Did The Christian "God" Have A Beginning?

[Alkondoion]

"Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."

--PSALM [90:2]

Is that reasonable? Our minds cannot fully comprehend it. But that is not a sound reason for rejecting it. Consider examples: (1) Time. No one can point to a certain momment as the beginning of time. And it is a fact that, even though our lives end, time does not. We do not reject the concept of time because there are apsects of it that we don't fully comprehend. Rather, we regulate our lives by it. (2) Space. Astronomers find no beginning or end to space. The farther we probe into the universe, the more there is. We do not reject what the evidence shows; many refer to space as being infinite. Does the same principle apply to the existance of God?

Other examples: (1) By the reasonings of Astronomers we can calculate that the heat of the son at it's core is 27,000,000 degrees Fahrenheit (15,000,000 degrees Celsius.). Do we reject the idea because we cannot fully comprehend such intense heat? (2) Astronomers also tell us that the size of our Milky Way is so great that a beam of light travelling at over 186,000 miles per second (300,000 km/sec) would require over 1000,000 years to cross it. Do our minds really comprehend such a distance? Yet we accept it because scientific evidence supports it.

Which is more reasonable- that the universe is the product of a living, intellegent Creator? or that it must have arisen simply by chance from a nonliving source without intelligent direction? Some persons adopt the latter viewpoint because to believe otherwise would mean that they would have to acknowledge the existance of a Creator whose qualities they cannot fully comprehend. But it is well known that science does not fully comprehend the functioning of the genes that are within living cells and determine how these cells will grow ( Cancer for example). Nor does it fully undersatnd the functioning of the human brain. Yet, who would deny that these exist? Should we really expect to understand everything about a person so great that he can bring into existance the universe, with all its intricate design and stupendous size?

An example of design; science has identified over 100 chemical elements. Their atomic structure displays and intricate mathematical interrelationship of the elements. The periodic table itself points toward obvious design. Such amazing design could not possibly be accidental, a product of chance?

[haas mark]

"Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."

--PSALM [90:2]

Is that reasonable? Our minds cannot fully comprehend it. But that is not a sound reason for rejecting it. Consider examples: (1) Time. No one can point to a certain momment as the beginning of time. And it is a fact that, even though our lives end, time does not. We do not reject the concept of time because there are apsects of it that we don't fully comprehend. Rather, we regulate our lives by it.

Damnit, I hate to give the Fundies this, but supposedly he is eternal....and there is no concept for time. He "was in the beginning, is now, and forever shall be"

. THat is how he is looked at.

(2) Space. Astronomers find no beginning or end to space. The farther we probe into the universe, the more there is. We do not reject what the evidence shows; many refer to space as being infinite. Does the same principle apply to the existance of God?

Unfortunately, yes, it does. And space your paragraphs, ty.

[Phil]

Which is more reasonable- that the universe is the product of a living, intellegent Creator? or that it must have arisen simply by chance from a nonliving source without intelligent direction?

It is reasonable to accept things based on evidence. If there is no evidence of something, it does not exist.

If there is evidence for the creator then it is reasonable to say that he created it.

If there is no evidence for a creator, then it is reasonable to say that it was natural forces.

The existence of a universe fit for concious life is not evidence either way on its own.

[neoolong]

How is the table of atomic elements proof of intelligent design? The physics of atoms dictate how they operate. A universe based in physics is enough for this.

There is no evidence for intelligent design here. Heck, the easiest thing would be for every element to be made of a single particle, and a different number of particles for each. Why bother going and making three different types of particles to make up the main part of an atom, especially if neutrons only really have a function in weight and isotopes?

[salm]

there´s no reason to completetly reject the idea of a creator. nothing can be proved 100 %.

but there´s simply more evidence for a universe without a god (evidence = 0) than a universe with a god.

of course it could be that there´s a god who doesnt want to show himself, but if he´s powerfull enough to keep himself completetly covered he´s neither provable nor rejectable which brings the discussion down to personal belief and by that makes the discussion pointless.

[Ghost Rider]

Where's the Babel fish when you need it ?:D

[Darth Wong]

"Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."

--PSALM [90:2]

Is that reasonable? Our minds cannot fully comprehend it. But that is not a sound reason for rejecting it.

Yes it is. That's just a flowery way of saying "it doesn't make any sense, but that's no reason not to accept it".

Consider examples: (1) Time. No one can point to a certain momment as the beginning of time. And it is a fact that, even though our lives end, time does not. We do not reject the concept of time because there are apsects of it that we don't fully comprehend. Rather, we regulate our lives by it.

Wrong. Time began at the moment of the Big Bang. We can point to a certain moment as the beginning of time.

(2) Space. Astronomers find no beginning or end to space. The farther we probe into the universe, the more there is. We do not reject what the evidence shows; many refer to space as being infinite. Does the same principle apply to the existance of God?

Space is observable, ie- part of objective reality. God is not. And space is not necessarily infinite.

Other examples: (1) By the reasonings of Astronomers we can calculate that the heat of the son at it's core is 27,000,000 degrees Fahrenheit (15,000,000 degrees Celsius.). Do we reject the idea because we cannot fully comprehend such intense heat?

We can fully comprehend such intense heat. It is a simple matter of mathematics and logic. Maybe you cannot subjectively comprehend it, but that is of no importance.

(2) Astronomers also tell us that the size of our Milky Way is so great that a beam of light travelling at over 186,000 miles per second (300,000 km/sec) would require over 1000,000 years to cross it. Do our minds really comprehend such a distance? Yet we accept it because scientific evidence supports it.

I can comprehend such a distance. It is a simple matter of mathematics. We accept it because it makes sense. Your God does not.

Which is more reasonable- that the universe is the product of a living, intellegent Creator? or that it must have arisen simply by chance from a nonliving source without intelligent direction?

The phrase "reasonable" indicates logic. And logic dictates that we restrict ourselves to that which we know exists. We know that the universe exists. We do not know that God exists. The concept of God as a premise cannot logically lead to a single scientific conclusion about the nature of the universe; those all come from observations which disregard God.

Some persons adopt the latter viewpoint because to believe otherwise would mean that they would have to acknowledge the existance of a Creator whose qualities they cannot fully comprehend.

"Appeal to motive" fallacy. We adopt the latter viewpoint because it makes sense. Yours does not.

But it is well known that science does not fully comprehend the functioning of the genes that are within living cells and determine how these cells will grow ( Cancer for example). Nor does it fully undersatnd the functioning of the human brain. Yet, who would deny that these exist?

They are all observable. Your God is not. We don't need to understand how something works in order to observe that it exists. However, your God is a theory, not an observation, and a theory must make sense in order to be accepted. Yours does not.

Should we really expect to understand everything about a person so great that he can bring into existance the universe, with all its intricate design and stupendous size?

First you must provide a shred of evidence that he exists.

An example of design; science has identified over 100 chemical elements. Their atomic structure displays and intricate mathematical interrelationship of the elements. The periodic table itself points toward obvious design. Such amazing design could not possibly be accidental, a product of chance?

Why not? How does the theory of an invisible man in the sky predict the atomic weight of carbon?

[haas mark]

DID Time begin at the Big Bang, or just the current universe?

[Darth Wong]

DID Time begin at the Big Bang, or just the current universe?

Time is a property of the current universe. It has no meaning outside of that context.

[haas mark]

DID Time begin at the Big Bang, or just the current universe?

Time is a property of the current universe. It has no meaning outside of that context.

Would you care to explain that to me, please? I have no idea where this comes from.

[Darth Wong]

DID Time begin at the Big Bang, or just the current universe?

Time is a property of the current universe. It has no meaning outside of that context.

Would you care to explain that to me, please? I have no idea where this comes from.

Think of the universe as a big blob of something called "spacetime". Time cannot exist outside of the universe, unless there is another universe which also has this property. Even if there was, it would have its own time, and we would have ours. You are subscribing to the notion that spacetime exists in some kind of larger spacetime; there is no need for this hypothesis.

[haas mark]

Time is a property of the current universe. It has no meaning outside of that context.

Would you care to explain that to me, please? I have no idea where this comes from.

Think of the universe as a big blob of something called "spacetime". Time cannot exist outside of the universe, unless there is another universe which also has this property. Even if there was, it would have its own time, and we would have ours. You are subscribing to the notion that spacetime exists in some kind of larger spacetime; there is no need for this hypothesis.

No, I am questioning why Time has to exist within the universe.

[Darth Wong]

Think of the universe as a big blob of something called "spacetime". Time cannot exist outside of the universe, unless there is another universe which also has this property. Even if there was, it would have its own time, and we would have ours. You are subscribing to the notion that spacetime exists in some kind of larger spacetime; there is no need for this hypothesis.

No, I am questioning why Time has to exist within the universe.

Who cares why? Do you ask why magnesium has to exist within the universe? It just does. We must justify theories, but we do not need to justify observations.

[haas mark]

Think of the universe as a big blob of something called "spacetime". Time cannot exist outside of the universe, unless there is another universe which also has this property. Even if there was, it would have its own time, and we would have ours. You are subscribing to the notion that spacetime exists in some kind of larger spacetime; there is no need for this hypothesis.

No, I am questioning why Time has to exist within the universe.

Who cares why? Do you ask why magnesium has to exist within the universe? It just does. We must justify theories, but we do not need to justify observations.

Okay then, why does it exist within the universe period?

[Darth Wong]

Okay then, why does it exist within the universe period?

You are repeating the previous question. See previous answer.

[haas mark]

Okay then, why does it exist within the universe period?

You are repeating the previous question. See previous answer.

We may not NEED it, but I'd still like to know.

[Darth Wong]

Okay then, why does it exist within the universe period?

You are repeating the previous question. See previous answer.

We may not NEED it, but I'd still like to know.

You are missing the point; you are asking a question for which no answer exists or is necessary. Do you ask why the universe exists? It just does. Time is an intrinsic characteristic of the universe. Asking why time exists is like asking why the universe exists. It just does.

[haas mark]

You are repeating the previous question. See previous answer.

We may not NEED it, but I'd still like to know.

You are missing the point; you are asking a question for which no answer exists

Then how is time only existing within the universe?

or is necessary. Do you ask why the universe exists? It just does. Time is an intrinsic characteristic of the universe.

Bu twe do not know this.

Asking why time exists is like asking why the universe exists. It just does.

I'm not asking why it exists, just why it has to exist WITHIN the universe. Which it might not have to. Refer to the first point.

[Alkondoion]

Who cares why? Do you ask why magnesium has to exist within the universe? It just does.

Forgive me, but that sounds like faith! You have a certainty that magnesium exists in our universe, right? Yet you cannot answer why. It's the age old observation that science offers us an explanation as to 'how?' something hapened and religion offers us an explanation as to 'why?' something happened.

Faith is the assurence of things hoped for,
the certanty of things not known,

Therefore, Faith = Certanty

The certanty of faith is effectivly replaced by the certanty of the intellect.

Anyway, dont think i'm a fundamentalist or anything like that! i am deeply seeded against any kind of organise religion. I'm athiest (admittedly a little agnostic at times) - but i'm working on it! If you want too know where i'm coming from visit spacebattle.com and look for the artical 'FEAR THE FOUNDATION OF RELIGION -- And Why I'm Not a Christian'.

[salm]

Who cares why? Do you ask why magnesium has to exist within the universe? It just does.

Forgive me, but that sounds like faith! You have a certainty that magnesium exists in our universe, right? Yet you cannot answer why.

you can be certain that magnesium exists because see it, god damn it.
it´s observable.
god is not!

[kheegster]

An example of design; science has identified over 100 chemical elements. Their atomic structure displays and intricate mathematical interrelationship of the elements. The periodic table itself points toward obvious design. Such amazing design could not possibly be accidental, a product of chance?

To proof that God exists, we need to see something that does not derive from direct consequence of the laws of nature, eg. miracles. The chemical properties of all matter are direct consequences of the laws of physics, and their creation in stars. They may be orderly to some extent, but order is something that permeates the universe, and is something that can be studied in theoretical physics and mathematics. Subjective perceptions of design are just that, subjective. We could say that God exists because the structure of ice is orderly, but that is plain unnecessary. At the final analysis it does require faith to believe in God.

Edit: If you do want to believe in God, believe in Einstein's God, see sig.

KG

[Darth Wong]

Who cares why? Do you ask why magnesium has to exist within the universe? It just does.

Forgive me, but that sounds like faith! You have a certainty that magnesium exists in our universe, right? Yet you cannot answer why.

Yes I can, you idiot. We can observe it!

It's the age old observation that science offers us an explanation as to 'how?' something hapened and religion offers us an explanation as to 'why?' something happened.

Actually, it does not. Religion cannot answer any question regarding the physical universe whatsoever.

Faith is the assurence of things hoped for, the certanty of things not known,

Magnesium is known, you idiot.

Therefore, Faith = Certanty

Wrong. It is possible to be certain about something without needing faith. You do not need faith to accept that magnesium exists.

The certanty of faith is effectivly replaced by the certanty of the intellect.

The certainty of the intellect is logical and objective. The certainty of faith is false and moronic.

Anyway, dont think i'm a fundamentalist or anything like that! i am deeply seeded against any kind of organise religion. I'm athiest (admittedly a little agnostic at times) - but i'm working on it! If you want too know where i'm coming from visit spacebattle.com and look for the artical 'FEAR THE FOUNDATION OF RELIGION -- And Why I'm Not a Christian'.

I don't know or care what you proclaim to be; you have repeatedly advertised moronic religionist beliefs, no matter what label you choose to put on yourself. If you are not a religionist now, you are a prime candidate for overnight conversion to one.

[Darth Wong]

You are missing the point; you are asking a question for which no answer exists

Then how is time only existing within the universe?

Why shouldn't it?

or is necessary. Do you ask why the universe exists? It just does. Time is an intrinsic characteristic of the universe.

Bu twe do not know this.

Yes we do. Our universe exists. Time exists. We do not know of any part of our universe in which time does not exist. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that time is inextricable from our universe, ie- it is an intrinsic characteristic. Do you have some reasoning for your implicit assumption that time is not necessarily an intrinsic characteristic of our universe?

Asking why time exists is like asking why the universe exists. It just does.

I'm not asking why it exists, just why it has to exist WITHIN the universe. Which it might not have to. Refer to the first point.

There is no first point. You merely ask questions which do not require answers. Asking why time exists only within the universe is like asking why the universe exists at all, or why it must contain mass/energy. There is no answer to that question, nor do we need one. The universe is observed to exist and have certain properties; why ask why?

[Alkondoion]

Yes I can, you idiot. We can observe it!

You seem to have misunderstood. I didn't ask how do we know that magnesium exists - because your right we can observe it. That where science begins - observation. I actually asked WHY does it exist? And don't say that because it was formed in stars millenia ago or even by the big bang, becuase thats just telling HOW it was created...
In short, you can't offer an explanation because there is not scientfic basis for one. However christianity states the god created it, Why? because god wanted too.

Actually, it does not. Religion cannot answer any question regarding the physical universe whatsoever.

Wrong, see the above point.

The certainty of the intellect is logical and objective. The certainty of faith is false and moronic.

I don't know or care what you proclaim to be; you have repeatedly advertised moronic religionist beliefs, no matter what label you choose to put on yourself. If you are not a religionist now, you are a prime candidate for overnight conversion to one

Now, whose being subjective. Your entire reply seems to centre around opinion.

[Darth Wong]

Yes I can, you idiot. We can observe it!

You seem to have misunderstood. I didn't ask how do we know that magnesium exists - because your right we can observe it. That where science begins - observation. I actually asked WHY does it exist? And don't say that because it was formed in stars millenia ago or even by the big bang, becuase thats just telling HOW it was created...

Which is the only question that needs to be asked.

In short, you can't offer an explanation because there is not scientfic basis for one. However christianity states the god created it, Why? because god wanted too.

That is not an answer; that is merely a punt to another question. If this ridiculous "God" exists, then why did he want to? Will you answer that he is inscrutable, and we cannot know his reasons? If so, then you really have no answer, do you?

I don't know or care what you proclaim to be; you have repeatedly advertised moronic religionist beliefs, no matter what label you choose to put on yourself. If you are not a religionist now, you are a prime candidate for overnight conversion to one

Now, whose being subjective. Your entire reply seems to centre around opinion.

Of course, because opinion is the only thing you have presented so far. You have not presented any shred of evidence or reasoning to support any of your claims. In short, you give us nothing but opinions to work with, and then you complain that by criticizing your subjective opinions for their lack of objectivity, we are being subjective!

Where did you learn your definitions of objectivity? Fundie school?