Thoughts? From people with non-sheeple brains

[JB0704]

Wouldn't the possibility of more than one eliminate the "truth" that one is Alpha and Omega?

I think logically it is harder to justify the possibility of many than one......in order for there to be many, they would have to have created the universe simultaneously. Since there is only one.....

I'm thinking logic would conclude that if there are many, there are none.

Beyond this universe, who knows. But, if we open the possibility to existence beyond the universe, then the logical possibilites expand infinitely.

 

[gemcgrew]

I can't believe that we even discuss what it says in the Bible as possibly being real, still.

It is problematic for you. In formulating your argument against the existence of God, you first have to consider the very existence of God.

 

[StriperrHunterr]

No, it reaffirms that what the Bible says is true. When we "go forth and spread the word", the natural man will not believe it.

So you hold yourself to be different than "natural man"?

Is "Natural man" just how we are when we are born, and without any knowledge of such things?

 

[StriperrHunterr]

I think logically it is harder to justify the possibility of many than one......in order for there to be many, they would have to have created the universe simultaneously. Since there is only one.....

I'm thinking logic would conclude that if there are many, there are none.

Beyond this universe, who knows. But, if we open the possibility to existence beyond the universe, then the logical possibilites expand infinitely.

A) You're presuming that their actions would be contradictory. What if each deity was responsible for a certain cosmological constant?

B) Well logic concludes that, even with many people saying there is one, that there is nothing to support even that one. I don't see hard, cold logic supporting any actually.

C) Again, not logical. Speculative, perhaps, but not logical. The only things we truly understand, and there are precious few even then, exist solely within this universe. There is no comprehension of what goes on outside of it any more than there is comprehension about what goes on in a singularity. Everything breaks down, or at least is beyond our scope of understanding, since nothing can be communicated across either boundary zone.

Beyond the space of the universe, if the big bang theory, and I stress theory there, is correct, there is nothing. 0 energy content, 0 matter content since that envelope was created with the singularity of the big bang expanded. With no energy and no matter there can be nothing for us to apply our "known" natural laws to, so there can be no understanding.

EDIT: I swear my computer has autocorrect, I wouldn't confuse communicated with communication.

 

[StriperrHunterr]

It is problematic for you. In formulating your argument against the existence of God, you first have to consider the very existence of God.

Only in the same manner that one has to ponder the existence of Santa Claus to come to the conclusion that he doesn't exist.

Contemplation and consideration are not cornerstones of existence.

 

[bullethead]

It is problematic for you. In formulating your argument against the existence of God, you first have to consider the very existence of God.

What about the people who consider a gods existence and have been searching for evidence to confirm a god exists but have not found any?

 

[JB0704]

A) You're presuming that their actions would be contradictory. What if each deity was responsible for a certain cosmological constant?

You would then have to assume all were simultaneous, and equally interdependent, or equally independent. If any one of them got the ball rolling, the rest ain't God.

B) Well logic concludes that, even with many people saying there is one, that there is nothing to support even that one. I don't see hard, cold logic supporting any actually.

Existence is evidence of an original cause, unless existence is infinite.....which would require everything in the universe to be infinite.

C) Again, not logical. Speculative, perhaps, but not logical. The only things we truly understand, and there are precious few even then, exist solely within this universe. There is no comprehension of what goes on outside of it any more than there is comprehension about what goes on in a singularity. Everything breaks down, or at least is beyond our scope of understanding, since nothing can be communicated across either boundary zone.

The universe is expanding.

Beyond the space of the universe, if the big bang theory, and I stress theory there, is correct, there is nothing. 0 energy content, 0 matter content since that envelope was created with the singularity of the big bang expanded. With no energy and no matter there can be nothing for us to apply our "known" natural laws to, so there can be no understanding..

There is no way to know whether this bang happened inside envolope A, and that bang happened inside envelope B. Our existence proves existence is possible. If once, why not again?

 

[centerpin fan]

I wonder if this is what Rebel 6 was hoping for.

 

[StriperrHunterr]

You would then have to assume all were simultaneous, and equally interdependent, or equally independent. If any one of them got the ball rolling, the rest ain't God.



Existence is evidence of an original cause, unless existence is infinite.....which would require everything in the universe to be infinite.



The universe is expanding.



There is no way to know whether this bang happened inside envolope A, and that bang happened inside envelope B. Our existence proves existence is possible. If once, why not again?

A) Perhaps all of them could have got the ball rolling, but only one was needed. Maybe this one pulled the trigger this time, where the other could have. Why should there only be one? Nothing in this universe is created singularly why should a deity be any different?

B) Original cause, yes. But not all causes have intents.

C) Yes, but there is literally nothing, so far as we can infer, on the other side of the envelope. All energy and matter expanded out from a central point into nothingness, infinite nothingness as far as we know, and on one side of the fence you have matter and energy (the universe) and on the other you have pure nothingness.

D) The envelope is merely an event boundary. The big bang couldn't have happened outside of itself any more than you can exist outside of yourself, without arguing the soul aspect, and survive. There is a boundary layer where one is outside of the universe and in the nothingness that the BB is expanding into, and on the other side they are inside and subject to our laws and understandings. Imagine a balloon's clearly defined boundary between inside and outside. Now imagine that the only things that exist are within that balloon and the only thing outside of that is nothing. No energy, no matter, no nothing. Once you get something inside of the nothing, it's not nothing anymore and therefore becomes a part of the universe.

 

[bullethead]

I wonder if this is what Rebel 6 was hoping for.

Some of this is what he was hoping for.

 

[StriperrHunterr]

Some of this is what he was hoping for.

All of it is why this forum exists anyway. We discuss things like this all the time. There's no need for self-righteous chest thumping to get it going.

We're all more adult than that.

 

[bullethead]

If absolutely nothing ever existed there would still be absolutely nothing.

 

[bullethead]

All of it is why this forum exists anyway. We discuss things like this all the time. There's no need for self-righteous chest thumping to get it going.

We're all more adult than that.

I agree but I was answering CenterPin based off of the OP's original post.

 

[StriperrHunterr]

If absolutely nothing ever existed there would still be absolutely nothing.

It depends on how you define nothing.

 

[bullethead]

It depends on how you define nothing.

No thing; not anything.

No part; no portion.

No consequence, significance, or interest.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

I know that it's the definition of Apologetics but I still think it's weird that anyone would try to use logic to explain religious beliefs.

Why? Isn't that the main purpose of logic......to use reason to explain and understand that which is not concrete but instead conceptual. Just wondering aloud.

 

[StriperrHunterr]

No thing; not anything.

No part; no portion.

No consequence, significance, or interest.

Ok, it's one of those distinctions that have to be made since we discovered that matter can arise from energy, and some people think that space within the universe is nothing, which couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[bullethead]

Ok, it's one of those distinctions that have to be made since we discovered that matter can arise from energy, and some people think that space within the universe is nothing, which couldn't be further from the truth.

I agree.
I am of the belief that there always was something and energy is the most probable.
If there was absolutely nothing there would still be nothing.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

If absolutely nothing ever existed there would still be absolutely nothing.

I think I would have to agree with this.

 

[StriperrHunterr]

I agree.
I am of the belief that there always was something and energy is the most probable.
If there was absolutely nothing there would still be nothing.

Given our current understanding of the universe, reality seems to agree with you.

However, I'm open to both ideas until one is ruled out unequivocally. We didn't know energy could transform into matter until Einstein, who's to say that we're not missing something in E=mc^2 that doesn't account for 100% of the variables. Our resolution may just not be good enough to notice we're missing it yet. But that's just my speculation.