who is god

[achingale]

I saw a clip - I switched it off because I found it so abhorrent - of a devout Christian in America saying that the heathen Japanese deserved the earthquake and tsunami. This woman had prayed for it to happen and God had answered her prayers. I found it totally disgusting and if that view was held by more than her then I would not entertain the idea of God ever again! Thankfully folk like her are few and far between but we spout off about Muslim fanatics when Christians can be just as fanatical.

[weezer 316]

Yes this is religion for you. They think natural disasters occur at god whim. Nothing of course to do with the fact japans sitting on top of one of the most active areas in earth!

EU must be next, its systematic attempts to sideline religion in its offical running, such as the lack of a mention of god in the proposed constitution a few years back, must be really pissing the almighty one off.

Although we might be behind the poor poeple of Dover, pennsylvania on his hitlist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmil...chool_District

[silverlady]

I saw a clip - I switched it off because I found it so abhorrent - of a devout Christian in America saying that the heathen Japanese deserved the earthquake and tsunami. This woman had prayed for it to happen and God had answered her prayers. I found it totally disgusting and if that view was held by more than her then I would not entertain the idea of God ever again! Thankfully folk like her are few and far between but we spout off about Muslim fanatics when Christians can be just as fanatical.

Its sad when people have that attitude - so un-God-like, judgemental and unloving. Thankfully most of us Christians do not subscribe to that point of view.

[secrets in symmetry]

Ok, let's suppose I manage to create my own Universe.

Question number 1:

Will I have any control over the Laws of Nature in my Universe, will they be the same as the Laws of Nature in this old Universe, or will they be chosen at random from the set of all possible Laws of Nature?

Question number 2:

If I manage to create my own Universe, I will be its God. Would I want, or should I expect, to be worshipped by any Life that may evolve in it?

[Aaldtimer]

Ok, let's suppose I manage to create my own Universe.

Question number 1:

Will I have any control over the Laws of Nature in my Universe, will they be the same as the Laws of Nature in this old Universe, or will they be chosen at random from the set of all possible Laws of Nature?

Question number 2:

If I manage to create my own Universe, I will be its God. Would I want, or should I expect, to be worshipped by any Life that may evolve in it?

Q1...no

Q2...no


A1...Yer heid's burst!

[secrets in symmetry]

Your answers are a bit terse. What do you base them on?

[weezer 316]

Your answers are a bit terse. What do you base them on?

In the name of the wee man.....after all this are you asknig people to evidence thier answers!!

Either you are listening to us lot or your a hypocrite. Im fine either way though.

In answer to your questions though....

1: Who knows. id suspect that there are multiple universes and the laws are different in each. Saying that, this is theoretical. We simply dont know is the honest answer. However, Authers such as Martin Rees (a christian and scientist) concluded that is there was even a small chance in some things, like the strong nucleaur force, then it would be impossible for life as we know it to evolve.

Again though, we dont know.

2. If you create a universe then you would indeed be its god. Why worship by that universes inhabitants would matter when you already posess an such an incredible amount of power I will leave you to answer. It would also raise the question why you would want to create a universe in the universe in the first place.

Anyway, im not expcting an answer to the point above, or the ones raised earlier in the thread, but one would be greatly appreciated.

[secrets in symmetry]

In the name of the wee man.....after all this are you asknig people to evidence thier answers!!

Either you are listening to us lot or your a hypocrite. Im fine either way though.

It's neither of the above. I am trying to help you understand.

In answer to your questions though....

1: Who knows. id suspect that there are multiple universes and the laws are different in each. Saying that, this is theoretical. We simply dont know is the honest answer. However, Authers such as Martin Rees (a christian and scientist) concluded that is there was even a small chance in some things, like the strong nucleaur force, then it would be impossible for life as we know it to evolve.

Again though, we dont know.

No, the multiple universes suggestion isn't theoretical, it's a giant change from the direction of 20th century science. You have no idea, and you are just speculating with no evidence whatsoever. Isn't that what you said I was doing?

Now you are coming to important things. Small changes in parameters of the Laws of our Universe, but without changing the Laws themselves, always lead to big and important changes in the Universe itself. Most of these eliminate the possibility of life as we know it. You are then left with the Weak Anthropic Principle that the Universe is the way it is because we are here, which doesn't really explain anything. OR to avoid the Strong Anthropic Principle you have to postulate gazillions of universes, each with their own Laws of Nature, and we obviously just happen to live in the only one that supports us. Reductionist science enters a new phase, one which they are very uncomfortable with.

2. If you create a universe then you would indeed be its god. Why worship by that universes inhabitants would matter when you already posess an such an incredible amount of power I will leave you to answer. It would also raise the question why you would want to create a universe in the universe in the first place.

I thought our Universe was supposed to be an accident, nothing but a big quantum fluctuation, and its creation was inevitable according to some of the scientists you worship. So how come you think I would have to be powerful to create my own Universe? Are you saying I would have to be a God to create it?

[Walter Ego]

I thought our Universe was supposed to be an accident, nothing but a big quantum fluctuation, and its creation was inevitable according to some of the scientists you worship. So how come you think I would have to be powerful to create my own Universe? Are you saying I would have to be a God to create it?

That has to be one of the most clumsy and laughable attempts to twist someones statement that I have seen in a very, very long time.

[secrets in symmetry]

That has to be one of the most clumsy and laughable attempts to twist someones statement that I have seen in a very, very long time.

On the contrary Mr Ego. I am helping him think for himself instead of quoting the Word of the Scientists he Worships.

[weezer 316]

It's neither of the above. I am trying to help you understand.

No, the multiple universes suggestion isn't theoretical, it's a giant change from the direction of 20th century science. You have no idea, and you are just speculating with no evidence whatsoever. Isn't that what you said I was doing?

Now you are coming to important things. Small changes in parameters of the Laws of our Universe, but without changing the Laws themselves, always lead to big and important changes in the Universe itself. Most of these eliminate the possibility of life as we know it. You are then left with the Weak Anthropic Principle that the Universe is the way it is because we are here, which doesn't really explain anything. OR to avoid the Strong Anthropic Principle you have to postulate gazillions of universes, each with their own Laws of Nature, and we obviously just happen to live in the only one that supports us. Reductionist science enters a new phase, one which they are very uncomfortable with.

I thought our Universe was supposed to be an accident, nothing but a big quantum fluctuation, and its creation was inevitable according to some of the scientists you worship. So how come you think I would have to be powerful to create my own Universe? Are you saying I would have to be a God to create it?

Firstly, I didnt say you were speculating without no evidence. Speculating is indeed what I am doing, based on string theory, saying an 11 dimensional view of a multiverse seems to be the way. I say seems you see simply as there isnt enough evidence to confirm it. Hence the reason I say, clearly, we dont know and that it is theoretical. Its a theory that matches our observations. it will no doubt be quite some time before its either proven or disproven.

You on the other hand take as fact the existence of god. Thats what I have a go at you for, proclaiming a god as fact with no evidence. Your inability to see the difference in these points is the basic problem you have and until that changes your stuck.

Secondly, no you wouldnt have to have god like powers to create the universe, as the powers that created this universe were natural. Therefore by default it is possible that you could create a universe. Who knows, one day we might do it ourselves. I suppose at that point anyone who still believes in god will have a problem in that it didnt take god like powers to create a universe, just an understanding of natural forces. Still, im sure ignorance of the level you exist in will still have a home when that happens and they will just chirp something else.

Now, fancy answering why a artificially created universe's beings would need to worship its creators? Or are we just going to ignore that question for the 50th time this thread?

[weezer 316]

And a few more things, not that you are going to heed them anyway:

I dont worship scientists. I apply reason, funnily enough the men and women who have peeled back the secrets of the universe and things within it have done the same thing. If they had been satisfied with the lazy, default "god did it" answer that religious apologists attribute to everything we dont understand then the hospitals you have and god knows what else wouldn't have come into existence and we would go to chapel and pray instead of go to school and learn.

Secondly, and for the 100th time, what evidence is there for your god of the gaps? And thats what hes is, god of the gaps.

Lastly, who designed the designer?

[RecQuery]

This thread pops up every so often and after the last one I tried to avoid reading this but screw it I'm scrubbing in.

EDIT: That being said are there any outstanding points or am I going to have to read everything in the thread.

[donnick]

I was recomended a book called "the shack" by WM Paul Young just finished reading it and it was very good and helpfull made me do a lot off thinking and seemed to make sence in the mubo jumbo world .thank you Keep on Trucking for the recomendation ..

[weezer 316]

Recquery,

It has went somthing like this:

The bible is true

Then shown where it is false (creation of humanity for example)

God moves back to being creator of the universe, a much less personal god, and why the series of events that led to life, which most theists seem to accept, was to much of a conicidence and must had had a designer given the complexity of it all

Its pointed out any designer would be even more complex than the series of phenomona they are attacking and therefore by default, even less likely

Thiests attack narrow mindedness of athiests as they are out of arguments

Athiests point out they would belive in god if there was evidence of his existence

Thiest then says you cant disprove god

Athiest says you cant disprove a spaghetti monster that dreamed the world into existence and lives in the sombrero galaxy and farts bee gees tunes. It doesnt mean that creature exists.

Thiest cites "perspnal expererience" as existence of god although when asked to share they refuse

Athiest asks why they dont believe in Thor/another god and why they have chosen abrahamic relgions

Thiest starts quoting bible or makes some other forceful statements ("Belief trumps fact" etc) and hope that convinces you

Athiest points out 2+2 doesnt equal 5 even if you belive it with all our heart

Thiest semi-retires claiming faith ihas been strengthened (a sure sign they know the games up but refuse to accept it) and goes back to put god to all unknowns in the universe (god of the gaps)





You can apply that template to most arguments with theists

[weezer 316]

I would strongly recommend the god delusion. That will truly help you make sense of the world and crucially, religions place within it. I am even willing to lend you my copy!

[secrets in symmetry]

Weezy's summary is about as accurate as his opening description of the motion of galaxies. That's the one with the hints that he was out of his depth. He knows a bit about a lot, but his knowledge is shallow and, as far as I can see, he doesn't actually understand very much. Nor does he understand my posts, possibly because he's too busy religiously attacking those he thinks he's at war with.

Could it be that theist isn't in his dictionary?

Weezy, I'll pick your previous posts to bits some other time.

[secrets in symmetry]

Firstly, I didnt say you were speculating without no evidence. Speculating is indeed what I am doing, based on string theory, saying an 11 dimensional view of a multiverse seems to be the way. I say seems you see simply as there isnt enough evidence to confirm it. Hence the reason I say, clearly, we dont know and that it is theoretical. Its a theory that matches our observations. it will no doubt be quite some time before its either proven or disproven.

First of all, the postulated 11 dimensional theory is M Theory, which not only hasn't made any predictions that can be tested, but the "theory" itself is unknown so you can't say it matches our observations. It's not known whether M Theory exists at all, never mind what its predictions might be concerning possible multiverses.

You on the other hand take as fact the existence of god. Thats what I have a go at you for, proclaiming a god as fact with no evidence. Your inability to see the difference in these points is the basic problem you have and until that changes your stuck.

Secondly, no you wouldnt have to have god like powers to create the universe, as the powers that created this universe were natural. Therefore by default it is possible that you could create a universe. Who knows, one day we might do it ourselves. I suppose at that point anyone who still believes in god will have a problem in that it didnt take god like powers to create a universe, just an understanding of natural forces. Still, im sure ignorance of the level you exist in will still have a home when that happens and they will just chirp something else.

Ah yes, I remember you criticising those who resort to insults when they are lost. Now you will already have noticed that I know far more than you do about cosmology, string theory and probably most of the rest of science, so you resort to insults. Sound familiar?

And a few more things, not that you are going to heed them anyway:

I dont worship scientists. I apply reason, funnily enough the men and women who have peeled back the secrets of the universe and things within it have done the same thing. If they had been satisfied with the lazy, default "god did it" answer that religious apologists attribute to everything we dont understand then the hospitals you have and god knows what else wouldn't have come into existence and we would go to chapel and pray instead of go to school and learn.

You resort to quoting M Theory (even though you don't appear to know its name), and you claim it predicts things that at present it most certainly doesn't predict because no-one can construct it. There is no evidence whatsoever for M Theory, yet you quote it at me as a theory that explains our Universe and perhaps many others. That sounds like one of your criticisms of religious people, and you seem to worship the great God M Theory.

So, tell me how you get around the Anthropic Principle without either resorting to God or abandoning the idea that Science predicts the Laws of our Universe. It's a tough problem and I don't think any Scientist knows how to solve it.