by towerwatchman 315 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Simon
towerwatchman: please consider your tone and attitude. You are wearing out your welcome. This site isn't here to host your sermons and we'll only tolerate your preaching for so long.
I will consider it when the others [which you seem to not address] show common respect.
to unsure
There is no evidence of a multiverse. Ask anyone who promotes it ‘How many universes can you point to?” It is an unsupported hypothesis. But for argument’s sake let’s say there is a multiverse, it still does not answer the issue of the origin of the universe. All one has done is move the goal post back. The question now becomes ‘What is the origin of the multiverse?”
Since my opinion is considered bias, allow me to submit what Stephen Hawking has to say on the subject.
In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted… But if your theory disagrees with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is in bad trouble. In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law, states that disorder always increases with time. Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature… The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down.
The Beginning of Time. A Lecture by Stephen Hawking.
Where the laws of physics would have broken down. = The beginning nonphysical.
@towerwatchman
Thank you for your response.
"There actually is quite a bit of evidence out there for a multiverse — an infinite number of other universes besides our own." http://www.space.com/32728-parallel-universes.html
Many would argue there is no evidence of God/Gods.
Laws of physics as we know them pertain to our universe. If a parallel universe has different laws of physics (which is also theorized), by your definition, wouldn't it also be "nonphysical" since the laws of physics as we know it would have broken down? What if the parallel universe that spawned ours was always there and did not have a beginning? Just because our universe had a beginning does not mean a parallel universe had to.
Unsure
I sorry, there is no evidence of a multiverse. It is all speculation. It is more metaphysics than physics.
@towerwatchman
You are arguing against a multiverse by saying it is all speculation and more metaphysics than physics.
Can't the exact same thing be said about God/Gods?
By your own definition God is metaphysical and since belief in God/God's requires faith, wouldn't that be considered your own personal "speculation" by some since your faith is not provable?
(Trust me, I want to believe in a Creator as mentioned in my previous post, I pray for him/her to make themselves known to me.)
To Unsure
Everything that begins to exist has a cause. We know that the universe had a beginning. Was the cause a what or a who?
Why should the First Cause be a person?
It is the only way to explain how a timeless cause can produce a temporal effect with a beginning like the universe.
Here is the problem. If the cause was non cognitive and sufficient to produce the effect then if the cause is there the affect must be there also.
Now the cause of the universe is permanently there, since it is timeless. So why isn't the universe permanently there as well, why did the universe come into being only billions years ago, why isn't it as permanent as its cause?
Answer to this problem must be that the cause is a personal being with freedom of the will.
His creating the universe is a free act independent of any prior condition.
So His act of creating can be something spontaneous and new.
So in my view, then, God existing alone without the universe is changeless and timeless.
His free act of creation is simultaneous with the universe coming into being. Therefore, God enters into time when He creates the universe.
In response to your original post, I think an atheist is just believing that there is no god and does not think his opinion means that there is absolute proof there is no God. I'm pretty much an atheist and I see no evidence of a god, so that's why in my opinion there's no god, but I'm open to the idea that there was once a god like creature that flew by earth and possibly started life on this planet millions of years ago.
@towerwatchman
If I understand correctly in the scope of your post, you define a "timeless cause" as God and a "temporal effect" our universe, correct?
It is the only way to explain how a timeless cause can produce a temporal effect with a beginning like the universe.
Here is the problem. If the cause was non cognitive and sufficient to produce the effect then if the cause is there the affect must be there also.
Now the cause of the universe is permanently there, since it is timeless. So why isn't the universe permanently there as well, why did the universe come into being only billions years ago, why isn't it as permanent as its cause?
Sorry but you lost me there. Could you rephrase?
I'm proposing (based on current scientific theory) that our universe could have spawned from another universe. This "other universe" could have laws of physics unlike our own (a.k.a metaphysics), and this universe could have always existed, two qualities that you used to describe God. Just because our universe had a beginning, why does a parallel universe with different laws have to follow the same rules of having a beginning?
If you agree that God never had a beginning and that God is metaphysical, how is that any different than what I am proposing?
Towerwatchman
In fact on the philosophical scene evolution is not a scientific theory, but metaphysical. Evolution is an abstract, speculative philosophy. Evolution does not qualify as a scientific theory. It is a fairytale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless and we have no absolute proof of it. Evolution rather than being a fact, is a faith, since it cannot meet the test of science.
I don't understand what you mean that evolution is metaphysical. Scientists have proven that evolution is a fact. Do you not think that natural selection occurs in living things? If not why not?
Crazyguy
In response to your original post, I think an atheist is just believing that there is no god and does not think his opinion means that there is absolute proof there is no God. I'm pretty much an atheist and I see no evidence of a god, so that's why in my opinion there's no god, but I'm open to the idea that there was once a god like creature that flew by earth and possibly started life on this planet millions of years ago.
Did you ever follow that to a logical conclusion?
