Forums → WEPR → The Religion Debate Thread

How about I change it to say that patience and kindness are good because they build up healthy relationships. Relationships that do not physically or emotionally harm someone else and instead aim to enrich the other person's life.

No I wouldn't say that hatred towards mosquitos is bad.

I think men can never understand the God truly, something mortal can not possibly comprehend something that is eternal. We can only make some assumptions, just like we do about the number of stars or galaxies, or the size of the universe , or the age of the earth, Yet they are not infinite.How can a small fish can understand the vastness of the ocean. and we are even smaller than that in this universe. So we need Religion to Understand God which is something given from God.

I think men can never understand the God truly, something mortal can not possibly comprehend something that is eternal. We can only make some assumptions, just like we do about the number of stars or galaxies, or the size of the universe , or the age of the earth, Yet they are not infinite.How can a small fish can understand the vastness of the ocean. and we are even smaller than that in this universe. So we need Religion to Understand God which is something given from God.

If we cannot understand God because we are mortal, then Religion will not be any help there. What is holding us back is our own mortality, our own human limitations in this case. This is not something we can overcome with Religion.

I think men can never understand the God truly, something mortal can not possibly comprehend something that is eternal.

We can only make some assumptions, just like we do about the number of stars or galaxies, or the size of the universe , or the age of the earth, Yet they are not infinite.

How can a small fish can understand the vastness of the ocean.

So we need Religion to Understand God which is something given from God.

No. Men can't understand the God truly because most of what is said about the God is illogical. It makes plenty of sense to have things that are eternal.

Evident to our senses is motion - the movement from actuality to potentiality.
Things are acted on.

Whatever is moved is moved by something else. Potentiality is only moved by actuality.

Unless there is a First Mover, there can be no motions. To take away the actual is to take
away the potential.

Thus, a First Mover exists. He is God.

The "size of the universe" is not a thing, because the universe is not finite.

The existance of an object of infinate size is impossible. Where one thing ends, another begins.

God exists. It is impossible for there to be no God, for if there was no God there would be nothing. For you to deny God's existance, when the proof of Him is all around you, takes a great amount of...blindness.

So we need Religion to Understand God which is something given from God.

The "size of the universe" is not a thing, because the universe is not finite.

Evident to our senses is motion - the movement from actuality to potentiality.
Things are acted on.

Thus, a First Mover exists. He is God.

For you to deny God's existance, when the proof of Him is all around you, takes a great amount of...blindness.

Evident to our senses is motion - the movement from actuality to potentiality.
Things are acted on.

Whatever is moved is moved by something else. Potentiality is only moved by actuality.

Unless there is a First Mover, there can be no motions. To take away the actual is to take
away the potential.

Thus, a First Mover exists. He is God.

This is a weird argument. It's like some mix of Aristotle and Aquinas but without any philosophical development. I feel like you must be aware of this response (most people who rehearse these arguments are familiar with the dialectic), but there are a number of worries with this argument.

First, and most worrisome, this version is invalid on the face of it. And there's no way to give it a charitable interpretation without loading the argument with a fallacy of some sort. For example, what's a First Mover? What features does it have? Does it, for example, move things? If so, that contradicts your 2nd premise.

Also, the argument opens by defining motion in this weird way. I could maybe make sense of this in terms of whether an obtect has potential energy or kinetic energy, but that doesn't seem to be the way the statement is meant to be read. And even if so, there are serious worries with that interpretation. In short, the argument lacks substance. Without any work defending (and better defining) the premises, the argument just can't stand.

The "size of the universe" is not a thing, because the universe is not finite.

Υup, I too might not be up to date but as far as I recall the universe is not really infinite. I suppose it would depend on your definition of the term but it has been described as the interior of a sphere, like a dome. Technically, assuming you had a spaceship and all the time in the world, moving in a straight line for thousands of trillions of light years would not mean you return to the same place where you started, but eventually, you'd have no place in the universe which you haven't passed by. At least, as far as I recall. That was a time ago.

Whatever is moved is moved by something else. Potentiality is only moved by actuality.

Movement can be self achieved. Are you moved by something else when you walk? Physical movement is a product of certain forces and actions but in many cases, said forces and actions can come into existence on their own. The cause of them ranges from gravitational fields to muscles.

Where one thing ends, another begins.

Vacuum is an actual thing. There are vast areas in the Universe that are devoid of anything, at least in the macroscopic scale. But even in the microscopic scale, electrons move in orbit around an atom's nucleus, the vast majority of the "space" said atom occupies (between the nucleus and the closest electrons) is empty. On the scale of things, if an atom was the size of a stadium, with electrons at that point, orbiting around it, Its "core" or nucleus would take up the size of a pin at the center of the stadium.

It is impossible for there to be no God, for if there was no God there would be nothing.

Given my analysis above, that is a problem...how?

For you to deny God's existance, when the proof of Him is all around you, takes a great amount of...blindness.

What proof is there of his existence all around us?

I am all for spirituality but on a personal level. If your God is true to you, and that makes you a better person, then by all means. It will help your soul searching on a personal level. But trying to find proof for God's universal existence, well, does not really work. There's no real evidence which is not indisputable

@Moegreche

This is a weird argument. It's like some mix of Aristotle and Aquinas but without any philosophical development. I feel like you must be aware of this response (most people who rehearse these arguments are familiar with the dialectic), but there are a number of worries with this argument.

First, and most worrisome, this version is invalid on the face of it.

What is confusing about movement? Without actuality there can be NO potentiality. For example, without an egg there can be no chicken.

@Moegreche

Also, the argument opens by defining motion in this weird way.

Motion is the movement from actuality to one potential outcome. I am sitting. I could stand, eat, shutdown my computer, or take a bath. What I decide to do is movement - from my actuality (now) to what I will do (later). If I was not here, I could do none of those possible outcomes.
That is movement. Movement is not energy.

@Doombreed

Movement can be self achieved. Are you moved by something else when you walk? Physical movement is a product of certain forces and actions but in many cases, said forces and actions can come into existence on their own. The cause of them ranges from gravitational fields to muscles.

Potentiality is only moved by actuality. I am not denying the power your body can exert to change its surroundings, but pointing out that if you do not exist in actuality, then you have no potential. Without the actuality of an object, it is meaningless and has no potential. Without a mouth, there would be no potential for words.

@Doombreed

Vacuum is an actual thing. There are vast areas in the Universe that are devoid of anything, at least in the macroscopic scale. But even in the microscopic scale, electrons move in orbit around an atom's nucleus, the vast majority of the "space" said atom occupies (between the nucleus and the closest electrons) is empty. On the scale of things, if an atom was the size of a stadium, with electrons at that point, orbiting around it, Its "core" or nucleus would take up the size of a pin at the center of the stadium.

I am pointing out that "space" is actual. A vacuum is actual, it is a concept that we can understand. But I do not want to get caught up in elementary physics, so I'll leave it at that.

@Doombreed

Given my analysis above, that is a problem...how?

God is the first actuality. He did not have to be moved by any previous actuality (i.e. He was not created). He is the only possible explanation for the universe, for without a first actuality that is self-existant and provides potential for everything else, nothing could be; because I have demonstrated that everything happens because of a previous actuality putting that potential into actuality. If I make a sandwich, the sandwich (which used to be a potential) has become an actuality. What has put the universe into actuality? What, if the big bang exists, has put that into actuality?

@Doombreed

What proof is there of his existence all around us?

The fact that there is actuality all around us means that there is a first actuality, the one that has made all these potentialities (the world, universe, planets) into actualities.

Potentiality is only moved by actuality. I am not denying the power your body can exert to change its surroundings, but pointing out that if you do not exist in actuality, then you have no potential. Without the actuality of an object, it is meaningless and has no potential. Without a mouth, there would be no potential for words.

And I take it without eyes, no potential for vision, an without ears, no potential for hearing.
Yet technology is known to overcome limitations such as this. Stephen Hawking's computer synthesized voice (please excuse me if my term is incorrect) is a notable example. Among other things, like pacers, Cochlear implants and the like. Granted, some of these like the latter 2 rely on the existence of a heart and ear in the first place. But the former does not rely on the existence of a mouth.

To revert to the original example of movement, Muscles move themselves. Moving you in the process when you walk. Why is it impossible for the universe's macroscopic or microscopic side do something similar on a grander scale?

I am pointing out that "space" is actual. A vacuum is actual, it is a concept that we can understand. But I do not want to get caught up in elementary physics, so I'll leave it at that.

But even so, there can be a place where something ends, but nothing else begins, to respond to your original statement.

Also, actual is not well defined in your argument. Is it just something that we can understand? If so, a lot of fictional concepts are actual. Which could lead to God being an actual, but also fictional.

God is the first actuality. He did not have to be moved by any previous actuality (i.e. He was not created). He is the only possible explanation for the universe, for without a first actuality that is self-existant and provides potential for everything else, nothing could be; because I have demonstrated that everything happens because of a previous actuality putting that potential into actuality. If I make a sandwich, the sandwich (which used to be a potential) has become an actuality. What has put the universe into actuality? What, if the big bang exists, has put that into actuality?

To quote wikipedia on the matter:

Quantum fluctuations, or other laws of physics that may have existed at the start of the Big Bang could then create the conditions for matter to occur.

Physics may conclude that time did not exist before 'Big Bang', but 'started' with the Big Bang and hence there might be no 'beginning', 'before' or potentially 'cause' and instead always existed. To put it simply, time itself could have started with the big bang. Big Bang itself being the turning point. Why can't the Big Bang be the first actuality instead of God?

The fact that there is actuality all around us means that there is a first actuality, the one that has made all these potentialities (the world, universe, planets) into actualities.

Big Bang as "the first actuality" would fit your theory without the need for the existence of God. (see above)

@Doombreed

To revert to the original example of movement, Muscles move themselves. Moving you in the process when you walk. Why is it impossible for the universe's macroscopic or microscopic side do something similar on a grander scale?

I am not denying the power of the universe to change, but pointing out that something had to make the universe actual, it could not have made itself actual when it was merely a potential.

But even so, there can be a place where something ends, but nothing else begins, to respond to your original statement.

Every object has defined limits. Where an object is not, another is. Just because an object has a low density does not make it "not there."

Also, actual is not well defined in your argument. Is it just something that we can understand? If so, a lot of fictional concepts are actual. Which could lead to God being an actual, but also fictional.

Actuality is the power to make potentialities actual. I am actual because I can make potentialities actual.

o quote wikipedia on the matter:

Quantum fluctuations, or other laws of physics that may have existed at the start of the Big Bang could then create the conditions for matter to occur.

Physics may conclude that time did not exist before 'Big Bang', but 'started' with the Big Bang and hence there might be no 'beginning', 'before' or potentially 'cause' and instead always existed. To put it simply, time itself could have started with the big bang. Big Bang itself being the turning point. Why can't the Big Bang be the first actuality instead of God?

Hold on. Something had to make the Big Bang actual, it did not simply happen. What made the environment for the Big Bang actual? The Big Bang was a potentiality until it happened, and if
it was the first actuality, then it would have no actuality to make it happen; hence, the Big Bang would not have happened unless something else existed first. Lets say there was something before the Big Bang that caused it to happen. In that case, there would have to be something before that, and so forth in an infinate loop of (this before this before this...before the big bang). That is not possible: there has to be a self-existant being that started it all. That being is God.

The Big Bang cannot have been the first actuality for it is not self existant. The Big Bang certainly did not create itself, so there would have to be a Big Bang before the Big Bang, and one before that, until there was infinate Big Bangs, which is not possible.

Also, time is relative to the movement of potentials into actualities and as such, time had to exist before the Big Bang. Time is not an object, nor even a law of physics. Time is merely how
we humans measure the speed with which potentialities turn into actualities. Time then, is a figment of the human imagination.

Big Bang as "the first actuality" would fit your theory without the need for the existence of God. (see above)

Something had to create the matter of which the Big Bang consisted of. If God does not exist, then the world we live in was created by an infinate loop of big bangs each creating another until one created the universe, and that of course is absurd for something had to trigger that sequence.

Every object has defined limits. Where an object is not, another is. Just because an object has a low density does not make it "not there."

Atoms are objects which consist of empty space, space where an object is not, and another is not either as you put it. There is literally nothing between the nucleus' closest electrons and the nucleus itself.

Hold on. Something had to make the Big Bang actual, it did not simply happen. What made the environment for the Big Bang actual?

I am no expert on quantum physics but clearly not. There may simply not be a "before the Big Bang". Before the big bang just might not exist as a state. It would be like saying "Before God" in your example, something that cannot exist.

What do you base on to suggest that it would be impossible? Physicists are undecided but do consider it a possibility, clearly. (I can dig up the source if you'd like)

then it would have no actuality to make it happen

did God need an actuality in order to happen? By your theory no. I am simply replacing, in your theory, the God, with the Big Bang. And I don't see why I can't replace it.

Lets say there was something before the Big Bang that caused it to happen. In that case, there would have to be something before that, and so forth in an infinate loop of (this before this before this...before the big bang). That is not possible: there has to be a self-existant being that started it all. That being is God.

But there might not have been. There simply might not have been a cause for it. Hell there might not have been time itself before that. "Let's say there was something before the Big Bang that caused it to happen" are 2 distinct hypotheses. You are assuming that 1) there even was a "before the big bang in the first place" and 2) "that something caused the Big Bang to happen". According to science, both of these might be false. Not to mention you can't base proof of God's existence on 2 possibly false assumptions.

The Big Bang certainly did not create itself, so there would have to be a Big Bang before the Big Bang, and one before that, until there was infinate Big Bangs, which is not possible.

The Big Bang is an event, it wasn't created, it happened. The earliest state of the universe is DURING the Big Bang, because before the big bang might simply not exist as a thing. So yes, the Big Bang might have happened of itself. If before the Big Bang is not possible, then certainly. And in any event, why MUST there be a "before the Big Bang" but there can't be a "before God" in your theory?

Also, time is relative to the movement of potentials into actualities and as such, time had to exist before the Big Bang. Time is not an object, nor even a law of physics. Time is merely how
we humans measure the speed with which potentialities turn into actualities. Time then, is a figment of the human imagination.

Time is the fourth dimension according to certain theoretical scientists.. Time itself suffers completely unnatural alterations when approaching the speed of light. If Time was a human construct, then it would keep "flowing" at the same rate regardless of where we are, and how fast we travel. Yet the faster we travel, the slower time flows, until we reach a speed near the speed of light during which time almost freezes.

It has also been theorized that &quotassing by", or being affected by the gravitational field of a black hole (which is so strong that not even light can escape it, hence the name), can cause weird issues with time. You could even, according to one theory travel backwards in time. Or simply return to Earth and the time that has passed will not be the same for you as it has been for the rest of the planet.

In short, time is not universal, and certainly not absolute. It is a relative size that might have also been affected by the universe's existence (or lack thereof).

Something had to create the matter of which the Big Bang consisted of. If God does not exist, then the world we live in was created by an infinate loop of big bangs each creating another until one created the universe, and that of course is absurd for something had to trigger that sequence.

Why is that? Someone clearly didn't have to create God, why did someone have to create the matter of which the Big Bang consisted of?

@Doombreed

Atoms are objects which consist of empty space, space where an object is not, and another is not either as you put it. There is literally nothing between the nucleus' closest electrons and the nucleus itself.

However, an atom consists of its nucleus, the electrons, AND the empty space, which collectively form the atom - an actual object.

@Doombreed

Before the big bang just might not exist as a state. It would be like saying "Before God" in your example, something that cannot exist.

I am pointing out that the Big Bang was supposed collision of particles, and something had to create those particles, or they would not have been there to make the Big Bang.

@Doombreed

did God need an actuality in order to happen? By your theory no. I am simply replacing, in your theory, the God, with the Big Bang. And I don't see why I can't replace it.

God could not be replaced by the Big Bang because the Big Bang requires pre-made particles to have happened. However, God does not require anything to happen because he is self-existant. The Big Bang is not self-existant because it was a potential put into actuality by particles.

@Doombreed

But there might not have been. There simply might not have been a cause for it. Hell there might not have been time itself before that. "Let's say there was something before the Big Bang that caused it to happen" are 2 distinct hypotheses. You are assuming that 1) there even was a "before the big bang in the first place" and 2) "that something caused the Big Bang to happen". According to science, both of these might be false. Not to mention you can't base proof of God's existence on 2 possibly false assumptions.

If the Big Bang was the collision of particles, then we have to ask, what put those particles into actuality? It is impossible for particles to put themselves into actuality, for without the actual the potential cannot exist.

@Doombreed

The Big Bang is an event, it wasn't created, it happened. The earliest state of the universe is DURING the Big Bang, because before the big bang might simply not exist as a thing. So yes, the Big Bang might have happened of itself. If before the Big Bang is not possible, then certainly. And in any event, why MUST there be a "before the Big Bang" but there can't be a "before God" in your theory?

The Big Bang couldn't have existed of itself unless it created the particles of which it was formed before it happened. There can be no "before God" because God is self-existing, so He always was. God is. The Big Bang was.

@Doombreed

Time is the fourth dimension according to certain theoretical scientists.. Time itself suffers completely unnatural alterations when approaching the speed of light. If Time was a human construct, then it would keep "flowing" at the same rate regardless of where we are, and how fast we travel. Yet the faster we travel, the slower time flows, until we reach a speed near the speed of light during which time almost freezes.

Time is not a dimension because it exerts no power upon objects. Time is an idea. Time does not suffer "alterations" when approaching the speed of light, but it is the speed of which potentials become actualities, that suffers "alterations." Also, nobody has ever traveled at the speed of light, so to say that time suffers "alterations" is a hypothesis, nothing more.

As such, time is relative to many factors, among them speed; it is important to remember that time is merely an IDEA and does not exert force upon anything.

@Doombreed

It has also been theorized that &quotassing by", or being affected by the gravitational field of a black hole (which is so strong that not even light can escape it, hence the name), can cause weird issues with time.

As I pointed out, time is an idea, and it represents the speed of which potentials become actualities. In a black hole, gravity will effect the speed of which particles can travel; it is the particles that are affected, and not the idea of time. Because it takes longer for a
particle to perform a function, that does not mean that the idea of time is altered in any way.
No, it means that gravity exerts a force upon the particle and it consequently affects how fast
the particle can perform a function.

Time is not relative, time always remains the speed at which potentialities become actualities.

@Doombreed

In short, time is not universal, and certainly not absolute. It is a relative size that might have also been affected by the universe's existence (or lack thereof).

I see no sense in this, how can an idea have a size? Time is not relative! Time is a formula.

time = speed at which potentialities become actualities

As such, time is universal and absolute in that it can be applied anywhere. If the speed at which electrons orbit the nucleus is reduced by certain factors, that does not mean that time had been bent, but simply that it will take longer for the electron to orbit the nucleus. The speed at which potentialities become actualities may be reduced, but still the definition of time remains unchanged.

If you orbit the earth while I stay on earth, your molecules will experience forces that will change the speed of which they function, and your rate of time will differ from mine. Let's say we each had a clock. Your clock will read differently from mine because forces acted upon its molecules, but nevertheless, both clocks have recorded the right amount of time in relation to their location and exterior forces.

@Doombreed

Why is that? Someone clearly didn't have to create God, why did someone have to create the matter of which the Big Bang consisted of?

If the Big Bang, as the scientists say, was created of particles, we have to ask how the particles were even there in the first place. The theory of the Big Bang requires pre-existant particles, but the theory of God merely requires a self-existant being who always is.

@Ntech

First, a side note: tagging someone once in a post is enough, no need to do it for each paragraph.

As for the Big Bang, I believe Doombreed mentioned quantum fluctuations as a possible reason, which I think is what many assume. I don't think particles are really a credible hypothesis. Whatever the case, it is of interest to note that physics as we know it might not have even existed before the Big Bang. We don't know what was before, if there was a before, but we can't say whether it was as it is now. It kind of seems a moot point to discuss this, to me personally. The problem of the Big Bang and causality is an interesting one, but I don't think we'll have any definite answer any time soon.

The thing is, claiming that there must have been God to start it all is not a logical claim. If that's what you believe, then that's fine. But it is not a necessary nor a logical conclusion. We simply don't know.

For what it's worth, if it was indeed a deity that jump-started it all, it was probably not the Abrahamic God. Our knowledge of this world as it is makes it pretty improbable, and there are plenty of theological issues with it as well. Claiming it as an evidence is brazen, to say the least.