quote:

Originally posted by dewhorse:

quote:

Originally posted by stickman428:


Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

That's an excellent quote

Pascal’s wager

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:
I can understand that people may change their beliefs, and no longer believe in God. In a class about 4 decades ago, there was a lively discussion of this topic.

I asked this question "Can anyone cite the law that allowed this universe to spring into existence out of nothing?" Silence.

All that proves is that none of us truly know the origin of the universe.

Scientists and theologians can cite theories or ancient texts - written by humans - but theories and faith don't equate to being facts.

quote:

Originally posted by tgtshuter:

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:
I can understand that people may change their beliefs, and no longer believe in God. In a class about 4 decades ago, there was a lively discussion of this topic.

I asked this question "Can anyone cite the law that allowed this universe to spring into existence out of nothing?" Silence.

All that proves is that none of us truly know the origin of the universe.

Scientists and theologians can cite theories or ancient texts - written by humans - but theories and faith don't equate to being facts.

Occasionally I post about a recently deceased individual who was particularly agitational about others’ spirituality, that, now he knows. This is not to be pedantic because I don’t know. I work by faith. One must experience before he knows. For example, now Christopher Hitchens knows. I don’t but have faith. When I pass, I’ll know.

I referred to Pascal’s wager. If I have faith and was wrong, what damage did I do? I think the moral codes I’ve adopted as a result of my faith have resulted in a better life and one that edifies, especially later in life as I am more refined. So in a Pascal’s wager kind of way but without the self interest consideration, I think we’re better off with faith and moral discipline as a foundation in our culture. Believe in God or not, be not destructive.

My faith is not a bet on the future/afterlife

It is recognizing I’m not all powerful, saving me from myself. Like others here, many times in life I’ve faced huge challenges/shit sandwiches/circumstances. Faith is the tool I use to face down my fears.

When I’m checked by fear, I know my spiritual fitness needs to be intact.

My “faith” is for living here and now.

quote:

Originally posted by stickman428:
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

That's probably the best post in this thread and pretty much the way I live my life.

Leibniz's argument uses the existence of the universe as a means to argue that there must be an un-caused cause of the universe (and everything in it). It argues that there must be a creator of the universe. Therefore, there must be a God. Leibniz would, if I remember correctly, acknowledge this doesn't require the Biblical Christian god, but some pre-existing creative force.

David Hume, no slouch himself in the philosophical world, was in many ways, the ultimate skeptic as he always searched out the assumptions in ideas. He recognized that there must be a cause for the universe was an assumption in Leibniz' argument. He asked why must there be a pre-existing creator, and asked why can't the universe itself be the "necessarily existent being?" He would note that because there are generally "causes" in our physical world, that we should not assume there have to be causes in this broader sense. This suggests that the universe simply is, Some might say that the universe causes itself, although this seems to perpetuate the assumption that there has to be a cause for the universe.

Perhaps the two ideas aren't wholly irreconcilable: if the universe itself is the singular thing, then the universe is the "higher power" we look for. God is the universe and the universe is god.

quote:

Originally posted by Flash-LB:

quote:

Originally posted by stickman428:
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

That's probably the best post in this thread and pretty much the way I live my life.

I don't find the quote to be good. The author is trying to impose his definition of 'just' to God and how he thinks God should judge us based on his definition of 'virtues.' It's common of any virtue based religion.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Leibniz's argument uses the existence of the universe as a means to argue that there must be an un-caused cause of the universe (and everything in it). It argues that there must be a creator of the universe. Therefore, there must be a God. Leibniz would, if I remember correctly, acknowledge this doesn't require the Biblical Christian god, but some pre-existing creative force.

Point out to me where I referred to a Christian God in those remarks. Go ahead.

quote:

This suggests that the universe simply is...

Sure, that's a logical response: Everything was just already here. No cause, no creation. It was just here. Did you bother to read your remarks before you posted them?

quote:

Some might say...

And who might they be?

quote:

...that the universe causes itself, although this seems to perpetuate the assumption that there has to be a cause for the universe.

Man, you are just talking in circles. Leave it to you.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Leibniz's argument uses the existence of the universe as a means to argue that there must be an un-caused cause of the universe (and everything in it). It argues that there must be a creator of the universe. Therefore, there must be a God. Leibniz would, if I remember correctly, acknowledge this doesn't require the Biblical Christian god, but some pre-existing creative force.

Point out to me where I referred to a Christian God in those remarks. Go ahead.

quote:

This suggests that the universe simply is...

Sure, that's a logical response: Everything was just already here. No cause, no creation. It was just here. Did you bother to read your remarks before you posted them?

quote:

Some might say...

And who might they be?

quote:

...that the universe causes itself, although this seems to perpetuate the assumption that there has to be a cause for the universe.

Man, you are just talking in circles. Leave it to you.

I never did ascribe a reference to the Christian God to you. Point out to me where I did. Go ahead.

My remarks were not addressed to you in particular, and were not designed to vex you. You did raise Leibniz, but the "why is there something" argument always comes up in this context.

Now, as to the substance of your argument: you are fully in the grip of the assumption that there has to be a pre-exiting cause. You are so convinced that this is so, that all you do is stand there and throw rocks in the form of personal insults. Ad hominem attacks are a weak form of argument. Perhaps the weakest.

If you want to really talk about this, then explain the justification of the assumption that there is a pre-existing cause. Explain why there must be a outside cause, if that is what you believe.

That thought is not original to me. As I said, David Hume was an early responder to Leibniz, and no one has ever accused him of talking in circles.

Keystoner, or maybe he is making an argument on why one should seek to live a good and noble life regardless of the existence of God or lack there of.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
If you want to really talk about this, then explain the justification of the assumption that there is a pre-existing cause. Explain why there must be a outside cause, if that is what you believe.

Provide me with an example of something springing out of nothing. Go ahead.

quote:

You are so convinced that this is so, that all you do is stand there and throw rocks in the form of personal insults. Ad hominem attacks are a weak form of argument. Perhaps the weakest.

Pointing out that this type of thing is you all over is not, nor was it intended to be my "argument". It's merely an observation arising from having read your posts for years. Don't try to make it out to be anything more than that.

And yes, I am convinced it is so, because it is so, and it is so because any other conclusion is purely illogical. Let's hear your example of something springing out of nothing, and you even have the advantage of an existing framework in which such an impossibility may take place.

One single example, that's all. Go ahead.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:

quote:

Originally posted by tgtshuter:

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:
I can understand that people may change their beliefs, and no longer believe in God. In a class about 4 decades ago, there was a lively discussion of this topic.

I asked this question "Can anyone cite the law that allowed this universe to spring into existence out of nothing?" Silence.

All that proves is that none of us truly know the origin of the universe.

Scientists and theologians can cite theories or ancient texts - written by humans - but theories and faith don't equate to being facts.

Occasionally I post about a recently deceased individual who was particularly agitational about others’ spirituality, that, now he knows. This is not to be pedantic because I don’t know. I work by faith. One must experience before he knows. For example, now Christopher Hitchens knows. I don’t but have faith. When I pass, I’ll know.

I referred to Pascal’s wager. If I have faith and was wrong, what damage did I do? I think the moral codes I’ve adopted as a result of my faith have resulted in a better life and one that edifies, especially later in life as I am more refined. So in a Pascal’s wager kind of way but without the self interest consideration, I think we’re better off with faith and moral discipline as a foundation in our culture. Believe in God or not, be not destructive.

It was not my intention to be antagonistic or destructive with my post. I don't see how one could take it that way, but...

Elk's post sounded like that the lack of being able to cite a physical law creating the universe inferred that god created it.

Spiritual faith is a great thing. I admire those who have it strong enough to live their lives with happiness and fulfillment according to what they believe comes from a metaphysical being.

I just believe that one can live by a moral code, and have the happiness and fulfillment, without having a religious foundation.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
If you want to really talk about this, then explain the justification of the assumption that there is a pre-existing cause. Explain why there must be a outside cause, if that is what you believe.

Provide me with an example of something springing out of nothing. Go ahead.

At this level, what happens in the physical universe may not be particularly important. When talking about the existence (or perhaps creation) of the universe, things could be very different than we observe here on earth. That was Hume's point. The assumption that the existence of the universe is the same as what we observe on our very local scale and require a creator is an assumption that we should consider.

However, if you need an observable analog, subatomic particles wink in and out of existence with no explanation all the time. We have seen it happen, and those particles have actual effects on our universe while they are here. Quantum mechanics is weird, and this lends some credence to the idea that the universe as a whole is very much weirder than we can readily imagine.

https://www.fnal.gov/pub/today...utshellReadmore.html

Quote: And yes, I am convinced it is so, because it is so, and it is so because any other conclusion is purely illogical.

If you are convinced that your view is the only one, and that is exactly what you are saying there, there is no point in talking about it. If you can't explain why the belief is valid other than that you believe it to be valid . . . well, I have to assume you see the problem.

Unproven. Observable at a level we can achieve, and that's all, and again, you have the advantage of not only pre-existing matter, but a pre-existing field as well.

The energy which underlies all matter does not disappear and reappear.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:


However, if you need an observable analog, subatomic particles wink in and out of existence with no explanation all the time. We have seen it happen, and those particles have actual effects on our universe while they are here. Quantum mechanics is weird, and this lends some credence to the idea that the universe as a whole is very much weirder than we can readily imagine.

https://www.fnal.gov/pub/today...utshellReadmore.html

You clearly don’t understand quantum field theory. Those particles never “spawn/arrive” without the field. Back to HS physics.



Old joke:

Quark, quark
Beware quantum ducts

Well then, there we are. You are sure you are right, and that is that. Conversation is impossible.

The field, man. Einstein said at the base of all things, the field is all that matters, no pun intended.

Einstein could never accept quantum mechanics. That branch of physics moved beyond him.

Oh? He was referring to quantum physics when he said this:

"We may therefore regard matter as being constituted by the regions of space in which the field is extremely intense. There is no place in this new kind of physics both for the field and matter, for the field is the only reality." -Albert Einstein as quoted in The Tao of Physics

But according to you- oh, sorry, Hume, the field itself sprang out of nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by tgtshuter:

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:

quote:

Originally posted by tgtshuter:

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:
I can understand that people may change their beliefs, and no longer believe in God. In a class about 4 decades ago, there was a lively discussion of this topic.

I asked this question "Can anyone cite the law that allowed this universe to spring into existence out of nothing?" Silence.

All that proves is that none of us truly know the origin of the universe.

Scientists and theologians can cite theories or ancient texts - written by humans - but theories and faith don't equate to being facts.

Occasionally I post about a recently deceased individual who was particularly agitational about others’ spirituality, that, now he knows. This is not to be pedantic because I don’t know. I work by faith. One must experience before he knows. For example, now Christopher Hitchens knows. I don’t but have faith. When I pass, I’ll know.

I referred to Pascal’s wager. If I have faith and was wrong, what damage did I do? I think the moral codes I’ve adopted as a result of my faith have resulted in a better life and one that edifies, especially later in life as I am more refined. So in a Pascal’s wager kind of way but without the self interest consideration, I think we’re better off with faith and moral discipline as a foundation in our culture. Believe in God or not, be not destructive.

It was not my intention to be antagonistic or destructive with my post. I don't see how one could take it that way, but...

Elk's post sounded like that the lack of being able to cite a physical law creating the universe inferred that god created it.

Spiritual faith is a great thing. I admire those who have it strong enough to live their lives with happiness and fulfillment according to what they believe comes from a metaphysical being.

I just believe that one can live by a moral code, and have the happiness and fulfillment, without having a religious foundation.

Oh shoot! I didn’t mean you were destructive. My post was introspective, brother. Please forgive me if I offended you. That was not my intent.