they're true by definition and observation.
In nature, something that exists takes up space.
In nature, something causing an action requires time to preform that action.
If you have another take on it, I’d be open minded enough to consider it…however, it should be observable and/or based in nature. Because invoking the supernatural is absurd.
Surely that's only true for a material object, or by your definition do emotions, ideas, truth, beauty, heat, pressure and the present time not exist? Thought is the one and only thing (except for ourselves) we can be absolutely certain of existing, and yet it takes up no space.
As far as outside time, let's take as an example a real time strategy kind of simulation game that you are playing. The game could have a set time-line with a beginning and and end, however you have fast forward and back buttons and can go into it at any point on that timeline and put in a building or a creature. To those simulated people in the game, this creation may have happened instantly or it may take time in their timeline. You would be outside of time in respect to that game's timeline and yet you could create things and influence the outcome.
i don't believe that critically analyzing something means you're attacking it.
i know you didn't say that specifically, but i just wanted to get that out there.
==========================
Peter was conveying a concept not a literal number. Obviously you did not comprehend the scope of that. The first day was a parable condensing the story from Big Bang till the appearance of our sun. In to terms that early man could understand. I will make an attempt to explain it in a concept you might understand more easily. We as man work everything into our concept of time, because its what we know based on our experiences. Our measurement of time wich is a concept that's based on our orbit around our sun being a year and a day based on earth making a complete revolution on its axis. If there is life out there else where in the universe and say they develop there own concept of time similarly as we have based on there planets orbit around there sun. There planets day (time it takes for a planet to complete one revolution on its axis in hours etc as we measure it.) May be only 19 hours as compared to our 24. If it took there planet 1580 days to complete its orbit around there sun there concept of time would be much different than our own. Time is a concept not an absolute.
Now back to your statement about plants. After the sun the next thing covered in the story of creation is the firmament separating the water from below and above. Sounds like oceans and atmosphere to me. And the appearance of land follows and then came plants. Following the same order that science tells us they would have appeared in. The order laid out in the story of creation is the same that science tells us it happened. Take into consideration when genesis was written. Consider that the story of creation was handed down by word of mouth long before Mosses wrote it down. Then contemplate what the odds are the order out lined in the story of creation would be so on track with what science tells us. A story thousands of years old told long before we were ever able to work this order out on our own.
And for your information you need to study history a little closer. Science and religion are close companions through out most of history, with good reason.
My mind has changed so much. Yet I'm still acting like I'm the same.
Hate to burst your bubble, but these type arguements have been going on way before any of us were born, and have been on online forums since they were created. I doubt very seriously they're going to ever end.
Occaisionally, these threads can be interesting, but if you really can't stand them, I would suggest just skipping over them.
We barely remember who or what came before this precious moment;
We are choosing to be here right now -Tool, Parabola
Why get so upset about people exchanging there Ideas? If someone says the sky is going to blue tomorrow and give there reasoning behind it and the next guy gives his reasoning why he thinks its going to be red it might just lead someone else to come up with why the sky is going to be purple. The exchange of Ideas and reasoning lead to understanding and more Ideas. Maybe someone expressing there Ideals may not lead to conversion of others but it most certainly can open up understanding and appreciation to why they belive the way they do.
Surely that's only true for a material object, or by your definition do emotions, ideas, truth, beauty, heat, pressure and the present time not exist? Thought is the one and only thing (except for ourselves) we can be absolutely certain of existing, and yet it takes up no space.
Here's the way I understand it:
Emotions, ideas, beauty, and truth values are not tangible things. They exist as interpretations of the human mind. Heat is the result of "excited" molecules (which I fully agree molecules exist ). Now, people can touch a stove and the heat molecules can cause a sensation known as "hot"…but that feeling of heat is also an interpretation of the human mind.
Could the Creator be like heat? formed of something natural in a certain state? Maybe, but then he'd still be restricted by the natural world, he would take up space and require time to do anything.
Could the Creator be like emotion, idea, beauty, truth, etc..? Interpretations of the human mind?
I would agree that's exactly what it is.
As far as outside time, let's take as an example a real time strategy kind of simulation game that you are playing. The game could have a set time-line with a beginning and and end, however you have fast forward and back buttons and can go into it at any point on that timeline and put in a building or a creature. To those simulated people in the game, this creation may have happened instantly or it may take time in their timeline. You would be outside of time in respect to that game's timeline and yet you could create things and influence the outcome.
I really do see your point here. But here’s the problem. What’s in question is the phenomena of time itself. True, their time might be happening at a different instance than ours…we might even have control over it.
But we’re still in the realm of the same phenomena known as time .
Also, you seem to suggest this time is linear. I kind of agree with you here, but I know some people don’t. It’s something that really interests me... I’ll have to read up more on it sometime.
Anyway, it’s going to be very hard to form an analogy for the time example because we don’t have anything to point to and say “There, that thing exists outside time”. Time forms the very fabric of existence.
==========================
Now back to your statement about plants. After the sun the next thing covered in the story of creation is the firmament separating the water from below and above. Sounds like oceans and atmosphere to me. And the appearance of land follows and then came plants. Following the same order that science tells us they would have appeared in. The order laid out in the story of creation is the same that science tells us it happened. Take into consideration when genesis was written. Consider that the story of creation was handed down by word of mouth long before Mosses wrote it down. Then contemplate what the odds are the order out lined in the story of creation would be so on track with what science tells us. A story thousands of years old told long before we were ever able to work this order out on our own.
And for your information you need to study history a little closer. Science and religion are close companions through out most of history, with good reason.
nah...i don't consider the bible a source of anything accept for myth. by the way, genesis does not lay it out in the right order, the sun existed before the plants....that's a fact. and the firmament was considered a dome of water over a circle earth...this is impossible. also, the relationship science and religion have had in the past does not validate any creation story...maybe just bad politics.
==========================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
Lot of good info there
There are two distinct views on the meaning of time. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence, and time itself is something that can be measured. This is the realist's view, to which Sir Isaac Newton subscribed.[1]
A contrasting view is that time is part of the fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which we sequence events, quantify the duration of events and the intervals between them, and compare the motions of objects. In this view, time does not refer to any kind of entity that "flows", that objects "move through", or that is a "container" for events. This view is in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[2] and Immanuel Kant,[3][4] in which time, rather than being an objective thing to be measured, is part of the mental measuring system. The question, perhaps overly simplified and allowing for no middle ground, is thus: is time a "real thing" that is "all around us", or is it nothing more than a way of speaking about and measuring events?
Many fields avoid the problem of defining time itself by using operational definitions that specify the units of measurement that quantify time. Regularly recurring events and objects with apparent periodic motion have long served as standards for units of time. Examples are the apparent motion of the sun across the sky, the phases of the moon, and the swing of a pendulum.
Time has long been a major subject of science, philosophy and art. The measurement of time has occupied scientists and technologists, and was a prime motivation in astronomy. Time is also of significant social importance, having economic value ("time is money") as well as personal value, due to an awareness of the limited time in each day and in human lifespans.
If time forms the very fabric of existance, then would you say time exists or is time an interpretation of the human mind? And what about the human mind itself... at least thought, not the physical brain...I'm not sure we could say thought is an interpretation.
Just as another point, until fairly recently, we had never observed atoms. Not observing something doesn't make it not exist.
This might lead one to ask, then how do you know it exists...how is it any more valid than the Creator.
The difference is that we can measure time...we can't do that with Creator.
as for the mind vs. brain. I don't see a difference. we are our brain, and i've never heard a convincing argument otherwise.
==========================
Now back to your statement about plants. After the sun the next thing covered in the story of creation is the firmament separating the water from below and above. Sounds like oceans and atmosphere to me. And the appearance of land follows and then came plants. Following the same order that science tells us they would have appeared in. The order laid out in the story of creation is the same that science tells us it happened. Take into consideration when genesis was written. Consider that the story of creation was handed down by word of mouth long before Mosses wrote it down. Then contemplate what the odds are the order out lined in the story of creation would be so on track with what science tells us. A story thousands of years old told long before we were ever able to work this order out on our own.
And for your information you need to study history a little closer. Science and religion are close companions through out most of history, with good reason.
nah...i don't consider the bible a source of anything accept for myth. by the way, genesis does not lay it out in the right order, the sun existed before the plants....that's a fact. and the firmament was considered a dome of water over a circle earth...this is impossible. also, the relationship science and religion have had in the past does not validate any creation story...maybe just bad politics.
I just feel the need to clear up your misconception about the 6 days thing...
There are distinct styles of hebrew that denote literal translation and poetic metaphore, the style of hebrew that the creation story was written in is the style used to denote literal translation, when the bible says 6 days, it means 6 Earthly days.
Also, if you want some more credibility, learn the difference between accept and except.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
www.godandscience.org/apologetics/who_created_god.html
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
Thats not what I'm saying. the theory in the article posted here is so incredibly rediculous, that it could be used by a comedian.
We're not discussing plugging a creator into whatever we don't understand, we're discussing the possibility of something existing outside time or not taking up space and the nature of "existence".
So if we can measure something, surely we can say it exists?
mind vs brain....the brain takes up space. Thought doesn't. An idea can be extremely valuable. We have long expensive court cases over the ownsership of ideas. From a legal point of view we recognise their existence. If an idea is an interpretation, what is it an interpretation of and does that exist?
Well, at least 84% of the population of the world believe in a higher force. Its the 16% that do not believe in anything that is a minority.
Now who is to say what natural reasoning is? The believers, not the non-believers.
just a small point to make about your stament. do you think 84% of the worlds population goes to church (etc) weekley? because if not there not real belivers are they (at least in my opinion) i wonder how many people put a religion down knkowing full well there not really following it. and here is my point, here in the UK more people say they are a Jedi then seek but i have yet to see a "Jedi Temple" in the uk.
Tin Foil hats dont work.. its all a conspiracy
Well, at least 84% of the population of the world believe in a higher force. Its the 16% that do not believe in anything that is a minority.
Now who is to say what natural reasoning is? The believers, not the non-believers.
just a small point to make about your stament. do you think 84% of the worlds population goes to church (etc) weekley? because if not there not real belivers are they (at least in my opinion) i wonder how many people put a religion down knkowing full well there not really following it. and here is my point, here in the UK more people say they are a Jedi then seek but i have yet to see a "Jedi Temple" in the uk.
It depends what figure you're trying to get. There's a difference between actively following a religion and believing that some kind of higher force exists. In the case of the latter, the behaviour of the individual has no bearing on their belief. Actually. according to those figures, it would be 92%, as supposedly half of the "non-religious" also believed in some higher power. I've no idea how reliable or accurate those figures are though.
Also, it's worth mentioning the old "going to church no more makes someone a Christian than going to McDonalds makes them a hamburger" and to point out that some people follow their religion with great devotion and don't go to any temple. The Jedi thing was a joke campaign to try to get it recognised as an official religion. Somehow, I think putting down "muslim" if you weren't one, probably wouldn't have quite the same humour appeal.