Bizzare argument for god I found

[Guest Slayer-2004]

I asked some christians to come up with an argument for god from my fathers church , and this is something that some 17 year old kid thought up . I suspect it has some problems , but it sounds like a new argument and I wouldnt be surprised if it sly starts to pop up .

 

It basically goes like this .

 

SPACE / TIME ARGUMENT FOR GOD (SAFG)

 

1. Space = time

2. Space had a beggining

3. No physical natural objects can move outside of time

4. Therefore a supernatural object that can live outside of time hade started the universe . It was most likely intelligent .

5. Therefod exists .

 

 

My own personal problem with it is I recall that the big bang was started after a collision of two universes . Hence the removal of the need for this . #4 and #5 seem a bit sketchy as well basically trying to fill the holes with god .

[RedPillAddict]

the fact that no KNOWN natural object can move outside of time is irrelevant. Why did a "supernatural" object that lives outside of time have to start the universe? It makes no sense! We have only begun to study the universe and there is still way too much to learn to start guessing now as to what created it all. Its like trying to explain to an insect how the grocery store works or something.

[Ouroboros]

This is the cosmological argument in just a different version.

 

I asked some christians to come up with an argument for god from my fathers church , and this is something that some 17 year old kid thought up . I suspect it has some problems , but it sounds like a new argument and I wouldnt be surprised if it sly starts to pop up .

 

It basically goes like this .

 

SPACE / TIME ARGUMENT FOR GOD (SAFG)

 

1. Space = time

Already wrong. Space and Time are two separate attributes of the universe. They can’t exist without the other, that’s true, but they’re not equal. Their independent, because you can walk forward and time goes forward, and you can walk backwards and time still goes forward.

 

If that was true, then space could be said equated like this too: X=Y=Z, meaning we live on a line only and not 3D space.

 

2. Space had a beginning

True

 

3. No physical natural objects can move outside of time 

True

 

4. Therefore a supernatural object that can live outside of time hade started the universe . It was most likely intelligent .

Jumping to conclusion of explanation to something that is unknown and unknowable. It's like guessing what's in a locked box.

 

Which one of the supernatural objects? It could be a family of supernatural objects living outside time and space. It could be a whole universe, and we are just one little football among millions of footballs, created in a factory.

 

If there is a super-universe (outside our time and space), there could be supernatural objects there of any kind even non intelligent. And the intelligent ones don’t have to be the ones creating our universe. It could be an automated process.

 

And in a different view, what was before our universe began, we have no idea what it was, if it was a singularity, white hole or brane collision. And even if it might require a catalyst, it still doesn’t require an instigator of intelligence for the process.

 

When it’s raining, there’s a reason why the rain is falling that particular day, but the rain wasn’t started by any intelligent being, it’s just part of a long cycle of events.

 

 

5. Therefod exists .

No, because #2 jump to the conclusion the beginning required intelligence, which it doesn’t.

 

My own personal problem with it is I recall that the big bang was started after a collision of two universes . Hence the removal of the need for this . #4 and #5 seem a  bit sketchy as well basically trying to fill the holes with god .

The Brane Model, or Ekpyrotic Universe Model, which is a fairly new idea, is just (maybe more) plausible than divine interventions to create cosmos.

[- AUB -]

SPACE / TIME ARGUMENT FOR GOD (SAFG)

 

1. Space = time

2. Space had a beggining

3. No physical natural objects can move outside of time

4. Therefore a supernatural object that can live outside of time hade started the universe . It was most likely intelligent .

5. Therefod exists .

 

I rest my case.

 

They have the conclusion that they want, derived from conditioning and tradition, and nudge everything that way. Then sit back and pretend this argument isn’t just rationalising an irrational position. Even if it means making leaps such as to the supernatural, with no evidence for such a thing beyond a hypothetical metaphysic, then to intelligence, which is just anthropomorphication, and then to their god, which is cultural bias. And when they say "space" I assume they mean existence or matter, (the 3rd dimension has no meaning beyond these) in which case science doesn’t exclude the possibility that the universe pre-existed the big bang. See Atheist Universe.

 

Such arguments are doomed, but it's interesting how you thought this may be a new one. There are no new ones, just re-worked old ones, (as they often re submit an argument after it’s been defeated enough times, don't let the window-dressing fool you).

[Ouroboros]

Such arguments are doomed, but it's interesting how you thought this may be a new one. There are no new ones, just re-worked old ones, (as they often re submit an argument after it’s been defeated enough times, don't let the window-dressing fool you).

 

Yes, it's just redressing old ideas in new clothes, and hope someone will fall for the trick.

 

These kinds of arguments rarely is enough to convert anyone, it's merely an argument to give extra support to their own disbeliefs. They falter in their faith, and need an extra crutch to excuse their belief in their imagined friend.

[- AUB -]

Yes all apologism is reassurance and self deception, like Josh McDowels books, sold to educated xtians who feel uncomfortable when reality, science, logic, etc (not to mention their inner sceptic) seems to contradict these primitive superstitions that should have been thrown out when we got poseable thumbs. So along comes a lying git to tell them its OK and they can rest assured that Jesus is a scientifically sound concept, etc. Pathetic. Most never realise it only works on those who are already convinced, until they try that crap on us.

[BlueGiant]

SPACE / TIME ARGUMENT FOR GOD (SAFG)

 

1. Space = time

2. Space had a beggining

3. No physical natural objects can move outside of time 

4. Therefore a supernatural object that can live outside of time hade started the universe . It was most likely intelligent .

5. Therefod exists .

 

 

 

Ok, time to blow this one to the 9th circle of hell and spread it's wreckage across the planes of ice.

 

Space != Time. Now time may be another dimension like the XYZ we are all familiar with (though we cannot alter our own course along it), the characteristics of this are unknown. It is a different dimension, and may play by different rules period (not just appearing to to us). Don't know on that score. So this one is a definate maybe.

 

Space had a beginning: It does? Arent things just relative to other things in space, by placing a boundary, one sets a very specific center point. I do not think that current physics supports this. It would be easier to argue that time has a beginning, and that if space == time, that space therefore would have had a beginning. Models conflict on this, though, I think.

 

No natural objects can move outside of time...: None known to us, but would both that which is outside of time (a consequence of limited time-space) and an object that could, be a natural consequence of such a nature. In that system a true supernatural could not exist. Also, brane theory has some thoughts about gravitons jumping out of this universe, as do other universe models, and jury is still out on which is right.

 

Ok, point 4 requires a leap in logic that is missing a few steps. The inteligence argument needs to be supported as nothing requiring inteligence has been stated. The universe had to start (see zero boundary condition, and also big-bang-crunch theories)? How can a supernatural exist. There is no bridge between the points as well.

 

Given the issues with the proof, a QED does not exist as of yet. Sorry, Monica, no cigar on this one. This is the best that they can do?

 

Oh, and it poses one more problem for the xian user: it works just as well for Zeus as it does for Jehova. Also by ascribinng inteligence to this being (and size doesn't matter, gravity sure as hell isn't all that smart), we pose another problem, and get to chip at any arguments for perfection using good design to argue for inteligence. May not want to tell them this part of the analysis.

 

Anyone else have ideas?

[Amanda]

This is the cosmological argument in just a different version.

Already wrong. Space and Time are two separate attributes of the universe. They can’t exist without the other, that’s true, but they’re not equal. Their independent, because you can walk forward and time goes forward, and you can walk backwards and time still goes forward.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

HanSolo, isn't time an illusion on our subconscious? Time is based on the illuminate characteristics of light, right? We also know that what we see isn't always what it is, as when we see the color of an object... it has absorbed into its being every color but the one we see that is reflected off. Speed is based on time... which is an illusion, right? What does that say about space and distance? Illusions also?

 

We know that absolute knowledge is always imperfect. That has to be confounded by our finite resources of perceptions... that limit us... if there are more ways to perceive, which we have no way of knowing, but in the scope of all things probably is limiting us because that is what makes absolute knowledge illusive.

 

Common theory of the Big Bang does not suggest that we can watch a point in the darkness flash a beginning, but that there is an eternal spectrum in which there is existence without beginning or end, within that the Big Bang formulated. As I understand, the Big Bang started with a wall of light followed by 2 billion years of darkness. Light with subatomic particles, the beginning of the illusion out of this eternal vastness that always was... creates this illusion out of light, darkness, energy fields, and very little matter if any at all. Smoke and mirrors?

 

Where did I go wrong?

[Samurai Tailor]

HanSolo, isn't time an illusion on our subconscious?

No. Time is relative, but not illusory.

Time is based on the illuminate characteristics of light, right?

No idea. Please explain further.

We also know that what we see isn't always what it is, as when we see the color of an object... it has absorbed into its being every color but the one we see that is reflected off.

This is not an illusion either. The brain "sees" certain electromagnetic wavelengths as colors.

Speed is based on time... which is an illusion, right? What does that say about space and distance? Illusions also?

No. Our perceptions are imperfect, certainly, but there is no grounds to conclude that we internally invent foundational items or attributes of the universe.

We know that absolute knowledge is always imperfect.

Do we know that absolutely?

That has to be confounded by our finite resources of perceptions... that limit us... if there are more ways to perceive, which we have no way of knowing, but in the scope of all things probably is limiting us because that is what makes absolute knowledge illusive.

If there are "ways to perceive" to which we have no access, then we never will know about them in any meaningful way. An extra-perceptive being could tell us about them, but we would be limited to taking its word, as it would be unable to show us.

Common theory of the Big Bang does not suggest that we can watch a point in the darkness flash a beginning, but that there is an eternal spectrum in which there is existence without beginning or end, within that the Big Bang formulated. As I understand, the Big Bang started with a wall of light followed by 2 billion years of darkness. Light with subatomic particles, the beginning of the illusion out of this eternal vastness that always was...  creates this illusion out of light, darkness, energy fields, and very little matter if any at all. Smoke and mirrors?

 

Where did I go wrong?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would start with the Big Bang. Specifically, your description resembles none with which I am familiar.

[Ouroboros]

Amanda! I haven’t seen many postings from you lately, been busy?

 

HanSolo, isn't time an illusion on our subconscious? Time is based on the illuminate characteristics of light, right? We also know that what we see isn't always what it is, as when we see the color of an object... it has absorbed into its being every color but the one we see that is reflected off. Speed is based on time... which is an illusion, right? What does that say about space and distance? Illusions also?

Yes and no. Our personal and subjective perception of time and space is an illusion since it’s recorded by our eyes and brain from a delayed effect from events around us. But there is objective time and space that can be measured with “tools of the trade”, and here we get into the science that time and space is related (not equal) and also relative between objects.

 

We know that absolute knowledge is always imperfect. That has to be confounded by our finite resources of perceptions... that limit us... if there are more ways to perceive, which we have no way of knowing, but in the scope of all things probably is limiting us because that is what makes absolute knowledge illusive.

I’m not sure what absolute knowledge means, but if you mean some kind of absolute truth, then I don’t agree.

 

Absolute truth does exist, but it’s hard for us to know what is absolute truth or not. We can only measure and test our findings with the tools that we have, and we have to trust the tools when we do it.

 

Common theory of the Big Bang does not suggest that we can watch a point in the darkness flash a beginning, but that there is an eternal spectrum in which there is existence without beginning or end, within that the Big Bang formulated. As I understand, the Big Bang started with a wall of light followed by 2 billion years of darkness. Light with subatomic particles, the beginning of the illusion out of this eternal vastness that always was...  creates this illusion out of light, darkness, energy fields, and very little matter if any at all. Smoke and mirrors?

In a sense everything is just a game of energy dancing around and creating the illusions of matter, space and time. Still nothing of this proves the God exists, neither does it proves that he doesn’t. The science of Big Bang is just an applied theory to observed phenomenon, and there are holes in Big Bang theory and complementing hypothesis are being made as we speak.

 

Where did I go wrong?

You didn’t go wrong. You only observed the ideas of space and time, and the effects of the Big Bang, but you missed that the concept of God is still beyond our comprehension and knowledge.

 

Where our knowledge and understanding ends, faith kicks in.

 

The steps in the topic header require a leap of faith between point 3 and 4, and not rational or logical reasoning. Point 4 is NOT automatically true from point 3.

 

---

 

Amanda, you're doing a good job... you're thinking independent and that's the start of a meaningful understanding. Even if things seems confusing and mixed up, it clears up with time. And no one claims they have a clear picture of life, things, universe and everything. We're all searching and learning.

[Amanda]

but you missed that the concept of God is still beyond our comprehension and knowledge.

 

Where our knowledge and understanding ends, faith kicks in.

 

The steps in the topic header require a leap of faith between point 3 and 4, and not rational or logical reasoning. Point 4 is NOT automatically true from point 3.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

HanSolo, you need not hold me suspect of pulling a God thing on you. I give up trying to explain my unique reference to God, as too many people have too many other preconceived notions from too many other people... so why go there... especially with you?! Truth is truth, including science. You've helped change my mind about a lot of things, and thank you. (Especially about Adam being 6000 years ago, that really threw a lot of my previous theories... needed readjusting. Thank you!) I tried to contribute, but oh well....

 

Now I don't understand this point 3 or 4 remark. Nothing is numbered. I just want to know how YOU understand it. I promise, no stupid tricks about God...ok? Gosh, what a girl, who happens to believe in Christ, has to do to get some respect around here.

 

Let me ask you this... if there was a Big Bang, and I think so... then it had to happen inside of something. Isn't that what Stephen Hawking suggests? If we were to watch a flash point, it would have to happen within a field, unless the field is created simultaneously, right? I thought Hawking said that there was no creator, this field always existed, these limits of the universe, and can not be created or distroyed... right? The Big Bang probably expands within it and then collapse back into itself.

 

Time, therefore speed and space is said to be relative... an illusion to us from our perspective... and ours is not the true perspective, right? If we say truth is relative to us, that would be rather arrogant... and not appropriate, as our sight of the sun is where it was 8 minutes ago. Absolute knowledge from our perspective is always evolving too, to take into consideration other aspects as we discover them. Light itself can not be the true indication of truth, just a messenger of its discoveries, but not accurate timing. Unless light preceded everything else? How do we know absolutely, or is it like I said... there are no absolutes? Knowledge is finite by boundaries of our perception?

 

Now to complicate things further... if a tree fell and nothing was around to hear it, does sound exist? Nothing to interpret the wave, so it would not be sound! If additionally there was not sight or hearing or touch... would everything be just energy fields and only exists by and through our perceptions? Would that mean nothing exists as we know it if there were not life? That would mean we created this reality, right? I'm just curious! I promise... no AhhhHa, there's a God!

[Ouroboros]

QUOTE(HanSolo @ Jul 8 2005, 12:07 PM)

but you missed that the concept of God is still beyond our comprehension and knowledge.

Where our knowledge and understanding ends, faith kicks in.

The steps in the topic header require a leap of faith between point 3 and 4, and not rational or logical reasoning. Point 4 is NOT automatically true from point 3.

HanSolo, you need not hold me suspect of pulling a God thing on you. I give up trying to explain my unique reference to God, as too many people have too many other preconceived notions from too many other people... so why go there... especially with you?! Truth is truth, including science. You've helped change my mind about a lot of things, and thank you. (Especially about Adam being 6000 years ago, that really threw a lot of my previous theories... needed readjusting. Thank you!) I tried to contribute, but oh well....

I didn’t suspect you of pulling a God thing on me, I just tried to reply to your question and make the connection of life as we perceive it to how we trust and believe things. You made comments about how things are illusions, and I just took it a bit further; nothing more, and nothing less. There were no ill intentions from my side.

 

And you do contribute. Did you read the last part of my post?

Amanda, you're doing a good job... you're thinking independent and that's the start of a meaningful understanding. Even if things seems confusing and mixed up, it clears up with time. And no one claims they have a clear picture of life, things, universe and everything. We're all searching and learning.

I think you have started a journey of free-thought, if you want it or not.

 

Now I don't understand this point 3 or 4 remark. Nothing is numbered. I just want to know how YOU understand it. I promise, no stupid tricks about God...ok? Gosh, what a girl, who happens to believe in Christ, has to do to get some respect around here. 

Calm down, I’m not disrespecting you. And the numbers were the references to the topic starter. How the argument goes from point 3 to point 4. And I’m not worried about any tricks about God. I didn’t think you would react like this from my posting…

 

I’ll have to write later, need to do stuff. C U L8R…

[Amanda]

I didn’t suspect you of pulling a God thing on me, I just tried to reply to your question and make the connection of life as we perceive it to how we trust and believe things. You made comments about how things are illusions, and I just took it a bit further; nothing more, and nothing less. There were no ill intentions from my side.

 

I think you have started a journey of free-thought, if you want it or not.

Calm down, I’m not disrespecting you. And the numbers were the references to the topic starter. How the argument goes from point 3 to point 4. And I’m not worried about any tricks about God. I didn’t think you would react like this from my posting…

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks HanSolo. It is just that I've been seeing posts (not from you) that seem to suggest that I'm trying to push God, or Jesus, or my theories, and I'm not trying to push anything! It is just an exchange of ideas... nothing more. I really wanted to learn what you were saying, and I suspected you thought I had a hidden agenda... I did not (maybe some of these posts are instilling paranoia on my part ). I thought if I clarified myself, I could have you just share with me what you know... without thinking my true calculations were for entrapment. Everyone knows I could NEVER entrap you, especially when it comes to science. I was just reassuring you... I know it too. As usual, you said nothing out of line at all!