Author Topic: If Heaven and Hell existed...  (Read 8636 times)

TheAnimal

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2015
If Heaven and Hell existed...
« on: April 15, 2007, 06:21:04 AM »
I would hate to be in Heaven knowing I couldn't do anything about those burning eternally in hell. How is that compassionate and "Christian"?

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9899
Re: If Heaven and Hell existed...
« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2007, 06:39:42 AM »
there is no heaven and hell.  an all loving god would not create a place of evil and torture.

Wikidudeman

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 214
  • Nu mă, Nu mă iei!
Re: If Heaven and Hell existed...
« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2007, 09:09:49 AM »
there is no heaven and hell.  an all loving god would not create a place of evil and torture.



You're assuming he's all loving.


Quote
Nahum 1:2
The LORD is a jealous and avenging God;
       the LORD takes vengeance and is filled with wrath.
       The LORD takes vengeance on his foes
       and maintains his wrath against his enemies.

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9899
Re: If Heaven and Hell existed...
« Reply #3 on: April 15, 2007, 11:59:25 AM »

You're assuming he's all loving.



any attribute we ascribe or dont acribe is incorrect, everything about infinite perfection is an assumption. im assuming hes perfect. which to me, and many others is pure love.

The_Iron_Disciple

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6493
  • Team New Dad
Re: If Heaven and Hell existed...
« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2007, 06:17:08 PM »
any attribute we ascribe or dont acribe is incorrect, everything about infinite perfection is an assumption. im assuming hes perfect. which to me, and many others is pure love.

How can you assume that this " God " is a  " He " ? That's your first mistake.

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9899
Re: If Heaven and Hell existed...
« Reply #5 on: April 15, 2007, 06:44:19 PM »
How can you assume that this " God " is a  " He " ? That's your first mistake.


for one im just using the word, your playing with semantics. its not a he/she thing/it. its everything to me.

using your logic, you made the assumption its not a "he". no one knows, so the argument or "mistake" is pointless to point out.

The_Iron_Disciple

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6493
  • Team New Dad
Re: If Heaven and Hell existed...
« Reply #6 on: April 15, 2007, 06:56:06 PM »
for one im just using the word, your playing with semantics. its not a he/she thing/it. its everything to me.

using your logic, you made the assumption its not a "he". no one knows, so the argument or "mistake" is pointless to point out.

To some degree, yes, but I try to be careful as possible with my words. And NO ONE KNOWS ... yes, you are correct, however, there are signs that tell me that " God " is both Male and Female. Think about it ... " God " ( I use quotations because I really don't believe in a God, per se ) created Male and Females and ALL OTHER types of dualities ( i.e Yin and Yang ) so WHY wouldn't " God " be both ? Wouldn't you have to have a little Male and Female energy in order to create both Male and Females ? I think that's pretty good logic.

I didn't mean to attack you directly, btw. Good post, too.

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9899
Re: If Heaven and Hell existed...
« Reply #7 on: April 16, 2007, 07:16:47 AM »
god is polarity. god is everything. i wont get into my beleifs or logic, its in my sticky but your beleif is along with mine although i dont beleive it is male or female, nor a rock, nor a photon. its everything. it didnt just create male and female its the creator of all,  including inert matter, so if you use the logic that it contains what it creates, then its a bit of a rock,tree, hemaphrodite, insect, homosapien etc...


also, the antrophic principle that toxic showed you doesnt explain anything, and is more of an argument for design then non-design. and string theory only pushes the question back further. why does the multi-verse or megabrane exist?

why we exist is because something exists which cannot not exists, something that must, or is contingent.

Wikidudeman

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 214
  • Nu mă, Nu mă iei!
Re: If Heaven and Hell existed...
« Reply #8 on: April 16, 2007, 01:55:49 PM »
Or maybe God doesn't exist.  ???

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9899
Re: If Heaven and Hell existed...
« Reply #9 on: April 16, 2007, 02:45:18 PM »
Or maybe God doesn't exist.  ???

that is another hypothesis, one i find illogical.

Wikidudeman

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 214
  • Nu mă, Nu mă iei!
Re: If Heaven and Hell existed...
« Reply #10 on: April 16, 2007, 02:46:54 PM »
that is another hypothesis, one i find illogical.


Why?

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9899
Re: If Heaven and Hell existed...
« Reply #11 on: April 16, 2007, 02:56:58 PM »

Why?

for numerous reasons. some are in the sticky above. some more that i havent wrote about.

i guess it would be a good place for you to present some arguments for atheism. since, no one has ever done so. id like to hear why you beleive there is no god.

for the record my beliefs are somewhat pantheistic, deistic. im not a theologian by conventional definitions.

Wikidudeman

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 214
  • Nu mă, Nu mă iei!
Re: If Heaven and Hell existed...
« Reply #12 on: April 16, 2007, 03:38:27 PM »
for numerous reasons. some are in the sticky above. some more that i havent wrote about.

i guess it would be a good place for you to present some arguments for atheism. since, no one has ever done so. id like to hear why you beleive there is no god.

for the record my beliefs are somewhat pantheistic, deistic. im not a theologian by conventional definitions.

I really can't wade through your previous posts. However to simplify things, I do not "believe there is no God". I simply do not "believe there is a God". There is a difference. One is a positive denial of the existence of any Gods and the other is a lack of belief.  The simplest reason for the lack of belief in a God or gods is the lack of evidence for a God or gods.

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9899
Re: If Heaven and Hell existed...
« Reply #13 on: April 16, 2007, 05:21:38 PM »
I really can't wade through your previous posts. However to simplify things, I do not "believe there is no God". I simply do not "believe there is a God". There is a difference. One is a positive denial of the existence of any Gods and the other is a lack of belief.  The simplest reason for the lack of belief in a God or gods is the lack of evidence for a God or gods.

play on semantics, weak and strong versions. you dont beleive in a god, that in itself implies that believe there is no god. i understand the distinction however. if your waiting for proof your not going to get any, that would make life pointless if he gave us undeniable evidence or controlled us. faith is needed. however, while you take a passive role, i tend to take an assertive one and try to at least figure out life. i think agnosticism is the most logical ground to stand on but the least satisfying.


The_Iron_Disciple

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6493
  • Team New Dad
Re: If Heaven and Hell existed...
« Reply #14 on: April 16, 2007, 06:22:33 PM »
god is polarity. god is everything. i wont get into my beleifs or logic, its in my sticky but your beleif is along with mine although i dont beleive it is male or female, nor a rock, nor a photon. its everything. it didnt just create male and female its the creator of all,  including inert matter, so if you use the logic that it contains what it creates, then its a bit of a rock,tree, hemaphrodite, insect, homosapien etc...


also, the antrophic principle that toxic showed you doesnt explain anything, and is more of an argument for design then non-design. and string theory only pushes the question back further. why does the multi-verse or megabrane exist?

why we exist is because something exists which cannot not exists, something that must, or is contingent.

Yes ... that was my point. " God " is everything. Good Post, Btw.

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9899
Re: If Heaven and Hell existed...
« Reply #15 on: April 16, 2007, 06:42:12 PM »
Yes ... that was my point. " God " is everything. Good Post, Btw.


you might find some of the stuff i wrote in the sticky interesting. mostly the stuff near the end.

gcb

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2283
  • you suffer, why?
Re: If Heaven and Hell existed...
« Reply #16 on: April 16, 2007, 09:10:25 PM »
To some degree, yes, but I try to be careful as possible with my words. And NO ONE KNOWS ... yes, you are correct, however, there are signs that tell me that " God " is both Male and Female. Think about it ... " God " ( I use quotations because I really don't believe in a God, per se ) created Male and Females and ALL OTHER types of dualities ( i.e Yin and Yang ) so WHY wouldn't " God " be both ? Wouldn't you have to have a little Male and Female energy in order to create both Male and Females ? I think that's pretty good logic.

I didn't mean to attack you directly, btw. Good post, too.

Does that mean it's bisexual

Wikidudeman

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 214
  • Nu mă, Nu mă iei!
Re: If Heaven and Hell existed...
« Reply #17 on: April 16, 2007, 09:18:07 PM »
play on semantics, weak and strong versions. you dont beleive in a god, that in itself implies that believe there is no god.

That's not true. "Belief there is no God" is "denying the existence of a God". This is a positive assertion that there is no God. However "No belief in God" simply means lacking belief in a God. This is a very important difference.

i understand the distinction however. if your waiting for proof your not going to get any, that would make life pointless if he gave us undeniable evidence or controlled us.

You're claiming that life would be pointless without "faith in a God"?  ???
Are you claiming that my life is pointless?

Moreover, Why believe in anything without proof? Why have faith at all?


faith is needed. however, while you take a passive role, i tend to take an assertive one and try to at least figure out life. i think agnosticism is the most logical ground to stand on but the least satisfying.

Firstly, I do not take a "passive role". Lacking belief in something without proof is not "passive", It's "reasonable". Secondly, How do you aim to "figure out life" if you simply have "faith" and believe in things based on "faith" opposed to proof? In order to "figure out" anything you must investigate, but why investigate when you can simply "have faith" that something is true?

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9899
Re: If Heaven and Hell existed...
« Reply #18 on: April 17, 2007, 05:46:26 AM »
That's not true. "Belief there is no God" is "denying the existence of a God". This is a positive assertion that there is no God. However "No belief in God" simply means lacking belief in a God. This is a very important difference.

You're claiming that life would be pointless without "faith in a God"?  ???
Are you claiming that my life is pointless?

Moreover, Why believe in anything without proof? Why have faith at all?


Firstly, I do not take a "passive role". Lacking belief in something without proof is not "passive", It's "reasonable". Secondly, How do you aim to "figure out life" if you simply have "faith" and believe in things based on "faith" opposed to proof? In order to "figure out" anything you must investigate, but why investigate when you can simply "have faith" that something is true?

so is there a god?

read my second statement agian. if there was a god and life has purpose then faith is needed,seperation is needed. god cannot control us, we must have free will or true love would be impossible. you life my be pointless however, im not asserting you life is pointless, i just have "no belief in purpose in your life" ;D ;D.

so your saying that it is pointless to search for meaning in life because rational discourse or "investigation". perhaps he can communicate, but only years after deep meditation. or maybe after years of inward searching, or perhaps the meaning of life is to search, to learn. i dont know i just know i like looking at arguments for or against, and my positive faith which convinces me there is allows me to find meaning in alot of things i never found meaning in before. i investigate because i want to satisfy my logical side, however illogical my belief may be.

how did this all begin? in your opinion, why are we here?


and what kind of proof are you looking for? by definiton you'll never get concrete proof?

i said "i think agnosticism is the most logical ground to stand on but the least satisfying", i wasnt disagreeing with you.

Butterbean

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19325
Re: If Heaven and Hell existed...
« Reply #19 on: April 17, 2007, 10:28:58 AM »
I would hate to be in Heaven knowing I couldn't do anything about those burning eternally in hell. How is that compassionate and "Christian"?
(from epm.org)



Awareness in Heaven of Events on Earth?
by Randy Alcorn



Note: Before reading this article, please read Rethinking Our Beliefs About Heaven, which lays the foundation for it.

Given the substantial evidence of Scripture to the contrary, the burden of proof is on those who argue people in heaven are unconcerned with and unaware of what is happening on earth. Does Scripture really teach this? Where?

Or is the belief that those in heaven are unaware of what happens on earth merely an assumption, one that over decades or centuries has been elevated by some into a doctrine, one not based on Scripture? I believe it is no more than a deduction based on a faulty premise, namely that for heaven to be happy, people in heaven can't know what's happening on earth. That argument is therefore worth taking a closer look at.

Argument: "It wouldn't be heaven if we knew of bad things happening on earth. We're promised there will be no more crying or pain in heaven."

Answers:

1. It's heaven for God and he knows exactly what's happening on earth.

2. It's heaven for the angels and they know what's happening on earth.

3. Angels in heaven see the torment of hell, but it does not minimize heaven (Rev. 14:10).

4. Abraham and Lazarus saw the rich man's agonies in hell, but it did not cause heaven to cease to be heaven (Luke 16:23-26). If one can see people in hell without ruining heaven, surely nothing he could see on earth could ruin it.

(Note: Luke 16 is in the intermediate state, before the end of the world and the resurrection. It does not therefore necessarily indicate those in the new heavens and earth can see into the eternal lake of fire. However, it suggests those currently in heaven may be able to see into hell, or at the very least be fully aware of its existence.)

5. There is a chasm that those in heaven and hell can't cross, but they can see what was happening in the other place (Luke 16:23-26). If this is true of heaven and hell, is the same true of heaven and earth? A chasm separating them and preventing direct intervention, yet an ability to see what's happening in the other world?

6. The promise of no more tears or crying is after the end of the world, after the Great White Throne judgment, after "the old order of things has passed away" and there is no more suffering on earth (Rev. 21:1-4). This passage is not a valid argument for tearlessness in the present heaven, but only in the new heaven and earth. This doesn't mean those presently in heaven must be unaware of what's happening on earth.

Certainly those in heaven are not frail beings whose joy can be maintained only by sheer ignorance of what is going on in the universe. In fact, even if our knowledge did produce some sadness in heaven (we don't know for sure it would), the old order hasn't yet passed away. Heaven is not in its final state. We should not begin by defining heaven as "no sorrow, no concern, no knowledge of suffering" and then dismiss any scriptural indications that undermine that assumption.

Christ grieved for people on earth (Mt. 23:37-39; John 11:33-36). Is he no longer capable of doing so because he is in heaven? Or does he still hurt for his people when they suffer? If he can hurt for them, could not we? It is one thing to no longer cry because there is nothing left to cry about. It is something else to no longer cry when there is ongoing suffering on earth.

Going into the presence of Christ surely does not make us less compassionate, but more. Hence, it is possible that even with the predominant joy presently in heaven, in light of the fact there is still so much evil and pain in the universe, there could be periodic expressions of sadness in heaven until the evil and pain is permanently gone.

7. Since God is continuously at work on earth, observing saints would have a great deal to praise him for, including people's spiritual transformations (Luke 15:7,10). If there is rejoicing in heaven about what happens on earth, aren't the redeemed allowed to participate in the rejoicing? How could they participate unless aware of the cause for celebration?

Conclusion: Happiness in heaven is based on being with Christ, gaining accurate perspective, and living in a sinless environment. It is not based on a fundamental ignorance of what is happening on earth or even in hell.

Problem: Isaiah 65:17 says in heaven "the former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind."

First, Isaiah 65:17 must be weighed against the dozens of other passages of Scripture previously cited in this article and the earlier one. If they clearly teach some things from earth will be remembered in the eternal state, then properly understood this verse does not contradict them.

Furthermore, whatever this verse means, it specifically comes after the new heavens and new earth, not before. Hence, it has no bearing at all on the question of whether saints presently in heaven can witness events happening on earth.

Isaiah 65:17 is linked to the previous verse: "For the past troubles will be forgotten and hidden from My eyes." This does not suggest literal lack of memory, as if the omniscient God couldn't recall the past. God knows everything. Rather, it is like God saying I will remember their sins no more" (Jer. 31:34). It means he will not choose to call to mind or to hold against us our past sins.

In eternity, past sins will not plague us or God, nor interfere with God's acceptance of us. Likewise, both God and we will be capable of choosing not to recall our past troubles and sorrows and sins in a way that would diminish the wonders of heaven. However, it seems likely that recalling the reality of such troubles and sorrows and sins would set a sharp contrast to the glories of heaven, as darkness does to light, as hell does to heaven. This contrast would be lost if the sense of what sorrow is was entirely forgotten. (If we ever forget we were desperate sinners, how could we appreciate the depth and meaning of Christ's glorious work for us?) It is even possible that an awareness of the perfect justice of hell will enhance the depth of gratitude to God of those in heaven.

Even in the new heavens and earth there are memorials to the twelve tribes and the apostles (Rev. 21:12-14). Christ's nail scared hands and feet in his eternal resurrection body (John 20:24-29) prove his suffering and redemption-and the fact it was necessitated by our sins-will not be forgotten! Hence, these passages clearly preclude the "we'll remember nothing on earth" understanding of Isaiah 65:17.

Every believer's crowns and rewards will continuously remind us of acts of faithfulness to God done in that window of opportunity on earth.

While God will wipe away the tears and sorrow attached to this world, the drama of God's work in human history will not be erased from our minds. Heaven's happiness will not be dependent on our ignorance of what really happened on earth. Rather, it will be greatly enhanced by our informed appreciation of God's glorious grace and justice in what really happened on earth.



R

Wikidudeman

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 214
  • Nu mă, Nu mă iei!
Re: If Heaven and Hell existed...
« Reply #20 on: April 17, 2007, 02:55:38 PM »
so is there a god?

Define "God".


read my second statement agian. if there was a god and life has purpose then faith is needed,seperation is needed. god cannot control us, we must have free will or true love would be impossible. you life my be pointless however, im not asserting you life is pointless, i just have "no belief in purpose in your life" ;D ;D.

Are you claiming that life has no purpose if "God" doesn't exist?

so your saying that it is pointless to search for meaning in life because rational discourse or "investigation".

No. I never said that.


perhaps he can communicate, but only years after deep meditation. or maybe after years of inward searching, or perhaps the meaning of life is to search, to learn. i dont know i just know i like looking at arguments for or against, and my positive faith which convinces me there is allows me to find meaning in alot of things i never found meaning in before. i investigate because i want to satisfy my logical side, however illogical my belief may be.

I really don't know what you're exactly saying here. Who communicates? God?

Are you admitting that your beliefs are illogical?


how did this all begin? in your opinion, why are we here?

Why am I here? As an individual?
Why are human beings here?
Why is life here?
Why is the earth here?
Why is the universe here?

These are all separate questions that delve into separate ares of science.

and what kind of proof are you looking for? by definiton you'll never get concrete proof?

What kind of 'proof' am I looking for? I'm not. I can't imagine what would "prove" the existence of a God other than some amazing show of miracles that no one could reasonably deny and that science couldn't explain. Something of that effect.

i said "i think agnosticism is the most logical ground to stand on but the least satisfying", i wasnt disagreeing with you.

I won't label myself "Agnostic" or "Atheist" for simplicity purposes. If you're claiming that "lack of believe" is the most logical ground to stand on, I agree. Is it least satisfying? It depends on the person. If you have a positive outlook and are a critical person then the most logical outlook WILL be the most satisfying simply because it's most likely true.

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9899
Re: If Heaven and Hell existed...
« Reply #21 on: April 17, 2007, 07:15:47 PM »



Are you claiming that life has no purpose if "God" doesn't exist?



essentially yes, without god there is no purpose, no greater reality, no meaning to life. life is random, chaotic and without purpose or a goal. your life is as purposive as a ant that my cat flicks on the ground. you'd be hard pressed to argue that its life has a purpose, when its just a chemical reaction that occured by random chance.








Are you admitting that your beliefs are illogical?


Why am I here? As an individual?
Why are human beings here?
Why is life here?
Why is the earth here?
Why is the universe here?

These are all separate questions that delve into separate ares of science.





1)Faith is not rational yes, it's not illogical, but irrational. my mistake, used the wrong word.

As for the questions.Even if science explained every little detail about the universe, the question still remains why something rather then nothing at all? why is there anything at all?

The other questions you outlined do not interest me, im asking why is there something rather then nothing? why are we here in your opinion? i feel its a valid question, and unless you've thought about it, then your non-beleif is illogical since your wanting proof to smack you in the face. perhaps there is an answer, we haven't found it. Taking action may prove to be wise while not believing or investigating may be ill advised. i search for answers, while i know theres little hope of finding "proof". however, i find there are some plausible explanations which satisfy me to beleive the positive, while the wouldn't qualify as proof.


my apologies for the lazy typing and lack of quoting.

Wikidudeman

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 214
  • Nu mă, Nu mă iei!
Re: If Heaven and Hell existed...
« Reply #22 on: April 18, 2007, 04:17:04 PM »
essentially yes, without god there is no purpose, no greater reality, no meaning to life. life is random, chaotic and without purpose or a goal. your life is as purposive as a ant that my cat flicks on the ground. you'd be hard pressed to argue that its life has a purpose, when its just a chemical reaction that occured by random chance.

What sort of "purpose" are you talking about? Are you talking about actually being born for a specific purpose or are you talking about having a cause to continue living?

If you're talking about being born for a distinct and specific purpose, Humans like all other animals are born to reproduce. Evolutionarily humans would die out if they did not reproduce therefore their purpose is to reproduce before dying. This is essentially "why" they are born. I know this isn't a very fulfilling explanation but it's the truth.

If you're talking about "purpose" as in simply a reason to continue living then each individual makes their own purpose. For some people their purpose in life is to be a doctor and for others it's to be a park ranger. That's their own individual purpose that they made for themselves. You determine your purpose in life yourself.


1)Faith is not rational yes, it's not illogical, but irrational. my mistake, used the wrong word.

It's good you admit it.

As for the questions.Even if science explained every little detail about the universe, the question still remains why something rather then nothing at all? why is there anything at all?

How would "God" answer that question? Once you can say "Ok, God did it!". Then what? Who made God? If you want an explanation for why there is "something" opposed to "nothing" then "God" can't be that explanation because "God" would be included in that 'something' meaning that you must also now explain why there is "God" opposed to "nothing". If you want to say that "God is eternal" or "God was the first cause" then why can't you use that same explanation for everything itself minus 'God'?


The other questions you outlined do not interest me, im asking why is there something rather then nothing? why are we here in your opinion? i feel its a valid question, and unless you've thought about it, then your non-beleif is illogical since your wanting proof to smack you in the face. perhaps there is an answer, we haven't found it. Taking action may prove to be wise while not believing or investigating may be ill advised. i search for answers, while i know theres little hope of finding "proof". however, i find there are some plausible explanations which satisfy me to beleive the positive, while the wouldn't qualify as proof.

I have thought about it and for the most part no one knows why there is "Something" opposed to "Nothing". Possibly it's impossible for there to be "Nothing" so there must be something. Possibly there is simply no answer. Possibly the answer is so incredibly complex that humans couldn't comprehend it with their limited intelligence. Possibly science will explain the answer in the future.

Either way you want to go, Adding "God" into the picture doesn't explain why there is something instead of nothing. All it does is make the question more complicated because now you must explain why God exists and why there is a "God" opposed to "No God". As explained above, If you want to say that "God is eternal" or "God was the first cause" then why can't you use that same explanation for everything itself minus 'God'?

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9899
Re: If Heaven and Hell existed...
« Reply #23 on: April 19, 2007, 07:33:10 AM »
What sort of "purpose" are you talking about? Are you talking about actually being born for a specific purpose or are you talking about having a cause to continue living?

If you're talking about being born for a distinct and specific purpose, Humans like all other animals are born to reproduce. Evolutionarily humans would die out if they did not reproduce therefore their purpose is to reproduce before dying. This is essentially "why" they are born. I know this isn't a very fulfilling explanation but it's the truth.

If you're talking about "purpose" as in simply a reason to continue living then each individual makes their own purpose. For some people their purpose in life is to be a doctor and for others it's to be a park ranger. That's their own individual purpose that they made for themselves. You determine your purpose in life yourself.



the definition of purpose is something set up as an object or end to be attained. if there is no ultimate goal there is no purpose, no reason why we exist. it is random, there is no purpose in the formation of an icicle just like evolution has no purpose or goal. your self defined purpose, is simply a illusion created by your brain, people can claim purpose all they want but in the grand scheme of things, if there is no greater purpose or goal that would be obtained then there is no purpose to anything we do. also, nothing is "set-up" if it is just random, chaotic , blips of dis-organization. the purpose in life for some to be a park ranger is another example of an illusion, we are just a walking chemical reaction like the reaction of acetic acid with milk, your trying to tell me that the formation of whey, casein etc was purposive, that is was that milks purpose to form its constituents? consciousnous is nothing more then random brain cells firing, there is no purpose to that either, if you argue that humans have a purpose for existing and for living you'd have to argue that an ant, a cat, and a bacterium all have a "purpose" in life, when in reality they just happen to be there by chance.
What sort of "purpose" are you talking about? Are you talking about actually being born for a specific purpose or are you talking about having a cause to continue living?



How would "God" answer that question? Once you can say "Ok, God did it!". Then what? Who made God? If you want an explanation for why there is "something" opposed to "nothing" then "God" can't be that explanation because "God" would be included in that 'something' meaning that you must also now explain why there is "God" opposed to "nothing". If you want to say that "God is eternal" or "God was the first cause" then why can't you use that same explanation for everything itself minus 'God'?


I have thought about it and for the most part no one knows why there is "Something" opposed to "Nothing". Possibly it's impossible for there to be "Nothing" so there must be something. Possibly there is simply no answer. Possibly the answer is so incredibly complex that humans couldn't comprehend it with their limited intelligence. Possibly science will explain the answer in the future.

Either way you want to go, Adding "God" into the picture doesn't explain why there is something instead of nothing. All it does is make the question more complicated because now you must explain why God exists and why there is a "God" opposed to "No God". As explained above, If you want to say that "God is eternal" or "God was the first cause" then why can't you use that same explanation for everything itself minus 'God'?

well i agree with aquinas and maimonedes(sp) among others that something does exist which is impossible not to exist, and its ESSENCE is to exist(and the universe is contingent on its existence). We know the universe had a finite beginning and that it will eventually end, matter that is, when that is i dont know. That is unless energy is being supplied from the exterior. so what caused the big bang? the law of cause and effect still maintains even in quantum physics and nothing cannot create something. So something "before" the big bang created the universe, however before creates paradox because time began in the universe or was created so whatever was before the universe doesnt operate in time following that logic, hence was not created, hence needs no beginning. Therefore, if god was that cause, you dont need to explain his beginning or how he was created. if it was not god, something still has to be eternal or you would have and infinite regression of causes.

You could say that there is no need for god, but the "before" causation must have the qualities of timelessness,immaterial,and creative which sounds like god. Your belief that it complicates things, is not true. its actually easier thats why so many morons beleive in god, explining the universe in a totallly random, non purposive, just happened way doesnt sound logical to the MAJORITY of people.

So no, i dont have to explain god, and something that creates, is immaterial, is timeless sounds like god to me. whats you answer? it seems like no answer at all. thats my point you've either never investigated or you just dont care, either way some people dont deserve to be called atheists, agnostics, nor theologians. do you have a stance on why there is something rather then nothing? or do you just choose not to answer, because there is many possibilities?

Wikidudeman

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 214
  • Nu mă, Nu mă iei!
Re: If Heaven and Hell existed...
« Reply #24 on: April 19, 2007, 03:46:52 PM »
the definition of purpose is something set up as an object or end to be attained. if there is no ultimate goal there is no purpose, no reason why we exist. it is random, there is no purpose in the formation of an icicle just like evolution has no purpose or goal. your self defined purpose, is simply a illusion created by your brain, people can claim purpose all they want but in the grand scheme of things, if there is no greater purpose or goal that would be obtained then there is no purpose to anything we do. also, nothing is "set-up" if it is just random, chaotic , blips of dis-organization. the purpose in life for some to be a park ranger is another example of an illusion, we are just a walking chemical reaction like the reaction of acetic acid with milk, your trying to tell me that the formation of whey, casein etc was purposive, that is was that milks purpose to form its constituents? consciousnous is nothing more then random brain cells firing, there is no purpose to that either, if you argue that humans have a purpose for existing and for living you'd have to argue that an ant, a cat, and a bacterium all have a "purpose" in life, when in reality they just happen to be there by chance.


Purpose--the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/purpose

If purpose is defined as the "reason" for which something exists then the "reason" we exist is because our parents had sex and we were born.
As far as the "reason" we do things, I already explained that. Everyone makes their own purpose.

As far as consciousness being nothing more than "random chemical reactions". This is also false. Our brains are formed in such a way that the chemical reactions that occur are anything but random. Some chemical reactions occur naturally as a bodily mechanism. These aren't random. For instance the signals to tell our heart to beat. There's nothing random about that. Or thoughts. Thoughts aren't necessarily "random". The fact that one can determine their thoughts means that it isn't randomness.

Bacteria, Ants, Cows all have the same natural purposes humans have. To reproduce.


well i agree with aquinas and maimonedes(sp) among others that something does exist which is impossible not to exist, and its ESSENCE is to exist(and the universe is contingent on its existence). We know the universe had a finite beginning and that it will eventually end, matter that is, when that is i dont know. That is unless energy is being supplied from the exterior. so what caused the big bang? the law of cause and effect still maintains even in quantum physics and nothing cannot create something. So something "before" the big bang created the universe, however before creates paradox because time began in the universe or was created so whatever was before the universe doesnt operate in time following that logic, hence was not created, hence needs no beginning.

If the universe needs no cause or beginning then why invoke "God"? Moreover, It's true that the laws of physics seem to break down at the point of the big bang, however this doesn't necessarily mean that there couldn't of been a "before" the big bang in the casual sense. Physicists are still working on that and I'm not a physicist, but I can tell you that if there was no "before" the big bang then there couldn't of been a "God" who made it. If there is a "before" the big bang then it could of been many things other than a "God". Using some intelligent designer just complicates the question beyond comprehension and is useless.


Therefore, if god was that cause, you dont need to explain his beginning or how he was created. if it was not god, something still has to be eternal or you would have and infinite regression of causes.

If you can say that "God" had no creator then you could use the same reasoning and apply it to the universe.

Moreover, what's wrong with an infinite regression of causes?


You could say that there is no need for god, but the "before" causation must have the qualities of timelessness,immaterial,and creative which sounds like god. Your belief that it complicates things, is not true. its actually easier thats why so many morons beleive in god, explining the universe in a totallly random, non purposive, just happened way doesnt sound logical to the MAJORITY of people.

Firstly, Even if there was some "timeless, immaterial" cause to the Big bang. There is absolutely no reason to believe it was an "intelligent creator". It could of easily been some natural cause, thoughtless and not sentient.

Secondly, It absolutely does complicate things. Science works by explaining what the evidence supports. You can't make leaps of logic and proof and assume that since we don't know the exact cause of the Big bang, some supernatural intelligent creator did it.

Thirdly, No one claims that the universe is "totally random, non purposeful" or "just happened". Natural causes aren't random. They have purposes and they don't 'just happen'.


So no, i dont have to explain god, and something that creates, is immaterial, is timeless sounds like god to me.

You do have to explain "God". If you want to use inductive reasoning and assume that a "God" did it all then you need to explain why this "God" didn't have a cause. Why does this "God" exist opposed to not existing? Why is he "timeless"? How is he "immaterial"? How does he function? You need to explain all of this or else your assumptions are useless. Invoking such a complicated 'cause' absolutely makes the whole question of the origin of the universe useless.

whats you answer? it seems like no answer at all.

My answer to the question "Why is there something opposed to nothing?" is simple. "I don't know". That's the only answer anyone can give. Anyone giving another answer had better have proof.


thats my point you've either never investigated or you just dont care, either way some people dont deserve to be called atheists, agnostics, nor theologians.

I have investigated and I do care. However being limited by the lack of proof, I can't make conclusions. I also can't jump to conclusions based on faulty inductive reasoning and assume that some massively complicated creator who violates all known laws of physics somehow "exists" without a cause and made the universe somehow sometime even though there's no evidence supporting it. That's just dumb.

do you have a stance on why there is something rather then nothing? or do you just choose not to answer, because there is many possibilities?

I already explained my stances. The fact that (as far as I know) scientists don't know the 'cause' of the big bang, assuming there was even a cause, means just that. I don't know. You don't know. No one knows.

Why is there "something rather than nothing"? I do not know. No one knows, including you.

Why not "God"? If you want to invoke "God" as being the 'cause' then you're going to need proof. Without proof your assumption is baseless. If you want to make leaps of logic and assume that "God" must of done it due to lack of other explanations then that's an "Argument from ignorance". It's a logical fallacy.

The problems with invoking a "God" are numerous. Apart from lack of proof, You'll need to explain all of the problems with the "God argument".

Firstly, Who made "God"?
Is God timeless?
Why is God timeless?
How is God timeless?

Secondly, How did God form the universe?
Why did God form the universe?

Thirdly, What does "God" consist of? Nothing?
How does "God" consist of nothing? How can he be "immaterial" as you put it.

Unless you can answer these basic questions, then your adding of "God" into the picture complicates it beyond comprehension. Therefore you can't add it into the picture.