Shameless plug

[Sethomas]

I've recently added a writings section to my webpage, which now includes my rough outline of metaphysical consequence and my newly improved proof of god's existance. I need people to critique my stuff as much as possible, so please pick away at them. Since it uses frames, I can't link directly to it, so my webpage is this: http://home.uchicago.edu/~stp .

[Perndog]

Why does the force that transcends time and gives the universe a little nudge to get started have to be God? Why can't it be some other transcendent being, or more probably, an undetected kind of particle that whizzes around in multiple dimensions? The existence of such a particle is no less viable than the existence of God.

[CaptainBubba]

Essentially that proof consists of a question whose answer you assume to be understood.

For the Big Bang to take place, there must have been a force from beyond the universe that acted upon the point-particle universe in transcendence of the nature of time.

This merely establishes a question which must be answered, and though very inetersting, in no way suggests anything in particular regarding what actually acted upon the point-particle.

Unless your definition of god is very vague or general.

[Immortal Goat]

It is simply not possible to prove God's existence with science, as the two are basically opposite forces.

[kahljorn]

"Note: there may be several more non-extended dimensions of space according to some factions of physics, most namely String Theory"

AND NOSTRODAMUS :O:O I forget what it's called, Something something sun and earth.


Interesting stuff, even though I think differently than most of it. Kind of like what I'm doing with my page, but less confusing.

[Sethomas]

It is simply not possible to prove God's existence with science, as the two are basically opposite forces.

That's a pretty weak cop-out. Both theology and science are modes of thinking that rationalize some facet of existence. To say that they can't possibly coalesce is shere ignorance. If you can make a valid point against mine, feel free to state it. Don't just blindly object to the idea.

This merely establishes a question which must be answered, and though very inetersting, in no way suggests anything in particular regarding what actually acted upon the point-particle.

Unless your definition of god is very vague or general.

My point was that whatever responsible force acts above the rules of time and space. Finding the nature of god is an endeavor I will take up, but not here. As far as this discussion is concerned, my conclusion of god is indeed very general.

Why does the force that transcends time and gives the universe a little nudge to get started have to be God? Why can't it be some other transcendent being, or more probably, an undetected kind of particle that whizzes around in multiple dimensions?

Some other transcendent being? Like what, an angel? It really sounds like you're pulling shit out of your ass. A particle can't whiz around in multiple dimensions when all the dimensions are contracted down to the Planck length. It'd be more viable to suggest that there was a particle interaction in a parallel universe, but I already explained that the presence of quantum gravity would nullify any effects it could have.

[Immortal Goat]

Ok, Seth, I get it, you want a more intelligent response than what I said earlier. Ok, how does this sound?

Although one can believe in God and science at the same time, science cannot prove the existence of a God. In science, there are many unanswered questions that people explain by saying that "God must have started that ." or "It was God who made the first paramecium move", but the lack of explanation in no way proves God's existence, it only proves that there is a lot more for the human race to learn.

[Perndog]

I was pulling shit out of my ass. Because, from a scientific standpoint, that's the same thing theists are doing when they use this proof. You have the logical conclusion that something transcendent must have acted on the universe to get it started, but you don't include the obvious fact that it could just as easily be an arbitrary, unthinking physical force as an intelligent creator. You may have a very general definition of God, as far as your proof goes, but if you weren't thinking of a specific god, you wouldn't have bothered to try and prove his existence in the first place - I mean, you say yourself, you're trying to prove God's existence. Not "a god," but God with a capital G. And the fact remains that no matter how sound the proof may be, the only way to correlate it with a specific entity or force is with a leap of faith.

[Sethomas]

Another brief run-through of coeternalism is up. So BUMP.

[Immortal Goat]

Damn, I thought I recognized this thread. Just fuckin let sleeping dogs lie. God's existence van NOT be proven by any human means. For there to be proof, God would have to reveal itself to all of us in such a manner as to dispose of all doubt. You simply brought up the part that has scientists stumped and said "There it is! That is what God is! He must have done it, because scientists don't know what the fuck it is!" Well, guess what. People have been using God to explain things for all of recorded history, including rain. And we all know how rain is REALLY made, right?

[Helm]

For the Big Bang to take place, there must have been a force from beyond the universe that acted upon the point-particle universe in transcendence of the nature of time.

Cpt is right. You are making a demand, you're not proving anything. What should and must exist according to a mode of thinking does not nec. agree with what indeed comes to pass. The difference between demanding something to be so and actually proving it to be so should be obvious to you.

At a point in time (not not-yet-time as it may be) where time as you say is not yet an extended dimension our (generally applicable) concept of cause and effect (as expressed in this case in the sequence of god setting the universe in motion) does not apply to these special conditions since cause and effect is dependent on the presupposition of linear motion of time. The specific time sequence in which your god wills the universe in motion is thusly a logical irrelevancy when time is not yet a linear context.

So much for your proof of god's existence. Insert coin to continue.

[kahljorn]

I can prove God's "Existence", but only because I understand his true nature.

[Helm]

I'd tell you to humour me with your proof but somehow I'm pretty certain it will be a complete waste of my time. If you however strongly dissagree with my estimate then by all means, explain to me the true nature of god. Just no poems, please. No number or rolleyes emoticons can thorougly portray my disposition.

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by Immortal Goat

Ok, Seth, I get it, you want a more intelligent response than what I said earlier. Ok, how does this sound?

Although one can believe in God and science at the same time, science cannot prove the existence of a God. In science, there are many unanswered questions that people explain by saying that "God must have started that ." or "It was God who made the first paramecium move", but the lack of explanation in no way proves God's existence, it only proves that there is a lot more for the human race to learn.

When exactly did the split take place anyway? By this, I mean the two opposing theories, the metaphysical/theological and the scientific. It's odd that once upon a time theology had the authority, then science gained the authority, and now it seems that science has once again returned to the metaphysical now that a wall, so to speak, has been met. Can they be merely two ways to explain something that our language doesn't have words for or that is not encompassed in the range of our given senses. Even science, with it's electron microscopes, ect is working way beyond the scope of our normal senses and we've learned to trust THAT technology on faith even though the general masses can't see, or in come cases, interpret that data. What's the difference in putting that same faith in religion?

[Immortal Goat]

I do believe in a god, don't get me wrong. I just do not believe that it's existence can be proven using scientific methods. As you said, Kelly, some things are just beyond human comprehension.

Kahl, you do not understand god's true nature. No-one does. And no-one ever will.

[kellychaos]

Our own existence, or even that of things around us, can't be proven totally through science. Do you ever find it odd that this scientific wall in reference to quantum physics is just about at the same point as the wall in reference to neuroscience/microbiology? In other words, we're having the same difficulty in extroverted discovery as we are in introverted discovery. I find it an interesting dichotomy of our will of discovery. Will the two meet? Will one explain the other ... or IS it the other?

[Sethomas]

Just fuckin let sleeping dogs lie.

Wake up hypocrite, I didn't bring up this thread for my god proof but rather for the MC articles I added. Try to keep up.

For there to be proof, God would have to reveal itself to all of us in such a manner as to dispose of all doubt.

That's "proof" by your own convoluted definition. Why would any god "dispose of all doubt"? Wouldn't that take away the fun of it?

You simply brought up the part that has scientists stumped

No, it's the point at which science no longer has anything to say. There is no scientific mystery about what happened before the big bang: nothing happened because there was no time. That was my original point entirely.

What should and must exist according to a mode of thinking does not nec. agree with what indeed comes to pass.

You still fail to demonstrate an alternative mode of thinking that adequately puts the issue to rest.

The specific time sequence in which your god wills the universe in motion is thusly a logical irrelevancy when time is not yet a linear context.

I never said he did it in a linear manner of cause and effect, that was your own assumption. I actually believe something quite different, which was vaguely described in the other two articles I have online. I'm currently working on a longer piece to that end, but I doubt you'd have the patience to read it.

So much for your proof of god's existence. Insert coin to continue.

OMG, I was OWNED by your concise rebuttal!

[Immortal Goat]

You still fail to see the point, Seth. It isn't that scientists have NOTHING to say, it's that they have nothing to say RIGHT NOW. They have yet to figure out what caused all of that stuff to happen, and you are saying that it was God. God may have caused it to happen, but just because we don't know for sure doesn't mean that it was God.

And also, about taking away the "fun of it", wouldn't trying to find definitive proof yourself take away everyone else's fun, anyway?

[Zhukov]

Haha. I don't think Big Bang theorists will ever think up something. Maybe Dark Matter can help?

[Sethomas]

Originally Posted by Immortal Goat

You still fail to see the point, Seth. It isn't that scientists have NOTHING to say, it's that they have nothing to say RIGHT NOW. They have yet to figure out what caused all of that stuff to happen, and you are saying that it was God. God may have caused it to happen, but just because we don't know for sure doesn't mean that it was God.

Do try to keep up with the conversation. To say that something happened before time began is a simple logical inconsistency. That was my point. Advanced knowledge can't change that.

[Immortal Goat]

Time doesn't truly exist, it is a human invention. Dinosaurs did not know anything about time, nor did the cave men. Existence has always been around, whether it be in thi galaxy or not. This galaxy is relatively new compared to others. Do they have the same "god" you speak of, or were they all accidents and our galaxy is the only one that has "god"?

[Sethomas]

Bullshit. If time were a human abstraction, you'd have to throw out Special and General Relativity as well as quantum mechanics.

[Rez]

IT'S FUNNY WHEN GOD MAKES A CHURCH FULL OF OLD LADIES CRUMBLE AND FALL APART ISN'T IT?!

HEATHEN!

[FS]

You don't need to be conscious of time to experience it, and dinosaurs of course experienced time. When one thing happens and then another thing happens, an animal realizes they did not happen at the same time nor does he mix up the order of events.

Besides, it's the tree falling in the woods. Regardless of presence, it causes vibrations in the air that qualify as sound whether or not there's an ear around to catch it.

Still, much as I lack knowledge about the specifics of Big Bang theory, I disagree that the existence of God can be proven scientifically. For one thing, theory is theory - it's not proven fact that is claimed to rule out everything else possible. For another, as the human mind can't truly understand infinity, I don't believe we're equipped to speculate on what could and would happen in the absence of time and space. Lastly, and probably most importantly, the failure to answer a question does not prove the answer must be God. To an objective and logical mind, the answer is as much God as it is aliens, nothing and magic.

[CaptainBubba]

So what is your definition of god, Seth? Don't you need one before you can prove it's existence?