The problem with disbelieving in God due to the "Who/What created God?" argument is that the same argument can be said for any First Cause, rather it possess intent/purpose or not.
We must accept that at some point something has either always existed (eternal) or something has come into existence from nothingness (uncreated/self-created).
Has man not already come to the conclusion the big bang created everything we know in existence today? Having said that, considering this universe was created from nothing rather than something, how can we say for sure our universe is the sole universe in existence? How do we not know in some extreme distant parallel dimension(s) there isn't a neighboring universe(s) that may eventually overlap themselves like galaxies within our own universe?
If we can agree the big bang gave birth to our own universe, there's no way for us to know it hasn't happened before or after elsewhere beyond the bounds of the universe as we know it today. Way too many IF's IMO. Belief in a Creator sounds so much more... IDK, sound.
Traveling to the depths of the universe and back discovering and uncovering anything and everything... would that be enough to discredit entirely the existence of an ultimate Creator? It's my belief the truth isn't 'out there' but rather right here in our own backyard.
No. Actually cosmic inflation is the leading theory now. It just makes up for a few mathematical errors. I mean somewhat similar, but a little different. Interesting stuff.
And this also allows for many more Universes. AND infinite Universe theory would mean that parallel and ultimate Universes have to happen given enough time.
However, no one knows what came BEFORE our Universe. We don't have the information. We can only go back to something like a fraction of a second after the Big Bang but we can't get to the point of origin. Regardless of where you go there will always be a question of "where'd that come from?"
My issue is when Creationists (not talking about you, or talking about most, but some do do this) are like: "Where'd the Big Bang come from?" and you answer that you don't know. Then you ask the question: "Where did God come from?" and they'll be like: "Oh he just is" or "We aren't able to comprehend." and that's a double standard.
The problem with disbelieving in God due to the "Who/What created God?" argument is that the same argument can be said for any First Cause, rather it possess intent/purpose or not.
We must accept that at some point something has either always existed (eternal) or something has come into existence from nothingness (uncreated/self-created).
Either one fits perfectly with theism/deism.
If I'm understanding this correctly this is the same thing I'm trying to say, just in reverse.
One thing I've noticed about religious people over the years (and I realize that this is a very general stereotype that certainly doesn't apply to everyone) is that they do not feel that they have any burden of proof. At the same time, they want any scientific theory to be absolutely air-tight. It seems like a clear double-standard.
It is. Somewhere along the lines, many people came to believe that it was the duty of the non-believers to prove the existence of their god before they could deny his existence. Many use it as their crutch. They feel secure in their beliefs as long as they can say "you can't prove me wrong" to whomever they discuss the subject with.
Most people I've met that I felt are true believers rarely make an attempt to justify their beliefs. Faith is irrational, otherwise there would be no 'faith' involved. It's kind of interesting, I can respect those who claim they just can't explain their faith rather than those who make fervent attempts to justify it.
neither side can "prove" anything...this arguement is tired in here
"IF" there is a creator(s) then obviously they would design in a way that makes it impossible to prove, cause it would defeat any purpose life has here if we "knew"...
all we can go on is gut feelings and "evidence" and THERE IS legit evidence for an after life...
there is NONE for the lack of one, but to the defense of that I am not sure how you could ever have evidence for the lack of an afterlife...doesn't seem possible...you can break down the existance of the universe all the way to the end but it will never prove a damn thing as far as the ultimate "how" of something coming from nothing, like the thread title says...
neither side can "prove" anything...this arguement is tired in here
"IF" there is a creator(s) then obviously they would design in a way that makes it impossible to prove, cause it would defeat any purpose life has here if we "knew"...
all we can go on is gut feelings and "evidence" and THERE IS legit evidence for an after life...
there is NONE for the lack of one, but to the defense of that I am not sure how you could ever have evidence for the lack of an afterlife...doesn't seem possible...you can break down the existance of the universe all the way to the end but it will never prove a damn thing as far as the ultimate "how" of something coming from nothing, like the thread title says...
Why does it always seem like these discussions take two steps backward when you post?
The thing of it is, the burden of proof isn't on him. You ask for him to disprove the existence of an ultimate creator. I would simply ask for you to prove it or at least begin to prove it.
I was just speaking hypothetically. I wasn't insinuating that anyone has to prove anything. I was just tossing the idea/concept out there leaving it open for intelligent discussion/debate. At this point in my life, I'm no longer hell-bent on 'I must have the facts or else it's rubbish!' steez. I believe I've evolved past that and come to terms (IMO) there's something out there far greater than you and I. That something is God.
Quote:
Reading different theories on how the universe was formed, picking them apart and then exhaustively throwing your hands up and saying, "it must be a deity because I can't explain it any other way" is not proof of existence. That is only proof of the limitations of our own minds.
I have not come to the conclusion as you put it 'because it can't be explained any other way' ... it's more like a spiritual awakening. It's more like being a new creation. The old is gone, the new is born. Life truly begins. The life God envisioned for me. That's not a copout from lack of an explanation - that's just my position and new way of life now that I've become a disciple.
Quote:
If you simply 'feel' that there is an ultimate creator and cannot prove it, then there is no sense in questioning others' subjective opinions on the matter, because you have already given in to blind faith.
I'm not quite sure I'm following you entirely here RBA. Are you saying an open discussion on matters as such shouldn't even be discussed if one has already arrived at the 'blind faith' conclusion? Sharing and yes, even questioning (as long as you do so in a respectful manner) is all part of growing intellectually. Seeing/hearing other's perspective on topics as such I find highly intriguing. IMO, there's nothing wrong with discussing these things and/or questioning other's beliefs/positions as long as we're all respectful in the process.
Quote:
One thing I've noticed about religious people over the years (and I realize that this is a very general stereotype that certainly doesn't apply to everyone) is that they do not feel that they have any burden of proof. At the same time, they want any scientific theory to be absolutely air-tight. It seems like a clear double-standard.
I've never been one to buy into the 'burden of proof' stance. 'You prove it!' ... 'No, you prove it!' ... garbage. I'm not demanding anyone prove anything, and obviously I can't prove my God exists, because the ultimate design of my God is a belief based on faith. Just as you say religious people want scientific theory to be absolutely watertight, so as do atheists require that 'blind faith' be explained logically and toss the burden of proof in the religious person's court.
You're right, it is a double-standard, on both fronts. It seems you're attempting to make the point religious people are more prone to use the 'burden of proof' card versus atheists. I find that hard to believe, personally. Isn't it typically the atheists who are saying 'where's your proof?!' ... ? Maybe my perception is off on that.
You're right, it is a double-standard, on both fronts. It seems you're attempting to make the point religious people are more prone to use the 'burden of proof' card versus atheists. I find that hard to believe, personally. Isn't it typically the atheists who are saying 'where's your proof?!' ... ? Maybe my perception is off on that.
I've always figured the burden of proof lies with whomever is proposing an idea. I understand where you're coming from, that you do not feel the need to prove your beliefs, therefore the burden of proof is not your responsibility.
I can live and let live, but when it comes to teaching creationism in schools and the like, that's where I demand proof.
I mean really dude, how can you make a claim oh how "I ALWAYS" make these discussions worse without knowing that?
ask LOJ or anyone else, they will claim it is all I talk about even...
I don't know if you are a long timer under a new acount or a just a new member but you are NOT familiar with my posts about this...
I am fairly new, but I have lurked in numerous threads on this subject and see you in each one. However, I must not have been around when it was convenient for you to spell it out, rather than abbreviate it and expect everyone to catch on.
So, how exactly do near death experiences prove an afterlife.?
Re: When Nothing Created Everything
