>In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. [Genesis]
This is pretty logical and reasonable if you really think about it.
God is abstract, and science can't go to the very beginning, because there are events that happened before their idea of "the beggining"
The idea here is that God, created the heavens and earth and the earth is one of many objects in the heavens / cosmos.
God is the origin, whatever originally created everything that is God. That first thing, the first cause.
So even here too.
It would make no difference what religion you are or are not.
The fact is that we are alive and we are real and that our lives were caused by something.
The fact is that there was a creation because everything is created via cause and effect.
Something caused the heavens and the earth and itself, and the heavens and their orbits, the planet we live on and our lives are the effect of SOMETHING.
But who created God?
Whatever did, something created whatever created before that and that before that and something before that
>This is pretty logical and reasonable if you really think about it.
Actually no, it really isnt.
First I want a definition of "the beginning" t = 0 is not a defined point so where in lim t->0 are we talking about?
Next define god; what properties are we associating with this object and why does this particular object get to defy all your other claims regarding "cause"
Now we need a definition of "the heavens", hell its worse than that, in the King James version we get "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." The lack of the pluralisation clearly distinguishes from the abstract term used to describe space that is not earth, and returns it to the classical notion of "heaven" as a spiritual location.
>God is abstract
>Science can't go to the very beginning
Hey, it's god of the gaps
>There are events that happened before their idea of "the beginning"
See this is a shifting goalpost; are you claiming that we have probed energy scales up to a certain extent and can theorise beyond that while we wait for more experimental data; then yes you are correct, if you're claiming we have "no concept" then you're blatantly strawmanning.
>The idea here is that God, created the heavens and earth and the earth is one of many objects in the heavens / cosmos.
Again, varies with translation with older translations preferencing the singular while newer preferencing the plural.
>God is the origin, whatever originally created everything that is God. That first thing, the first cause.
Prove that the first cause is singular.
Let's be alot more simple.
If you want to made a bagels you need the ingredients to make the dough, and oven, and time otherwise the bagel would not exist.
The same with Earth and it's people. Of the ingredients were not there, and the energy and time was not put into its development, we would not be existing.
God's characteristics do not need to be defined nor do they need to be limited to "King James Standard" but the reality is that heaven / cosmos and earth / an object in the cosmos cannot exist without a cause
So god is not the first cause.
The first cause is God. And before this cause, there is another cause which would be superior since it is before God, and therefore would be God.
>In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth
Except earth didnt turn up until billions of years after the big bang
Those billion of years to God could have been like seven days to God's perspective.
The way we percieve time is only because of the conditions of our planet
God is just a delusion!!! In 500 years Science explained most complicated things in this universe.... Wait another 100 and you will get the answer to your question about the beginning.
Moreover I don't think Bible can explain the creation as clearly as Big bang theory can. People just want to believe in Bible because it's easy to understand, no complications just believe what a dumb asshole wrote 2000 years ago, I think Church should publish a scientific version of Bible and should ask for forgiveness for making fool of people for 2000 years.
>Let's be alot more simple.
Let's not, oversimplifying is a way of concealing mistakes in the full argument
>The same with Earth and it's people. Of the ingredients were not there, and the energy and time was not put into its development, we would not be existing.
No, you cannot assert your choice of prior as evidence for your argument; claiming "we exist therefore" is a non argument simply because there exists no alternative. Let me take an example: the moon is round because of all the possible multiverses we happen to live in the one where the moon is not square. Hence the moon is round.
Clearly, this argument is bullshit.
>God's characteristics do not need to be defined
I'm sorry, you started with the premise that all objects had the property "caused", now you're telling me that out of all the objects that exist, you're going to pick one and give it the property "uncaused" with no explanation as to why it gets this special status, then tell me that you dont even need to define it. "Please ignore the man behind the curtain, he is not relevant".
> nor do they need to be limited to "King James Standard"
I'm sorry, you posted a bible quote from one version of the bible that is not consistent across all versions, hence your conclusions from that quote are from a non-universally accepted definition of the christian god. Given that older editions of the bible prefer the singular over the plural, it is more likely that your quote comes from a mistranslation or misappropriation of an older version.
>an object in the cosmos cannot exist without a cause
Spontaneous decay is uncaused and universal, vacuum fluctuation are uncaused and universal.
There is always before the big bang and the cause of the big bang and all the more science can not explain.
Science can prove regular physical things but it's ability to go abstract is very short.
There is not argument. We do not exist without a cause.
God is not exclusive to any religion, but this quote is very reasonable in explaining the cause of heaven and earth.
Spontaneous decay and vacuum fluctuations are both causes that create effects. You cannot create without cause.
It doesn't mean you should believe someone who said all these things without observation. Its better to believe nothing at all than to believe in something you know is false.
>the earth and the Sun were both there at the beginning
Nice try
en.wikipedia.org
You can prove the nature of God to be true.
If you want to believe something that is false you can believe in nothing.
It may have taken them a long time to appear, but they were created and used as a measurement for the beggining.
>There is not argument
Nice way of failing to address any points that have been raised
>We do not exist without a cause.
Prove it, stating the same thing over and over is not actually making an argument for its correctness.
>God is not exclusive to any religion, but this quote is very reasonable in explaining the cause of heaven and earth.
Except as detailed above, it isn't.
>Spontaneous decay and vacuum fluctuations are both causes that create effects.
Naming something isn't stating it as a cause, vacuum fluctuation and spontaneous decay are processes not causes. See here's where oversimplifying gets you; trying to play language tricks to justify your own argument.
Light long predates the earth.
Be simple man. We would not be having this conversation without cause and effect.
Cause you post, the effect is a response, without these, the creation of this conversation would have no existence.
We exist, be-CAUSE of something, we are the effect of a cause of SOMETHING
And that is the beggining, and there is a beggining before that and one before that.
The Earth did not exist first, but the Heavens did. It is a small statement that means way more than "The Earth is the center of existence" when all the things that existed before the earth and the heavens as we know it could have been billions of years which to God, or, the power that created everything those billions of years could have been seconds to its perception
>the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,
>and God saith, `Let light be;' and light is.
Why did the ancient jews get so crazy after that decent first verse
Either you're incredibly dumb or trolling here
>Be simple man.
Reality is not simple, as shown above you've tried to cover up glaring holes in your argument by
>We would not be having this conversation without cause and effect.
Anthropic principle is not an argument, while I agree that causation is real, it is pathetic that you cannot even make an argument for it without resorting to claiming it as an axiom.
>We exist, be-CAUSE of something, we are the effect of a cause of SOMETHING
Language is not logic, word tricks are not an argument. I define the word "QQQ" to have the same meaning as the word "because" and the word "RRR" to the same as the word something, now I restate what you said above.
We exist, QQQ of RRR, we are the effect of a cause of RRR.
See, just by swapping the words while preserving the meaning of your argument it loses its value.
Who knows
Neither.
Very simple.
Humanity is the effect of a cause.
The Earth is the effect of a cause.
The heavens are the effect of a cause
How much do we know about this cause and what should we name it?
We all know probably the same amount about this cause, or at least we all have the same potential to understand this cause.
It does not need to be named or renamed because we do not want to impose a limitation on it. If we name and define something, we only go so far as to giving it a limited label
You've stated the same thing three times and havent actually presented an argument for it. If you want to use causation then you need to prove it.
There exist proofs for it, but so long as you demonstrate that you dont know them your argument isnt worth shit.
And again, simplicity is not an argument either; it's just a way of trying to hide errors.
No one is arguing.
How should we go about investigating this cause?
I propose we take really big telescopes and try to look really far into space. Any other ideas?
We could use a really big Metaphorically telescope and look really far into space that is inside of us.
As soon as we ask God honestly for guidence on these abstract and complex questions and ideas we can seek it out and the totality of the answers we can recieve may not just be direct answers like we are used to but ones that create more questions and more abstract thoughts.
He presented ideas, I'm challenging him on them, hence that is an argument.
That's code for "take a shitload of shrooms and trip balls, then you will unlock the mysteries of the universe," isn't it? Don't worry buddy, I totally get you.
How are you challenging them?
You can read a variety of religious texts and you could even read book about metaphysical ideas.
Or you could research astrophysics instead of daydreaming.
You can research astrophysics and daydream.
But to pass off these insights as just "daydreaming" is like throwing away a valuable piece of evidence.
What if a guitar had only five strings because scientists believed the six one was "preposterous"
That's not looking inside myself, that's just listening to other people. I have a better plan. I'm gonna go to the desert and smoke peyote until I understand.
They have 6 strings because they create harmonic vibrations, not because God told someone they should.
The world around you contains real information you can learn from, you don't have to rely on poems for complete guesswork.
>What if a guitar had only five strings because scientists believed the six one was "preposterous"
how is this comparable to rejecting day dreaming as evidence when it is literally just your imagination at work?
Im asking him to provide proof of a claim, that is a challenge, he (assuming it is not you) is simply restating his initial position without attempting to support it.
If you attempt to assert something, you must demonstrate why your assertion is correct.
They could have the same amount of harmonic vibrations with 5 strings if they play the same notes as the six string.
No one is discrediting real information, but to discredit deep insight as daydreaming, that is discrediting the way to understanding the effect and the cause.
You can't prove it as only imagination , for the mind has the characteristics of empty space, which is also the same nature as the cosmic space we percieve in between the objects in space.
There is a simple cause and effect, humans are here because of something and so is the earth and all the astronomical pieces.
They would not exist without some cause.
The same way we exist be-CAUSE of something.
This conversation is happening be-CAUSE of a reason, and if this thread was not the cause to this conversation, the effect of our debate would have no existence
I'm not sure what you want, try this I guess:
en.wikipedia.org
That's nice. Light and the stars are created on the 4th day, while the heavens and earth are created on the 1st. No amount of rationalizing the meaning of a "day" fixes the problem with the order.
Even a graph is a limitation.
It starts off with the big bang
>evolution of the universe staring from the big bang
Using the big bang as point A when the big bang could have happened trillions of years after a bunch of other stuff that we can't percieve because of our limited understanding in science.
The earliest form science can percieve could have millions of other events that caused that first percieve force to happen
If the universe we have now just disappeared and a new one was formed and there was a new "earth" with "humanoid" creatures who could have no proof of anything besides their "big bang" and just say "this is a fact" when they just did not find the evidence of "our" existence just yet
I've already addressed these points.
You're relying on the anthropic principle which is not an argument as it can by applied to any argument. There are arguments for causality which you could have attempted to apply but it is clear that you dont know them and so the argument you are currently presenting is flawed.
As before you're also trying to assert correctness from the language of your argument not the logic, as before I will happily preserve the definition of the word "because" while giving it the syntactic formation "QQQ"
>There is a simple cause and effect, humans are here QQQ of something and so is the earth and all the astronomical pieces.
Your first statement requires that you prove causality for every object in the universe, I have already presented examples where causality does not apply (as above vacuum fluxuations, spontaneous decay and let's add in zero point energy while we're at it, I can add more if I want)
>They would not exist without some cause.
A non argument, if you assert that "everything has a cause" then by definition everything that exists must have a cause; your argument follows the logic:
I assert X
Because of X then Y
Therefore Y
This doesnt actually follow given that you asserted X and didnt prove it.
>The same way we exist QQQ of something.
This argument follows the form
I assert X
Therefore X
Again, until you sufficiently demonstrate the universality of the notion of causation then your argument simply does not follow
Take it from the writers perspective. Imagine being Moses for a second trying to record the majesty of God when the events he was writing about happened hundreds and hundreds of years before he was born on Earth.
>Light and the stars
The sun and the stars, rather.
It is simple cause and effect. You exist be-CAUSE of something.
Be simple.
Living proof of cause and effect exist in front of you. Go ahead and write the next posts response without type. Because you don't type no words show up on the screen.
Because you have the will to type, then you create the sentences to formulate the response.
Even if we allow for that, the clear unreliability of the information means it is of little use to us for determining anything about the actual creation of the universe.
It is of little use to those who don't understand it.
If we can't trust "God did X" in terms of the order, why trust "God didX" in terms of the events?
You are clearly retarded.
You continue to restate the same opinions without understanding the notions of presenting proof. You continue to assert the same premise and continue to fail to understand the notion that it isnt enough to assert correctness, you must demonstrate.
You also continue to fail to understand the notion that causality is non-universal; so long as pure-randomness exists (it does, measurement of quantum superpositions is pure random), not everything is purely causal.
In short, you not only dont know how to debate, you also dont know your own argument and supplement your lack of ability with the capability to simply ignore anything you dont understand.
It is hard to change our conception from linear to "dhwod62jg sksbdkvnb" but this how the nature of the Spirit changes us and molds us into understanding it.
Even if we have a little understanding of it, we might as well use that little understanding to some constructive use.
Genesis 1:1 might mean something very straightforward to one person like "God did it" and to someone else mean "meyaphysically, we could compare this statement to this equation"
Either way, I know some people use the words "it was all made up" but we could at least consider that these texts that mention God were are written thousands of years ago and should be credited as reliable historical sources.
The religious sources are still historical sources and should not be so easily discredited just because it deals with spirituality, a concept we cannot just grasp with only logical mindsets
It isn't about debating.
be-CAUSE I wrote this response, the effect is likely that you will write a response.
If I don't respond, then it is likely you won't respond again.
The creation of the earth, the heavens and humanity are be-CAUSE of SOMETHING. If it had no cause, there would be no effect (humanity, earth, the cosmos etc)
Can't shake the feeling that this whole thread is one samefag
I'm sorry, you continue to ignore any point I raise while ignoring your own errors, so I take this as evidence that you are retarded.
QED.
>that mention God were are written thousands of years ago and should be credited as reliable historical sources.
The Iliad was written thousands of years ago, and contains historical details, but if you want to actually know anything about the Bronze Age mediterranean civilizations archeology is much better suited to it. There is important cultural information about Bronze Age and Dark Age civilizations embedded within the text, but its age does not guarantee its narration of events and facts is accurate. The same is true of many ancient texts, especially when they contradict what we know about reality. When Herodotus talks about wool that grows on trees, we don't take him at his word, we assume he is talking about cotton.
Because you are mad, that is why you insult people. If they didn't give you a reason to anger then would you call them by insulting them?
That is cause and effect in front of you
To be fair information is only relevant in a meaningful way if it has some bearing to you, if it occurred at least within your own universe is the largest possible cut-off point. Anything that hypothetically happened "before" or "after" your universe is impossible to know about.
You keep insisting that these "spiritual matters"
are a special exception but it seems like special pleading.
Ancient myths recorded thousands of years ago are not supposed to be reliable accounts of detailed historical accounts.
What's the obsession with Genesis on Veeky Forums lately?
It's the Creationism Summer Pledge Drive, gotta get those memes hitting the streets hard to rack up those summertime Goodboy Points.
But even with archaeological evidence you could still even consider these texts as archaeological because they are. Side by side you could see them.
How they describe objects back then is different to how we compare them now.
We used to say Pluto was a planet, but the science decided "nah because this is how we classify a planet" when really it is only a select number of people with a limited term for classificication.
3000 years from now will they call Pluto a planet or not? Well in today's day science doesn't but not to long ago we did and we accepted both of the ideas as fact when clearly they contradict eachother
>What came before the time before time
You always ask this without knowing that its an incoherent incomplete question.
>3000 years from now will they call Pluto a planet or not? Well in today's day science doesn't but not to long ago we did and we accepted both of the ideas as fact when clearly they contradict eachother
And someone who existed 3000 years from now would do well to read whichever textbook exists in their time that provides a definition of a planet. If they were to read a textbook from now arguing about it, the most value they could get about it is cultural: what did the people of the early 21st century think about planets? It would do nothing to inform them about the facts of Pluto's classification. In fact, "planet" may no longer even be a meaningful term to their understanding. It would be foolish to use our text for that purpose. And we would he foolish to use the texts of thousands of years before us for that purpose too.
>science
Are you implying science and religion are separate?
The "impossible to know about" isn't impossible because we are actually living in the universe right now. The universe that existed before everything we understand, we are living in it right now.
Isn't that amazing? Can we appreciate this? These ancient "myths" being discredited as such have SOME value that is still beyond our full understanding and can easily be syncopated to culture of historical times. That is beautiful.
People thing the Creation idea is absurd when it is still completely logical to believe that God created the heavens and Earth.
When a non believer says "Creationist" they charge at every Christians thinking all of their present conceived notions about what every Creationists believe because of their own stereotypes they have about people who believe in God.
And when they say God they assume you believe in the "Abrahamic God"
And then they Abrahamic God is different than "The Eastern Philosophy" of God when in all aspects of the word God, you would be talking about the ONE that exists, recognizing lower divinities as well, and a High God, the ONE.
>God is the origin, whatever originally created everything that is God. That first thing, the first cause.
There is no cause, God simply is in eternity.
But who is to say what defines a planet?
If 3000 years from now you don't use a historical sources as evidence for your "claim" or whatever, then you would be discrediting a historical source.
Just because it deals with God everyone nowadays says "well it isn't objective because we can only prove what we percieve with our senses" when we can actually do a lot more than this.
No, all objective truths are objective truths.
When someone says science, like I did, I still used a limited understanding of the word science to point out "secular science" the same way when someone argues against religion they point out "how ridiculous is their claim hahaha I'm going to make fun of this person"
The true parts of religion and the true parts of science don't need to be classified, they are just truths. We don't need to scrutinize every definition when we are at peace with truth
In this cause cause for creation.
God being causeless is even more amazing... zero and infinity.
They have value to an anthropologist but they were invented by creative, imaginative people who were trying to relate to the world using the ideas and vocabulary they had at the time (sky, weather, animals, day, night). That's why the Creation is divided up into "days" like we experience, without knowledge of rotation of planets or any other sophisticated models we have today.
If you are superimposing magical secrets onto these ancient myths, it's your own projection.
>But who is to say what defines a planet?
Scientific consensus at a given time.
>then you would be discrediting a historical source.
No, the historical source does exactly what a historical source does. "At the turn of the 21st century, there was contention over the definition of a planet, and the classification of Pluto." It provides cultural and historical information, not accurate facts about the universe. Aquinas talking about witches causing impotence is not evidence for witches, it's evidence for cultural beliefs at the time.
>Just because it deals with God
And because it is demonstrably inaccurate in many other ways. It's not that it mentions God therefore it's false, it's that it is so wrong about so many things, why should we trust it with this "God" concept.
In this case*
It is a lot more than just allegorical ideas and secrets and myths. This force of God can prove itself to you, and these texts act as a guide as well.
Discrediting them as if they are only this or that, you impose a limited definition as to what they are.
But if classification changes later in 20 years or so, science could say "earth is no longer a planet" and everyone would accept it as a "fact"
Scientific consensus it "true" until they prove it "wrong but this is true instead" .. those aren't facts
Smoking cigarettes used to be healthy in the 50s... now look at what the tobacco industry does and how we can see how bad it is for you.
Again, a book written 2000 plus years ago should not be so easily discredited because "we cannot understand it fully because it is wrong about so many different things" when we are all wrong about all kinds of stuff all the time
That is when you say "well what are you doing right?" The same for "well the Bible or the Upanishad is right about this particular fact"
>This force of God can prove itself to you, and these texts act as a guide as well.
I can't help it, I'm not superstitious, I'm not religious. I'm not convinced by mystery appeals.
The bible isn't some magic answer book, it's a book like any other, albeit with a long and checked past.
Witches can cause impotence though.
>But if classification changes later in 20 years or so, science could say "earth is no longer a planet" and everyone would accept it as a "fact"...
Yes, which is why it would be foolish to use the textbook that is 20 years old, much less the one that is 2000 years old, especially when it is riddled with errors.
>we cannot understand it fully
You can make anything seem right with a creative enough interpretation. That's not good enough.
It is a book like any other.. like textbooks, like novels, like biographies, like children's books but because it deals with the nature of God (as well as other books not just the Bible) and that is why it gets separated from the others
Why can the sequence of motion not extend ad infinitum?
We are not talking about textbooks though. We are talking about these historical sources which were still written 2000 years ago. It isn't foolish to read them and understand them, that is why they are still in use today.
We can't understand anything fully, even no matter how much knowledge we have. We think we can with science and hypothesis and this and that but the truth is that we actually can't understand anything full like the creation or about mathematics. We can't even understand people fully or matter fully. There is always more to learn.
It extends infinitely but does not infinitely the same. But it does.
No conditional thing is the same forever, but the continuation of infinity and eternity is without conditions and will always be lasting.
Well whatever you read, read it critically, so you are not bamboozled by impossible claims to divine "spiritual" wisdom that anyone can make up to trick you.
Or don't, whatever, keep asking the same vague questions over and over.
More over motion is relative so the entire argument falls apart on that premise
Another cool thing about nature is the back and forth thingy.
You could say "being bamboozled by spiritual claims mumbo jumbo" and I could say "Why not read these texts critically and with an open mind?"
Motion, and rest. These are facts. There is motion and there is rest. There will always be movement and there will always be the resting of movement.
How can you prove?
Lads, I don't want to create a new thread for this; why are Calendars not renamed after Christians? Is there a calendar that switches names?
Mars -> Jesus
or something like that.
That's deeply flawed logic. Where does the argument fall apart exactly?
I suspect the early church was actually pretty fond of Pagan/Greek/Roman terminology.
Believe that you can.
Follow a prescribed method.
I know it may not be super direct or anything but hope this helps.
> “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. - Matthew 7:7
Just because these are bible quotes don't just discredited if you are not Christian or whatever.
Ask God something in prayer something honest.
> When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures. - James 4:3
And if your motive and proof are not aligned with honest intentions then the abive passage serves as an explaination.
Through logical reasoning as to what the characteristics of the Perfect Being are.
That is a good question. Probably has to do with the way they already had calenders set up and they just sort of left it as it is but there are other cultures that percieve the months and times of things a bit differently.
Their constellations too could have had differences then how we see them today.
That's nowhere near proof of anything, in fact it's just about the opposite of proof.
This is absurd. "Proof" isn't a feeling you get when you repeat a mantra to yourself.
No wonder you are stumbling through your "spiritual journey" asking these nonsense questions, finding no answers except in your imagination.
Not really asking questions. That was a method for you to apply to have the force prove itself to you.
If you want to call it absurd you can, then you can discredited as that if you want.
True == True
This is true forever, your argument is bullshit.
No one is arguing.