What if god doesn't want you to believe in him before he appears? I know your particular religion says he does and that faith is absolutely critical, but what if that religion is wrong? Set aside organized religion for a minute, because organized religion obviously has a lot of self-interest in having its patrons operating in a faith-based way. (If you don't believe in him without explicit evidence, you don't attend church, you don't tithe, and the church has no way to support itself.) Imagine a god completely exclusive of religion. Would that being want you to worship him without evidence and be willing to reward you for doing so? Or would he want you to think in an evidence-based manner, rewarding those who observe his creation in its most scientific-based form, disregarding ideas like faith? What if he sends anyone to hell who engages in too much magical thinking because they just aren't paying attention to what he's made? I think at best it's a coin flip as to whether you get in to heaven for believing in him or not believing in him. If he exists.
Very good points and I would say that there isn't much to argue about it. Which is why I say that it's very personal and "faith driven". Even science can be at times. It all boils down to what's right for the individual. I believe without a shadow of a doubt that god exists; but to someone like you; my reasoning isn't what persuades you. Does that make me more right than you? Nope... I am more right for myself as your belief is more right for you. The real problem is the extremists on both spectrums. The people that shove their belief on others and tell them they are dumb or blind followers; because it goes against what they believe is truth. And in the end; the truth will eventually show itself. Either we get reincarnated, stand before Christ, go blank, or meet Zeus; the truth will eventually happen. This is why I love science. It holds no prejudice. It's either right or wrong and can change when new findings are found. It could be that science itself actually proves that their is a creator; either being an advanced alien life form, a supernatural being or the universe actually having a conscience. We live in flesh on this planet for an average lifespan of 70 years. 70 years is just a drop in the bucket compared to eternity. So hopefully we are on the right side.
Not sure exactly what you are referring to, magnifier, but some things are known with enough certainty to call them "fact", not opinions, not hypotheses, not faith. Gravity. Relativity. The approximate age of the universe. The fact of evolution. Some, sometimes many, specific details are unknown or debated, but gravity does exist. The universe is not 6000 years old. Species evolve. The speed of light in a vacuum is known. And so on. Scientists won't say "in my opinion, gravity exists". I have never met any scientist who says he/she/they know everything! I do know that popularizing science often gets things wrong, since the writers are writing about something with which they may not be familiar. And mass and energy are interchangeable.
I think you aren't understanding what I'm saying. There is absolutes like gravity and the others you mentioned; but the beginning is in question. For many; they really don't care about what happened right before the Big Bang. Not talking scientists here. And like I've said countless times. Mass cannot always exist according to science. It can't be eternal. It is finite. Time, gravity, space and mass are all finite. It all had a beginning. Something that isn't bound by the science we know today had created all of it. And since there is no answer of the thing or being that created it; faith is needed. This is why scientist will admit they don't know; but have an idea of what may happen. Since they don't have enough empirical evidence to support that part of cosmology; it is considered faith.
In my mind, He is. Jesus had a lot of issues with organized religion or "religiosity". He took on the Pharisees on many occasions. Basically, said they weren't headed to heaven based on the way they were going about things. I believe in God/Jesus because of what He has done in my life. I have a personal testimony which takes into account many, many events in my life that continue to reconfirm His existence. I'm not into religion, per se. It's all about my personal relationship with Christ. That said, the Bible says not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together. There are many churches out there that are self-seeking (we're human, after all, and humans can muck things up....) but there are still many that genuinely seek the Lord, too. I attend one of those. You can pretty much figure things out within the first few weeks.
Semantics and a reach smh. It is still an event that took place before time existed. You are just arguing semantics; which holds no ground. Also you completely ignored the entire thread, only to debate the word I used.
It's not semantics. You can't have an event of any kind before time existed. An event requires time to exist. Chicken and egg problem. Or logic fault in your thinking.
Ok, let's agree that you believe in God and find him to have acted in your life in lots of ways. Why do you think He feels it's necessary for you to praise him? Set aside what you've read in the Bible, because it's a religious document. Imagine some alternate reality where it never existed (but He still does). Isn't it just as likely such a being that created everything would want you to live in that world exclusively, trying to understand how it works? Say you drive a Honda. Do you think the engineers at Honda really care if you think about them at all? Most likely a Honda engineer would probably be annoyed if you tried to contact him directly to tell him what a great car he helped make. So much so he might file a restraining order to try to put you in prison. All that engineer really wanted you to do is enjoy the car. Get on with it. Similarly, a god who spent all this time and effort to make this magnificent universe with all these interesting things in it would probably get pretty damned annoyed if you spent all your time talking about what a great guy he is. "Hell" might be him just putting you back here again because you obviously weren't paying enough attention to what he made the first time. I don't know if there is or isn't a god. But if there is, I sincerely doubt he wants me to spend a lot of time thinking about him. If he did, he wouldn't have focused on making so much interesting stuff. Besides, it seems kind ego-maniacal. I didn't have kids because I wanted them to worship me for making them. I don't want them to think about me all the time. I want them to get on with their lives, and if they are successful that's good enough for me. I don't really care if they spend a lot of time when they are 40 thinking about whether I was an awesome or crappy dad. Hopefully they're living fully in the world I helped create for them, and that's enough. I'd never want to see them punished for getting along fine without me.
Sorry but you are still arguing semantics. Reason? You have giving link after link supporting the "big bang" which explains before time existed; something happened to create that time. Unfortunately your inability of reason is clouded. Your semantic argument is laughable because the very links you provided say otherwise. Kind of like when you said plasma is not matter. You just base your opinion and toss out what doesn't work with your argument.
This reminds me a lot of hawking when he first said time travel hasn't been discovered because we haven't seen time travel astronauts. Later he played with the idea it was possible and said "if our future self was advanced enough to harness the power of a star for time travel, would they really be interested in our primitive society?" <--- summarizing what I remembered; not his actual quote.
I understand "time" did not start until the Big Bang occurred, but like I've said over and over again; there was a eternal object that started it. Something eternal that is not bound by matter, gravity, space and time.
What you do not understand, you claim is semantics. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBB What came before the Big Bang? The standard Big Bang model is singular at the time of the Big Bang, t = 0. This means that one cannot even define time, since spacetime is singular.
No, not at all necessary that "something created it". It is not "considered faith" if there is not enough empirical evidence; it is considered a hypothesis. An educated guess for which they are trying to find evidence, for or against. The opposite of faith. That is according to believers, who explain in so many words that they have "faith" precisely in things for which there is not and cannot be evidence and get credit for that faith from their god.
Either the universe is eternal, or somebody who made the universe is eternal, or there's a third explanation that's so far out there our little monkey minds just never evolved to understand it. My best guess is the last one.
