User Tag List

First 4567816 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 249

  1. #51
    veteran attention whore Jeffster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    6,727

    Default

    It's silly to not believe in God.

    After all, Paul McCartney can fly.
    Jeffster Illustrates the Artisan Temperament <---- click here

    "I like the sigs with quotes in them from other forum members." -- Oberon

    The SP Spazz Youtube Channel

  2. #52
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    I've heard that worship of one only is called "henotheism". Both mono and heno mean "one", but "heno" is less exclusive.

    Other points,

    One argument is that if the universe were infinite, it would have infinite mass and infinite density, which would make it technically a singularity.

    Also, in theoretical physics, "the universe" is often used to refer to multidimensional spacetime continuums. Since from higher dimensions, they appear like flat membranes (like a 2D sheet in our universe), they are called "branes". "Multiverse" or "superspace" is the higher dimensional hyperspace these "universes" are all embedded in. So there can be existence outside of our "universe", even though it would be quite a different kind of existence. (Different numbers of dimensions, different natural laws, etc).

    Even beyond this dimensional multiverse, there can be a realm not even defined by space and time.

    What are Space and Time, Really, and Can We Do Without them?

    (From The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene, Vintage Books, p.376-78)

    ...we have freely made use of the concepts of space and of spacetime...envisioning the fabric of space and space-time as if it were somewhat like a piece of material out of which the universe is tailored. These images have considerable explanatory power; they are used regularly by physicists as a visual guide in their own technical work. Although [this] gives us a gradual impression of meaning, one can still be left asking, What do we really mean by the fabric of the universe?

    This is a profound question that has, in one form or another, been the subject of debate for hundreds of years. Newton declared space and time to be eternal and immutable ingredients in the makeup of the cosmos, pristine structures lying beyond the bound of question and explanation. Leibniz and others disagreed, claiming that space and time are merely bookkeeping devices for conveniently summarizing relationships between objects and events within the universe. The location of an object in space and in time has meaning only in comparison with another. Space and time are the vocabulary of these relationships, but nothing more. Although Newton's view held sway for more than 200 years, Leibniz's conception, further developed by Austrian physicist Ernst Mach, is closer to our current picture. As we have seen, Einstein's special and general theory of relativity firmly did away with the concept of an absolute and universal notion of space and time. But we can still ask whether the geometrical model of space-time that plays such a pivotal role in general relativity and in string theory is simply a convenient shorthand for the spatial and temporal relations between various locations, or whether we should view ourselves as truly imbedded in something when we refer to our immersion within the space-time fabric.

    Although we are heading into speculative territory, string theory does suggest an answer to this question. The graviton, the smallest bundle of gravitational force, is one particular pattern of string vibration. And just as an electromagnetic field such as visible light is composed of an enormous number of photons, a gravitational field is composed of an enormous number of gravitonsthat is, an enormous number of strings executing the graviton vibrational pattern. Gravitational fields, in turn, are encoded in the warping of the space time fabric, and hence we are led to identify the fabric of space-time itself with a colossal number of strings all undergoing the same, orderly, graviton pattern of vibration. In the language of the field, such an enormous, organized array of similarly vibrating strings is know as a coherent state of strings. It's a rather poetic imagethe strings of string theory as the threads of the space-time fabricbut we should note that its rigorous meaning has yet to be worked out completely.

    Nevertheless, describing the space-time fabric in this string-stitched form does lead us to contemplate the following question. An ordinary piece of fabric is the end product of someone having carefully woven together individual threads, the raw material of common textiles.
    Similarly, we can ask ourselves whether there is a raw precursor to the fabric of space-time; a configuration of strings of the cosmic fabric in which they have not yet coalesced into the organized form that we recognize as space-time. Notice that it is somewhat inaccurate to picture this state as a jumbled mass of individual vibrating strings that have yet to stitch themselves together into an ordered whole because, in our usual way of thinking, this presupposes a notion of both space and time; the space in which a string vibrates, and the progression of time that allows us to follow its change in shape from one moment to the next. But in this raw state, before the strings that make up the cosmic fabric engage in the orderly, coherent vibrational dance we are discussing, there is no realization of space or time. Even our language is too coarse to handle these ideas, for, in fact, there is even no notion of before. In a sense, it's as if individual strings are "shards" of space and time, and only when they appropriately undergo sympathetic vibrations do the conventional notions of space and time emerge.

    Imagining such a structureless, primal state of existence, one in which there is no notion of space or time as we know it, pushes most people's comprehension to their limit (it certainly pushes mine).
    The hope is that from this blank slate starting pointpossibly in an era that existed before the big bang or the pre-big bang (if we can use such temporal terms, for lack of any other linguistic framework)the theory will describe a universe that evolves to a form in which a background of coherent string vibrations emerges, yielding the conventional notions of space and time. Such a framework, if realized, would show that space, time, and by association, dimension, are not essential defining elements of the universe. Rather they are convenient notions that emerge from a more basic, atavistic, and primary state. ...whereas strings show us that conventional notions of space and time cease to have relevance below the Planck scale [10^-35 m], studies show that ordinary geometry is replaced by something known as non-commutative geometry. [such as matrices, as opposed to normal Cartesian coordinates]. In this geometrical framework, the conventional notions of space and of distance melt away, leaving us in a vastly different conceptual landscape.
    Nevertheless, as we focus our attentions on scales larger than the Planck length, physicists have shown that our conventional notion of space and time does re-emerge.


    I loved where this was heading, but afterward, he seemed to abandon this view, and settle on an 11D superspace where the Big Bang was created by our brane bumping into another one. (that became the "M-theory", for "Membrane". Now, you don't hear much about the "grand Unified Theory" anymore, though the particle test that was supposed to destroy the earth the other day may yield some findings that spark off new interest.).

    But it is obvious that that "primal realm" gives an understanding of how to think of God's realm ("not bound to the universe").
    Last edited by Eric B; 09-13-2008 at 08:17 AM.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  3. #53
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Take Five View Post
    The word was spelled incorrectly twice and look at my type. Why are you at all surprised?
    I wasn't.

    (Just trying to avoid the obvious type stereotypes.)
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  4. #54
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    The infinte-ness of the universe is irrelevent.

    Just because something is infinite doesn't mean that nothing can exist outside of it, unless that 'it' in question is defined as 'everything'. However, if the universe is defined as everything, then it hardly matters whether it is infinite or not, nothing could exist outside of it, by definition, and so nothing could have created it, God or not.
    could this be a possible layman explanation: ?

    You can't have a distinctly different "TV" in mind, than what is considered an infinite types of TVs. With this in mind, you can still have distinct things that aren't TVs.

    So to get BlueWings argument to work: define God as everything (as you already stated). However, I think it works better if we unpack "everything" into all energy/matter etc.

    1. God is infinite. What gives God this infinite power? I think saying God is infinite energy is a reasonable premise, it would allow him to create and well be infinite.
    2. God is infinite in energy. therefore he is infinite in mass. Everything is observable as some form of energy. Therefore for God to exist as infinity, we must all be God.

    hows that? and if we expand it to God being outside of our brane (string theory). It still works. Strings are just little packets of space/time until they reach vibrations that emulate gravity/energy. God would have to be infinite amounts of these as well...

  5. #55
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    could this be a possible layman explanation: ?
    Reason's point was that infinity is not to be equated with everything. My argument in response to that was that infinity by definition means everything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    You can't have a distinctly different "TV" in mind, than what is considered an infinite types of TVs. With this in mind, you can still have distinct things that aren't TVs.
    As a matter of mathematical inquiry, we shall discover that the possibilities of TVs we may construct is finite because the amount of particles inherent within the TV is finite. (There is a very detailed procedure with regard to how we can calculate the amount of possibilities that could be created with the variables we currently have)

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    1. God is infinite. What gives God this infinite power? I think saying God is infinite energy is a reasonable premise, it would allow him to create and well be infinite.
    2. God is infinite in energy. therefore he is infinite in mass. Everything is observable as some form of energy. Therefore for God to exist as infinity, we must all be God.

    hows that? and if we expand it to God being outside of our brane (string theory). It still works. Strings are just little packets of space/time until they reach vibrations that emulate gravity/energy. God would have to be infinite amounts of these as well...
    These are all interesting suggestions with respect to how God is to be defined, however this is not relevant to how he is defined in the Christian scripture.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  6. #56
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    These are all interesting suggestions with respect to how God is to be defined, however this is not relevant to how he is defined in the Christian scripture.
    The Christians maintain that God is omnipotent. He has the ability to create unto infinity and act on the universe with infinite power. These all seem to be requirements of omnipotence. How is that possible without God having infinite energy? As I have already stated, an infinite energy source is a problem that would render us non existent unless we are in fact, God.

  7. #57
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    The Christians maintain that God is omnipotent. How is that possible without God having infinite energy?
    1)It is not possible to be infinite and have a personality. As personality is a property of the person which is a finite property.

    2)If an entity is finite, it is part of the universe as a whole, therefore obeys the laws of nature of the universe, which is by definition not omnipotent.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  8. #58
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    1)It is not possible to be infinite and have a personality. As personality is a property of the person which is a finite property.

    2)If an entity is infinite, it is part of the universe as a whole, therefore obeys the laws of nature of the universe, which is by definition not omnipotent.
    so we are in agreement that the idea of the BibleGod is ridiculous, ... an infinite God is not possible (due both to your point of personality being finite and my issue of e=mc^2). If he is not infinite, then he is not omnipotent and therefore not God.

    I guess your post simply points out that, the out I provided of "the only way there is God is if we are God" isnt possible? I would agree now that I read your second point.

  9. #59
    Member Ojian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    73

    Default



    I'm a little dismayed from some of the reasoning's put forth in this thread.

    There are some interesting definitions of 'infinite', and even the 'omni---", going around here. But they do not jive with the Bible's descriptions, though supposedly that is what you are basing your argument on. I would really like to see your references as to how you feel the Bible text supports your argument, since it seems to me the Bible is the real victim of the attack.

    For instance, where in the Bible is the though conveyed that God is infinite as meaning he must be everything.

    My view however is, genuine inquiry into philosophy of Religion will allow one to 'break the spell' as Daniel Dennet says. The complexity of this religion is only illusory and a result of a confused view of what is written in the Bible. One is only to realize this in order to liberate us from such pernicious superstition.
    A confused view? Granted, I can see how someone might agree with this, but without the specific references your argument is as hollow as God is supposedly 'infinitely' everything.

  10. #60
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ojian View Post


    I'm a little dismayed from some of the reasoning's put forth in this thread.

    There are some interesting definitions of 'infinite', and even the 'omni---", going around here. But they do not jive with the Bible's descriptions, though supposedly that is what you are basing your argument on. I would really like to see your references as to how you feel the Bible text supports your argument, since it seems to me the Bible is the real victim of the attack.

    For instance, where in the Bible is the though conveyed that God is infinite as meaning he must be everything.



    A confused view? Granted, I can see how someone might agree with this, but without the specific references your argument is as hollow as God is supposedly 'infinitely' everything.
    for BlueWings sake, its only I, that am claiming that if God is infinite he must be everything. I do not base my claim on a particular phrase or line.

    I think its evident that for God to create the stars after the earth, he would need to be omnipotent . in order to be omnipotent, he needs the ability to overcome anything. What allows anything to overcome anything? energy. He needs infinite energy because otherwise he might come upon a situation where he lacks the energy to be all powerful. So God has infinite energy. All the energy God has, is of God because otherwise it would be infinite in its own right and therefore be something "of more power" that separately exists from God. Further, it would be something that God depends on that is seperate from himself and therefore would make God not the highest thing worthy of worship. Therefore God must himself BE infinite energy. everything in our universe is a form of energy. If there is an infinite set of energy out there, how can we really be "separate" from that set if we are all energy?

Similar Threads

  1. Why Do People Believe in Ghosts?
    By Tellenbach in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 09-19-2014, 09:16 AM
  2. Do you believe in a God?
    By ADISCIPLE in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 121
    Last Post: 05-28-2009, 08:51 AM
  3. Do you believe in hope without despair?
    By Zrenn in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 01-27-2009, 09:45 PM
  4. Do you believe in natural rights?
    By Kiddo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 01-26-2008, 01:27 PM
  5. Do you believe in a higher power?
    By ygolo in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 09-03-2007, 08:58 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO