Are you religous?, And Why? Options

[pshaa.shauna]

Er, Shauna, it's still wrong. Sorry.

I rely too much on spell check when typing papers...

that's exactly what I'm saying. Sorry but everything points to a creator.

Most religions only talk about their God creating Earth, if the star came from space what would that have to do with a creator?

[*kryogenix*]

Most religions only talk about their God creating Earth, if the star came from space what would that have to do with a creator?

I think you're misinformed here. The first line of Genesis states that God created the heavens and Earth.

So I ask the question again, where did the star come from?

[pshaa.shauna]

Heaven is not space.

[*kryogenix*]

Heaven is not space.

Read again. The term "the heavens" includes space.

So, where did the star come from?

[pshaa.shauna]

Read again. The term "the heavens" includes space.

So, where did the star come from?

I think you are the first person I have ever heard say that space was included in "the heavens".

The star came from space.

[*kryogenix*]

I think you are the first person I have ever heard say that space was included in "the heavens".

The star came from space.

You must not read the same science textbooks as I. Stars are reffered to as "heavenly bodies." The heavens can refer to the sky or any other celestial entity, like space.

How was space created?

[*disco infiltrator*]

Star formation is the process by which gas in molecular clouds change into the ball of plasma we call a star.

According to current theories of star formation, cores of molecular clouds (regions of especially high density) become gravitationally unstable, fragment and begin to collapse (sometimes, shockwaves from supernovae will trigger star formation in nearby gas clouds). Part of the gravitational energy lost in this collapse is radiated in the infrared, with the remainder increasing the temperature of the core of the object. The accretion of material happens partially through a circumstellar disc. When the density and temperature are high enough, deuterium fusion ignition occurs, and the outward pressure of the resultant radiation slows (but does not stop) the collapse. Material from the cloud continues to "rain" onto the protostar. In this stage bipolar flows are produced, probably an effect of the angular momentum of the infalling material. Finally, hydrogen begins to fuse in the core of the star, and the rest of the enveloping material is cleared away.

The stages of the process are well defined in stars with masses around one solar mass or less. In high mass stars, the length of the star formation process is comparable to the other timescales of their evolution, much shorter, and the process is not so well defined. The later evolution of stars are studied in stellar evolution.

And, even if I couldn't easily find the information on the origin of stars, why would that say it points to a creator? I could just as easily ask where the creator came from. That doesn't say anything along the lines of the existence of a creator.

[ikn0wurm0m]

when im at my friends house, since he catholic. I gotta do the rosery or however u spell it.



edit//

yeah where did the stars come form if god only made heaven and earth, maybe...2 religions worked togehter.

[*Blow_Don't_SUCK*]

^Rosary

My mom thinks I'm religious. I told her once that I was an atheist, but she denied it. I guess I was expected and brought up as a religious person, though I want to be known as the complete opposite.

[De112]

Alright, find the origin of Gas and Clouds and whatnot.

[ikn0wurm0m]

did u guys know that the swastika, also known as (the nazi symbol), orginiated from hindu and janism?

[*disco infiltrator*]

Go to Science class.

I understand it; go learn it.
That explains the origin of space. Gas forms.

[De112]

okay, but for something to be CREATED, it NEEDS something else in this universe. think about logic.

[ikn0wurm0m]

yeahh exacly..i believe in scientific creation of the stars and space.

[*kryogenix*]

Star formation is the process by which gas in molecular clouds change into the ball of plasma we call a star.

According to current theories of star formation, cores of molecular clouds (regions of especially high density) become gravitationally unstable, fragment and begin to collapse (sometimes, shockwaves from supernovae will trigger star formation in nearby gas clouds). Part of the gravitational energy lost in this collapse is radiated in the infrared, with the remainder increasing the temperature of the core of the object. The accretion of material happens partially through a circumstellar disc. When the density and temperature are high enough, deuterium fusion ignition occurs, and the outward pressure of the resultant radiation slows (but does not stop) the collapse. Material from the cloud continues to "rain" onto the protostar. In this stage bipolar flows are produced, probably an effect of the angular momentum of the infalling material. Finally, hydrogen begins to fuse in the core of the star, and the rest of the enveloping material is cleared away.

The stages of the process are well defined in stars with masses around one solar mass or less. In high mass stars, the length of the star formation process is comparable to the other timescales of their evolution, much shorter, and the process is not so well defined. The later evolution of stars are studied in stellar evolution.

And, even if I couldn't easily find the information on the origin of stars, why would that say it points to a creator? I could just as easily ask where the creator came from. That doesn't say anything along the lines of the existence of a creator.

I suppose you're getting tired of my attempt at socratic questioning, so I guess I'll get to the point.

Jan 28 was St. Thomas Aquinas day. St. Thomas Aquinas was a brilliant scholar who proposed philosophical proofs for God's existence. One of these proofs is the primum movens immobile.

The first way is the concept of the unmoved mover. All things in motion are set in motion by something else, nothing puts itself in motion.

I'm assuming you're following the scientific route, so I'll try to explain it this way. What put you in motion? Your parents. What put your parents in motion? Their parents, and then their parents parents and so on until we get to the first organism. What set this in motion? The early conditions on Earth. What set the Earth in motion? The formation of the solar system. What set the solar system in motion? The formation of the galaxy. What set the galaxy in motion? The formation of the universe. What set the universe in motion? I suppose we can say the big bang. But what set the big bang in motion?

Every object in motion needed something to move it. What moved the universe?

Something would need to be able to move it without needing to have been moved itself. Something had to be independent of the chain of events that created us. This is the unmoved mover. This is God.

[*disco infiltrator*]

GO LEARN!

Where did your Creator come from Mr. I-think-I-know-things-that-I-don't?
Can you explain yours? Is there theories on the origin of your Creator based on scientific evidence?

Asking questions about an alternative theory and trying to get me to teach you about it isn't proving your point; if anything, it's further proving mine.

edit;
Kryo, what moved God?

[*kryogenix*]

Kryo, what moved God?

The point is God is the unmoved mover. He exists outside of our universe, therefore He is the one who could set the universe in motion. God has no beginning or end.

[pshaa.shauna]

The point is God is the unmoved mover. He exists outside of our universe, therefore He is the one who could set the universe in motion. God has no beginning or end.

But where did God COME from. Okay, fine he exists ouside of our universe, so where is he at?

And where did we get this "knowledge" about him? As in actually knowing he is there.

[ikn0wurm0m]

umm the movement is explaned in the big bang theroy....eveyrthing was once a small ball lyke a neurtron star and bam!!! then now stuff is still expanding at a increasing rate.

[*kryogenix*]

shauna,Feb 1 2006, 9:30 PM]But where did God COME from. Okay, fine he exists ouside of our universe, so where is he at?

And where did we get this "knowledge" about him? As in actually knowing he is there.

God is in the kingdom of Heaven. God has no beginning and no end, he did not come from anywhere.

I don't think there is any quantitative proof that God exists. Faith is required.

"Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."

-John 20:29

  umm the movement is explaned in the big bang theroy....eveyrthing was once a small ball lyke a neurtron star and bam!!! then now stuff is still expanding at a increasing rate.

... sigh.

[ikn0wurm0m]

haha im not sayin its true im just sayin a theroy..in pensilivania or however u spell it? haha umm a teacher tried to teach a new theroy that there is a technology that is unknown that made the stars and eveyrthing else.

[Spirited Away]

Why is it so easy to believe that God has no begining and no end, but so hard to believe the same of the universe?

[NoSex]

I suppose you're getting tired of my attempt at socratic questioning, so I guess I'll get to the point.

Jan 28 was St. Thomas Aquinas day. St. Thomas Aquinas was a brilliant scholar who proposed philosophical proofs for God's existence. One of these proofs is the primum movens immobile.

The first way is the concept of the unmoved mover. All things in motion are set in motion by something else, nothing puts itself in motion.

I'm assuming you're following the scientific route, so I'll try to explain it this way. What put you in motion? Your parents. What put your parents in motion? Their parents, and then their parents parents and so on until we get to the first organism. What set this in motion? The early conditions on Earth. What set the Earth in motion? The formation of the solar system. What set the solar system in motion? The formation of the galaxy. What set the galaxy in motion? The formation of the universe. What set the universe in motion? I suppose we can say the big bang. But what set the big bang in motion?

Every object in motion needed something to move it. What moved the universe?

Something would need to be able to move it without needing to have been moved itself. Something had to be independent of the chain of events that created us. This is the unmoved mover. This is God.

To me, for the longest time, the most humorous aspect of the cosmological argument has always been that it denies its own premise within its conclusion.

Most who wish to argue for an "unmoved mover" will begin with the premise, "All things that exist must have been caused to exist." They move on adding premises and depending on these assumptions to build their argument. They declare that the universe exists, thus it must have been caused. So far they are making perfectly logical sense. I can't be sure that their assumptions are true, but so far the argument is valid.

Arriving at their conclusion, my laughter begins.

"God is the uncaused cause of the universe," they proudly proclaim. This is where I laugh alot. Their argument is invalid. They denied their original premise in their conclusion. If everything that exists must be caused, so must God. That is, at least, if they want to prove that God exists.

You can not conclude that an uncaused being exists if you depend on the assumption that all things which exist must be caused.

This fails as a proof.
Even if we were to accept the conclusion, the number of assumptions involved in believing such a thing are so boundless that we could never truly justify such a belief.

We would need to accept the original assumptions as well. Not everyone is willing, and you may have a hard time proving all of them.

To demand a creator of the universe is very foolish. For one, cause is a temporal concept. For a cause to occur, you need the existence of time. However, time is simply a property of the universe. Without the universe, we lose those properties of time. As cause is a concept surrounded and ruled by time, it is fallacious to demand that the universe, which harbors the property of time in the first place, be subject to the laws of time, and thus the laws of causality.

It would be as if I demanded that existence as a whole require a creator.

I'm not questioning the statements here, but merely asking for a clarification: If something exists, how can it never have been created? And how precisely does theories of a space-time continuum play into all this?

You asked, "If something exists, how can it never have been created?" The problem with this question is that you are assuming that a prerequisite to existence is creation. Which, fails miserably as a premise. If existence is the totality of all existent things, how can it be created, given that only existent things have the possibility to create. Given this, something has to exist before a creation. You can not have creation without existence.

Creation requires the assistance of time. Because, if something is to be created, it's creator or cause must exist temporally prior to said creation. Quite simply, causes are always temporally prior to their effects. This requires the existence of time, as well as an existent cause which has the ability to effect itself or another existent material.

Spicetime requires the unity of space and time. Can we have one without the other? No. So, given that without time, we have no space, no matter, and that with time we do have space, and matter, and motion, it would be safe to say that at no time has there been nothing. And, at all time has there been something.

To assume at any point in time that there has been a period of nothingness would be to deny our entire reality of existence. So, I believe that at all time there has been something.

Creationists love the saying, "Something can not come from nothing." In physics, this isn't exactly accurate. It would be more accurate to say, "Nothing can come from something." The first law of thermodynamics is the law of conservation. In laymen terms, "Energy nor Matter can be created or destroyed." In our universe, Energy is a constant. All we can get from something, is something. Nothing other than that something [changed] will come forth from something.

In the end, the debate falls to what is more reasonable a "beginning"; A god, or a natural universe.

Occam's Razor would dictate that the best explanation carries the least amount of assumptions. In effect, the natural universe follows. I mean, God creating the universe out of no raw materials is like building a lego castle without legos. It's impossible.

[*kryogenix*]

Why is it so easy to believe that God has no begining and no end, but so hard to believe the same of the universe?

Because the universe exists within this realm and is affected by the laws. God exists outside of our realm.

To me, for the longest time, the most humorous aspect of the cosmological argument has always been that it denies its own premise within its conclusion.

Most who wish to argue for an "unmoved mover" will begin with the premise, "All things that exist must have been caused to exist." They move on adding premises and depending on these assumptions to build their argument. They declare that the universe exists, thus it must have been caused. So far they are making perfectly logical sense. I can't be sure that their assumptions are true, but so far the argument is valid.

Arriving at their conclusion, my laughter begins.

"God is the uncaused cause of the universe," they proudly proclaim. This is where I laugh alot. Their argument is invalid. They denied their original premise in their conclusion. If everything that exists must be caused, so must God. That is, at least, if they want to prove that God exists.

You can not conclude that an uncaused being exists if you depend on the assumption that all things which exist must be caused.

This fails as a proof.
Even if we were to accept the conclusion, the number of assumptions involved in believing such a thing are so boundless that we could never truly justify such a belief.

We would need to accept the original assumptions as well. Not everyone is willing, and you may have a hard time proving all of them.

Maybe you don't understand. Things need to be moved because they exist in this realm. God exists outside of the realm we live in so he is not subject to time or any other laws that govern us.

To demand a creator of the universe is very foolish. For one, cause is a temporal concept. For a cause to occur, you need the existence of time. However, time is simply a property of the universe. Without the universe, we lose those properties of time. As cause is a concept surrounded and ruled by time, it is fallacious to demand that the universe, which harbors the property of time in the first place, be subject to the laws of time, and thus the laws of causality.

This is why something that exists outside of time and the universe is needed to make the universe and time exist.

It would be as if I demanded that existence as a whole require a creator.
You asked, "If something exists, how can it never have been created?" The problem with this question is that you are assuming that a prerequisite to existence is creation. Which, fails miserably as a premise. If existence is the totality of all existent things, how can it be created, given that only existent things have the possibility to create. Given this, something has to exist before a creation. You can not have creation without existence.

Isn't that what I've been saying this entire time?

Creation requires the assistance of time. Because, if something is to be created, it's creator or cause must exist temporally prior to said creation. Quite simply, causes are always temporally prior to their effects. This requires the existence of time, as well as an existent cause which has the ability to effect itself or another existent material.

I feel like I'm repeating myself. God has no beginning or end, and is not governed by time.

Spicetime requires the unity of space and time. Can we have one without the other? No. So, given that without time, we have no space, no matter, and that with time we do have space, and matter, and motion, it would be safe to say that at no time has there been nothing. And, at all time has there been something.

The converse of a statement is not necessarily true, only the contrapositive.

To assume at any point in time that there has been a period of nothingness would be to deny our entire reality of existence. So, I believe that at all time there has been something.

If there is nothing, then creation is necessary for something to exist.

Creationists love the saying, "Something can not come from nothing." In physics, this isn't exactly accurate. It would be more accurate to say, "Nothing can come from something." The first law of thermodynamics is the law of conservation. In laymen terms, "Energy nor Matter can be created or destroyed." In our universe, Energy is a constant. All we can get from something, is something. Nothing other than that something [changed] will come forth from something.

You tell me how something can come from nothing then.

Fortunately, these laws don't apply to God.

In the end, the debate falls to what is more reasonable a "beginning"; A god, or a natural universe.

Occam's Razor would dictate that the best explanation carries the least amount of assumptions. In effect, the natural universe follows. I mean, God creating the universe out of no raw materials is like building a lego castle without legos. It's impossible.

You're forgetting that God is omnipotent.

[NoSex]

Because the universe exists within this realm and is affected by the laws. God exists outside of our realm.

If the universe encompasses within it the properties of all natural law, it is unreasonable to hold its origin to those laws. Because, if there is no universe, there is no natural law.

Your mistake is to assume that the universe exists within this realm when it itself is actually the whole of the entire realm. The universe is the realm.

Maybe you don't understand. Things need to be moved because they exist in this realm. God exists outside of the realm we live in so he is not subject to time or any other laws that govern us.

Spacetime assumes that movement is integral to existence. This is why we can not reach absolute zero, if we were to do that, we would have no movement within even the smallest of particles. This would assume no time. Time is nearly equivalent to the movement in space.

Also, you would have to explain how something can exist outside of one realm, and still act upon another. You would have to explain why something would want to act upon another realm. You would have to explain the existence of said realm and the existence of intelligent life within. You would have to explain how the universe, which is the whole of all that exists, can have borders.

You would also have to prove your assumption that all things have to be moved. If movement is part of spacetime, and spacetime is integral to existence, and you can not create existence, then how could you require that the universe be moved?

This is why something that exists outside of time and the universe is needed to make the universe and time exist.
Isn't that what I've been saying this entire time?
I feel like I'm repeating myself. God has no beginning or end, and is not governed by time.

Actually, what I am trying to get across with these passages is that the universe can not be held to the laws of time. As time is a property of the universe, without the universe, no such laws exist.

The converse of a statement is not necessarily true, only the contrapositive.

Actually, you can deny the laws of distribution in both cases. If you are suggesting that I have done such, please explain.

If there is nothing, then creation is necessary for something to exist.
You tell me how something can come from nothing then.

You absolutely and utterly missed my point. I'm trying to say this conecpt of nothingness is incorrect. There was never nothing. For there to have been, at any time, nothing, we could not have existence. However, we do indeed have existence, this is an axiom. So, there was never nothing. If there was never nothing, there was always something.

I propose that that something is the universe. That spacetime allows for motion to become a constant because of the fact that the properties of space and time determine the nature of motion, causality, and force. If you want to explain that spacetime was created, you would have to propose that there was, literally, a time before time existed.

This is the temporal nature of causality. This is why spacetime and the universe can not be held to such expectations.

Fortunately, these laws don't apply to God.
You're forgetting that God is omnipotent.

However meaningless I assume these statements are, I wish for you to answer me a question.

Is your god falsifiable? If so, what would you accept as evidence against the existence of your god?