jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (135 posts)

Asking Hard Questions of Theists.

  1. calynbana profile image87
    calynbanaposted 5 years ago

    This thread is about asking theists what they believe respectfully. It is for atheists to get a better understanding of the views of theists. Remember the questions being asked are from atheists to theists. There is a twin thread where theists can ask atheists questions.

    I am not trying to create an us against them mentality which is why there are twin threads. I am trying to avoid bickering and pointless attacks.

    Theists remember that God loves everybody on these threads, try to reflect that love.

    Atheists remember that everyone on this thread is seeking truth, just like you. Please respect their search of truth.

    I will not delete any comments, or report any comments. However if you are beng disrespectful and trolling you will be ignored. Try to contribute to intellectual discussion with respectful and insightful views.

    Have fun!

  2. calynbana profile image87
    calynbanaposted 5 years ago

    Hey theists let me start you off with a question. What do you think of the beginning of the Universe?

    1. kess profile image60
      kessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Beginning does not belong to the universe itself. But to the things that are in it.

      for example the earth had a beginning thus it will end.
      Maybe this is the question that is meant to be asked, is it?

      1. calynbana profile image87
        calynbanaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Before the beginning of anything in the Universe there must be a beginning to the Universe. This is what I was asking.

        1. profile image0
          jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Beginning is a concept . It need a sentient being to conceive. In nature there is no beginning.

        2. kess profile image60
          kessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          My friend, you can ask the question 1000000000 times over and still not find an answer simply because the answer lies beyond the parameters of the question.

          What is the universe? This is the first qjestion needs answering. If you were to answer it correctly then you would know not to ask when did it begin.

          The universe is existence itself and time is an attribute of existence not the father of it.

          So in a manner of speaking I can say it has no beginning and you would understand, and when I also say it begins and ends on a daily basis you would also understand.

          For the universe is a product of itself, existing without time, but still perpetuates itself within time.

          science and religion both seek to answer this question but neither have the capacity to look beyond the perimeter of time. This is why they both give half answers that amonts to ignorance because they can only end exactly where they begun.

          There is a heaven and the earth that have a beginning and an end, but since the when of threm is shrouded in mystery, for they are governed by time.

        3. Jeff Berndt profile image88
          Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Why do you insist that the universe must have necessarily had a beginning, but at the same time insist that there exists an entity that necessarily had no beginning?

          Don't you see how those two assertions are inconsistent?

    2. Eaglekiwi profile image72
      Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You are to be commended for your mature thread.

      Thank-you calynbana.


      As to your question OP...I dont know how exactly the Universe began,it is much to comprehend,but I am in awe of the what ,who ,why smile

      Someone or something definately had a plan greater than I could ever come up with:)

    3. Jeff Berndt profile image88
      Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I believe that in the beginning, God created the universe. The means by which he created the universe are still being sorted out in places like the Large Hadron Collider facility in Europe.

      I do not, however, know how the universe began.

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image72
        Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yep pretty much what I said- and believe wink

  3. janesix profile image61
    janesixposted 5 years ago

    Shiva and kali have created and destroyed the universe an infinite number of times.

    1. profile image0
      jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And you stood there as a mute spectator?

      1. janesix profile image61
        janesixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        She asked what our beliefs were. Did i claim it as a fact?

        1. profile image0
          jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          So you accept it as true, then?

          1. janesix profile image61
            janesixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            For the moment, yes. I like to keep an open mind. Ive changed my mind before.

            1. profile image0
              jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Then it is not shiva and kali, it is vishnu brahma and shiva.
              Vishnu came from a lotus leaf, then a lotus came out of his navel from which brahma came and then shiva, all three the manifestations of aadiparasakthi.

              But the lotus leaf was always there.

              1. janesix profile image61
                janesixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I am not a hindu. I have my own cosmology.

                1. profile image0
                  jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Still, Isn't it a little out of touch with reality!!??
                  For, how, in reality there  could be a beginning for the "universe"?

                  1. janesix profile image61
                    janesixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    It is no more out of touch with reality than any theory of the universe, whether it has a beginning or not. Please give me any theory on the existance of the universe that makes any logical sense.

  4. Druid Dude profile image59
    Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago

    Matter AND Antimatter can both be created. Space isn't the universe. The universe is in space. If the big bang started the universe, then the perimeter of it, that is, where it ends is beyond our ability at the present time to perceive, simply because that no matter where we aim our telescopes, we are looking into the past. The universe, if science is right, does have a border...we think. Space? Supposed to not have one, but same same.

    1. calynbana profile image87
      calynbanaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The Big Bang is the expansion space between galaxies. The Big Bang explains that space is expanding, that the Universe is expanding. The Big Bang did not start the Universe but rather began at the absolute beginning of both space and time.

      1. calynbana profile image87
        calynbanaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Consider these syllogisms.

        1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

        2) The Universe began to exist.

        3) Therefore the Universe had a cause.

        If you deny that the Universe began to exist then you are basically claiming the Universe existed for an infinite amount of time. This is an impossibility considering that time is finite. This logical arguement is rock solid.

        1. calynbana profile image87
          calynbanaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          1) The fine- tuning of the Universe is due to physical necessity, chance or design.

          2) It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

          3) Therefore, it is due to design.

          This would be the logic behind the existence of at least one designer.

          1. janesix profile image61
            janesixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Time is finite? Please prove that.

            1. profile image0
              jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Finite is for an object. Only an object can be finite and time is not an object.

            2. calynbana profile image87
              calynbanaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Consider if time was infinite. Could this moment ever come to happen? There would be infinite time and infinite events occurring before we could ever reach this point.

              Lets say you have infinite steps until you arrive home. Will you ever arrive home? No because no matter how many steps you take infinite steps lay in front of you.

              1. calynbana profile image87
                calynbanaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Infinity simply cannot apply to time in a logical manner. Anything governed by time cannot have existed for an infinite amount of time. Am I making sense? Let me know if you want clarification.

                1. janesix profile image61
                  janesixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  That is still not proof that time is finite. Perhaps if you can prove that the universe is a closed system. But as there is no proof of that either, it is still only congecture.

                  1. calynbana profile image87
                    calynbanaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Do you believe that time is infinite? If so defend it logically. If you cannot do so than the more logical answer stands.

                2. profile image0
                  jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Infinity cannot be applied to anything. Objects are finite. There is no object that is 'infinite'. May be you want to use the term incessant. Time is a measurement. So the '0' is what you assume as '0', just like in a race you decide the beginning and end of the race, but the track does not end or begin.

                  1. aka-dj profile image77
                    aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Therefore, the Universe could not be eternal NOR infinite.
                    That contradicts your earlier statement that the Universe is without beginning.
                    So, which is it?

              2. kerryg profile image86
                kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Time does not have a destination, thus it doesn't matter if there were infinite "steps" on the way to this moment. We are still here.

                Try thinking of it like a line from geometry class. Lines go on infinitely in each direction, but that doesn't mean you can't identify and name different segments of that particular line. It's arbitrary, but so is the concept of "today."

        2. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          #1 seems patently false under the concepts of quantum physics.  There are many things that begin to exist with no cause that we have been able to discern.  There may be a cause we can't discern, but that "may" also means that there may not. 

          #2 seems true

          #3 is based on #1 being true and cannot therefore be considered factual without further evidence.

          1. calynbana profile image87
            calynbanaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Give me some examples of things that begin to exist without cause. This would mean things that come to exist from nothing. Remember nothing is the absense of absolutely everything including space, time and any form of matter. If any of these things exist then they are not beginning without a cause.

            1. janesix profile image61
              janesixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Virtual particles

              1. calynbana profile image87
                calynbanaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Ahh I was waiting for somebody to mention virtual particles. Here is the problem, they do not come from nothing. They come from fluctuations of energies within the vacuum. The vacuum is not nothing, and the energies are not nothing. These particles have a cause, the fluctuation of the energies.

                1. janesix profile image61
                  janesixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I actually agree with you. But until that is proven, that is only a belief, not reality.

                  1. calynbana profile image87
                    calynbanaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I do not think the point is to prove anything absolutely, it is about proving that there is a rational basis behind different beliefs. It seems to me that it is more rational to say the cause behind the beginning (or as I understand your belief is multiple beginnings?) is God or multiple Gods, than to say that the cause is the Universe itself, or nothing. I cannot think of another option. If you can please let me know.

            2. profile image0
              jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Cause is actually a verb, to cause. So you mean there was 'somebody/something' to cause. Then that 'somebody' also needs cause....logical contradiction

              Space is nothing or rather our conceptualization of nothingness. The static difference between two objects, that which gives shape to objects, that which separates two surfaces. Time is a concept based on the locations of objects and our memory. Only matter exists.
              But then what do you mean by 'exist'?

          2. Claire Evans profile image89
            Claire Evansposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            "There are many things that begin to exist with no cause that we have been able to discern."

            Can you give me an example?

        3. Jeff Berndt profile image88
          Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          What caused the cause?

          1. calynbana profile image87
            calynbanaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            By definition this cause would be eternal, uncaused, timeless and spaceless. In order for it to cause space and time it must be outside of space and time. In order to create nature it must be outside the natural "world". So by definition God would not be caused, he would not have began. He just was. This may not make sense to many people but that is what makes sense to me.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
              Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "This may not make sense to many people"
              That's because it's not logical. It's a leap of faith, not based on evidence or logical proof. Or if it is, there are too many unsupported assumptions as givens for it to stand up.

              I'm not saying you're wrong, you understand. I think we're pretty much on the same page,as far as the question of God's existence goes. But I am saying that your assertions are faith-based, not reason-based, and the distinction is important.

              1. calynbana profile image87
                calynbanaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Yes I agree with you. That is the point of these two threads. To ask what theists believe and what atheists believe. Not to provide absolute proof that one way or the other is the correct way.

                It is to discuss and understand what people believe and why. There is a lot of hostility and I am not sure why.

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
                  Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, I suspect it's because many people feel a powerful need to be right, and further, they think that being agreed with is a necessary component of being right. As a corollary, they interpret disagreement as some kind of threat/insult.

                  Also, a lot of folks (both theists and atheists) view their ideas about God's existence or non-existence as self-evident--any idiot could see that their ideas are the right ones. When someone disagrees, they're obviously some kind of idiot. And who respects an idiot? So it can be easy to start talking down to people who disagree with one on the subject of God.

                  And there's also an element of doubt. Nobody gets hostile when someone claims that apples fall up when you drop them. Such  person generally gets ignored. But if someone says there's no God, or that God is a bowl of spaghetti, or that Odin created the world from a block of ice, well, that riles people up if they think that there is a God, or that God is a bowl of tortellini, or that the universe was sneezed out of the nostrils of the Great Green Arkelsiezure. Why all this hostility about God but not about upward-falling apples? 'Cos we know for sure that apples don't fall up, but we don't know for sure about God and what he wants from us. All we have is faith about that.

                  Usually, the arguments aren't about God's existence, though. Rather, they're about some minor point of doctrine (how old the Earth is, or whether speciation ever really happens), and so many religious folks take disagreement with this one piece of doctrine as denial of all faith. And boy, is that threatening!

                  And the fear leads to anger, which, as Yoda teaches, leads to hate, etc.

                  1. calynbana profile image87
                    calynbanaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Lol makes sense. What makes you believe in a God?

      2. profile image0
        jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That is pure unadulterated nonsense. Space and time are both concepts.
        Now if two objects are moving away from each other the distance between them increases, not the space that expands.

        1. Cagsil profile image60
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          roll

          1. profile image0
            jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You are an atheist, a believer who trust argument from authority.

            1. Cagsil profile image60
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I'm not an Atheist. I'm not a believer either. I responded to your post with what I thought about your post.

              1. profile image0
                jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                This is the comment to which you rolled your eyes.
                "Space and time are both concepts.
                Now if two objects are moving away from each other the distance between them increases, not the space that expands."
                Since you do not consider space and time as concepts, you should be considering them as objects. So please post or send a link to the picture of these objects , that I can see them.

                1. Cagsil profile image60
                  Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You're too funny! lol lol lol lol lol

                  Your statement about the distance between two object increase. But then you speak about how space doesn't expand. Regardless of whether or not you're going to admit being foolish in this regards is another thing, but when distance between two object increase, then the SPACE between them expands.

                  Granted, the space isn't expanding on it's own, but does expand regardless because the distance between the two object increases.

                  No pictures necessary to show or explain. Your word usage and logic is faulty.

                  1. profile image0
                    jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Space is a static concept, while motion(increasing distance) is a dynamic concept.
                    A static concept you can make out from a photograph, while dynamic only from a movie. You are mixing the two.
                    So only the distance increases, not space. Space is not an object like your pants to expand. When two objects move no 'new' space move out in that area.
                    Can you transfer space in a box? Suppose you go to outer space and open a box and 'catch' the space there and when you get back to earth, is it the same space that is in the box?

    2. profile image0
      jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Heard the word conceive?

  5. janesix profile image61
    janesixposted 5 years ago

    Jomine, the evidence shows that space is bent by gravity. Therefore space has to be made of something in order to be bent.

    Atoms and quarks are not "things". They are energy. Everything is energy. Everything is connected. There is no "nothing", no empty space.

    1. profile image0
      jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      There is no evidence. That is conjecture based on relativity to explain gravity.
      Now if you still think space bent, kindly post a picture of bend space.(remember space has no border)

      Atoms are "things", they have a shape. It is building block of all matter in the universe.
      Quarks are concepts or conjunctures from experimental "results".
      Energy is a concept that denote motion.
      If there is no space, what gives shape to any object? If everything is connected without space as you allege, how do we move, why the universe is not one solid block?

      1. Druid Dude profile image59
        Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Energy is a concept that denotes motion? Bullpuckey. Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

        1. profile image0
          jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          An idiotic atheist can do better!

  6. Druid Dude profile image59
    Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago

    Huh?

    1. Druid Dude profile image59
      Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I suppose that what you are saying is that you are an idiotic atheist?

      1. profile image0
        jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I suppose you can say that about yourself. Atheist or theist, both are believers who trust in the authority of somebody else and who cannot think for themselves, hence idiots.

        1. calynbana profile image87
          calynbanaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Is it more foolish to look to others for a source of knowledge or to rely solely upon oneself for all knowledge? Where does this knowledge come from?

          1. profile image0
            jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You can use your critical thinking. You can get only information not Knowledge from others.

  7. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image84
    BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 5 years ago

    Let's see, the original question was, "What do you think of the beginning of the Universe?" posed in post two.

    After reading all the babble-on (Babylon) contained in some of these posts since, I can only conclude that:

    God created the universe around 14 billion years ago. He created the earth around 4.5 billion years ago. Then around 3500 years ago God told Moses about all this (and that). Moses, not being a rocket scientist, wrote it down in words he could understand and would make sense to his brother, Aaron, who was to be his mouthpiece.

    That's God's story and I'm stickin' to it.

    1. calynbana profile image87
      calynbanaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What do you think about the documents not written by Moses?

      1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image84
        BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Divinely inspired, but not infallible.

        Even what Moses wrote down was copied and copied and copied and copied again. Although rather meticulously, it would appear.

        1. calynbana profile image87
          calynbanaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Do you think that God is good?

          1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image84
            BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Sometimes. He created things that are good. Like woman.

            1. calynbana profile image87
              calynbanaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Lol!

              What are some examples of when you would say he was not good?

              1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image84
                BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Well, it was pretty mean of God to give the village atheists on this forum no ears to hear.

                That's like hooking up some dude with Kate Upton (cover girl Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition) without raising him from the dead.

                1. calynbana profile image87
                  calynbanaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Funny but that I would argue that the lack of ears would be the choice of the atheists, and often the theists too.

                  Does believing in God impact your life?

                  1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image84
                    BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Well sure believing in God impacts my life. Otherwise I wouldn't keep praying for Kate Upton to knock on my door. But that's my flesh body talking.

                    Ultimately, I'm more interested in my spiritual body. Although I am concerned about this no sex in heaven business. But then, the Muslims could be right. 72 raven-haired virgins in paradise. In any event, the village atheists won't be there to disrupt Bible study.

              2. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image84
                BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                When you get a free moment, there is a thread that needs the perspective of an intelligent woman. It is entitled "Most offensive reply" by Rad Man.

                I won't even attempt to influence your perspective, if that were even possible.

                1. calynbana profile image87
                  calynbanaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Hmm interesting... I am slightly afraid to be pulled into another insult fest haha.

    2. Jerami profile image73
      Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Everything You said ...  and also ...
      I'm not going to look it up but it seems like ...  according to that which is written ... 
        Wasn't Abraham born very soon after Noah died.
      SOoo  Abraham had a whole bunch of uncles and aunts that would have been telling him stories almost streight out of the horses mouth so to speak.

        What he wrote and what he didn't ?? I haven't got a clue.

        I do remember something about Jerusamem being being sacked in 605 and again in 486 when most everything was either taken to Babylon or destroyed.

        And finally in 450-ish EZRA was commishoned to gather together what he could in an effort to re-establish the Hebrew religion/customes etc.

        If I'm wrong about any of this ? feel free to correct me.

  8. janesix profile image61
    janesixposted 5 years ago

    Jomine

    How does energy get from one atom to another if they are separated by empty space? What is the medium?

    1. profile image0
      jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Energy is the ability to do work.
      Work(W) = Force * distance:
      [force = mass* acceleration = Kg*m/s2]
      So work = kgm2/s2 or Kg*(m/s)2
      It just means the distance traveled by an object. So when you say energy transferred it means the motion transferred from one object to the other.
      How do you transfer motion?

      1. janesix profile image61
        janesixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Through a medium. They have to be connected somehow for a transference of energy. What is that?

        1. profile image0
          jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Through a medium? Through physical contact. Objects does not wave a magic wand to transfer motion. Can you move a stone by looking at it or by wishing it to move?

          1. janesix profile image61
            janesixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Please stop being so defensive. I am not trying to prove you wrong. I want to know what you think. I think your views are interesting.

            What if the two atoms arent touching? How is the energy transfered?

            1. profile image0
              jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No I'm not defensive, I'm trying to explain so that you can understand what exactly I'm saying.
              "What if the two atoms arent touching? How is the energy transfered?"
              Energy is the motion of one atom that is transferred to the other. There is no way it can be done without physical contact. It doesn't mean it should be direct, suppose the atom hits another atom and the the second atom hit a third one, so the energy(motion) is transferred from the first atom to the third without direct contact, but then it needs an intermediary.

              1. janesix profile image61
                janesixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                What about about fields? What part do they play?

                1. profile image0
                  jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Fields are again a concept, a dynamic concept. Suppose a magnetic 'field', how do you determine it? by bringing a piece of iron and find out where all the influence are there and mark it.
                  So the question has to be rephrased, how does a magnet attract another or an iron piece without touching it? Or we can ask how sun attract earth without touching it.

                  As we know there is no magic in the universe, then we have to explain how this is done without any magic or how the motion is transferred without touch.
                  So if sun attract earth, rationally there should be some connection between earth and sun, some physical connection, we call that connection gravity.

                  1. janesix profile image61
                    janesixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    That is exactly what im getting at. There has to be some kind of medium that we cant see to transfer energy between bodies that are separated by space.

                    What do YOU think is going on? How is the energy transfered?

  9. janesix profile image61
    janesixposted 5 years ago

    I took the time to read your physics hubs. Your thread theory simply wouldnt work. You seem to be suggesting that for each particle of light i see, there is a physical thread connecting the sun to my eye. I cant imagine the implications of that alone. And then the gravity threads as well. These threads would all have to have a physical structure. There would have to be so many(trillions of trillions) of these threads to account for all the interactions in the universe that it doesnt make sense when you look at anything beyond a couple of atoms.

    1. profile image0
      jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for reading the hub. It is not my theory, it is Bill Gaedes' as I aknowledge in the hub.
      Just like you, I was trying to make a sense out of the world. We cannot propose magic for gravity so the only method for gravity is a physical connection and the only theory that supported that was the thread theory. The two theories put forward by relativity scientists(bending space and particle theory) are Nonsense. Why the EM field of light is wrong I've explained in the hub.
      Light and gravity acts through the same thread. Gravity is the tension on the thread while light is the impulse that travel through the thread.
      You can read about the theory in Bill Gaede's hubs. I too have some reservations about the theory but he had explained almost all phenomenon without any contradiction and hence is plausible. So read that, if you want to know more about that theory.
      For my part, I actually do not propose any theories but only try to show the holes in existing theories, including god theory. But people insist that before I can point out that the bridge is weak and about to collapse, I ought to make a bridge first. So I propose the thread theory which is plausible with nearly no holes and if you read his hubs he has answered your question.

 
working