Ron Singh

Since God never 'began', he would not adhere to the first statement.

E_Muse, are you a theist, atheist, agnostic, what?

Ron Singh

You speak of Tachyons, tarchons being a typo, correct? In that case, these supposed particles would travel at speeds faster than the speed of light and would have imaginary mass. Since these Tachyons can not even be observed by Cerenkov radiation in a vacuum, most believe that they do not exist. Moreoever, what leads you to believe that such things exist? And how do you think that this would predetermin God's will?
I sense that such theories and speculations will go to hell, which is apparently where other sinful and evil theories like the easily dethroned Steady State Theory dwell. Now, if these Tachyons would only repent their sins... <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

[editted to fix typo and premature post submitting]

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: sikh ]</p>

Liquidrage

No that's a misunderstanding of what's being said. God is necessary being, that is God, if God exists, cannot fail to exist. It cannot be that there may or may not have been a God. If there is a God then had to have been a God. Other things are not like that, they are contingent, they may or may not have existed. thus we are talking about things on two very different levels. God would not need a casue since God is the final cause, the place where the chain of cause and effect has to stop. All other things are contingent and have to have casues. But those causes all have to go back to some one final cause since otherwise you have an infinite regress and it gets messy.


Could someone please point me to the reason as to why a god would have to *see the above*.

It's not in the Bible not the dictionary nor the Book or Kulabakbak. And just saying "foever and ever" doesn't cut it.
I understand people want to think this, but this is a definition people have attached to a god.

Maybe each universe has it's own god and god is created through the Acme(tm) God-o-matic?

eh

Metacrock,

I've never understood why God is a necessary being. Necessary for what, exactly? Needed for all other things to exist? If this is the case, why not just say the building blocks of all matter (particles) are the only thing necessary?

I've heard that God logically MUST exist, but this doesn't make any sense. Nothing must exist. Something does exist of course, but why must this be a personal being instead of the fundemental particles that make up our universe? Help me out here.

eh

Also, how does God solve the problem of infinite regress? In other words, what was he doing before creation?

Hans

luvluv

Like say the universe has a whole?

Again, the universe? Have you any non-mythical reason to conclude that the universe has not always existed?

Peregrine

Once upon a time I was hung up on first cause, feeling that most of the theistic and atheistic arguments were nothing but semantic games. Then (because of this board) I decided first cause was just another "god of the gaps" argument. And I had discarded this argument back in my teens, because with each passing hour, day, week ... the gaps get smaller and the theist's god gets smaller.

E_muse

Why should debates surrounding first cause only be about defending belief in God? Doesn't this limit the first cause to something non-scientific?

Kindra

First of all, Hi everyone, i'm new to these boards and my english isn't perfect, my apologies for the occasional typo's :-)
No i don't think it does. When you look at this only from a physical point of view, the scientific way, and never consider the possibility that there may be more to it than what you can observe in this physical universe , you will finally find a 'first particle' and then get stuck again...

In many belief-systems the Physical plain lies within the Spiritual or astral plain...and our univers is only a fraction of the whole manifestation. Unfortunately, because we can't observe it, it is considered to be 'religion' and that doesn't mix to well with science

E_muse

Greetings Kindra! Know what you mean about the typos That's why you'll find a lot of Edit notices at the bottom of my posts.

Thank you for responding to my post.

Indeed, this is true.

Stephen Hawking suggests that the matter for the universe was created in a quantum vacuum - literally from nothing.

Comments made by liquidrage above suggest that the jury is still out and even great thinkers such as Hawking (who is a leader in the field of cosmology) change their mind.

However, does this mean that we cannot say anything meaningful about what may have caused the universe?

I think there are times when 'religion' can be the enemy of most things.. including spirituality itself. I tend to separate theism from the church.. if you know what I mean. Wasn't it organised religion that put Jesus on the cross?

Religion has a history of treating people appalingly and in my own experience I have found aspects of it manipulative and controlling.

Thankfully, many scientists, philosophers and thinkers find faith a helpful ally. Stephen Hawking states:

Both religion and science attempt to answer the same question.. who, or what created the universe? It seems a central issue to human culture and I think most people will have asked it at some point in their lives.

Can we answer such a question?