Why is there something rather than nothing?
There is something because the without something,
existence would have no purpose. The existance of
something is the basis for all that we see, feel and
do.
Where did the something that we call the universe come from?
God created the Universe. The Universe is the physical realm of existence and Heaven/Hell is the spiritual realm.
What leads you to believe that God created everything?
God is the spiritual supreme being of all existence. The Universe had to have come from somewhere -- it didn't just appear at the Big Bang. God was there first -- at the beginning.
How do you know that you know?
I don't know that I know anything. All I know is what
I believe. I don't know there is a God because there
is no physical proof that he exists. God defies
science. However, I believe in God. That's faith,
believing in something you cannot know because of
proof, but something you do know because you have
faith -- that you know in your heart to be the
absolute truth.
If you don't know that you know anything then how can you "know in your heart" that something is "absolute truth"?
Faith. It's the sense that what I know is right.
Do I think there are aliens? Yes. Can I know that there are aliens? No, unless one knocks on my door sometime. However aliens have no connection to my soul while God does. So while I can say I believe in aliens, I cannot prove they exist because there is no scientific proof. The spiritual connection I have with God allows me to know God exists without scientific proof.
Science is defined as "the effort to understand, or to understand better, how the physical works, with observable evidence as the basis of that understanding". Given that definition how does God defy science?
God is not physical, God is spiritual. Science can only prove or disprove what exists in the physical world. They haven't invented the gauge or meter yet that can prove or disprove anything spiritual.
I agree that God is not physical and that He is spiritual. That still does not answer the question on how God defies science. To defy something one has to actively oppose it. I would say that God does not oppose science at all. Rather, science is a way that we can discover more about the design of His creation.
When I say that God defies science, I mean that God cannot be proven by science as God is spiritual and intangible. I agree that science can study God's creations, which are physical but it cannot prove or disprove something spiritual because (at our current level of scientific knowledge) we have no way to analyze spiritual energy, beings or realms.
What kind of evidence would qualify as proof of God?
I don't think there will any be any true evidence of God. God won't allow it -- proof would remove faith from the equation.
While I don't think there there is any emprical proof of the existance of God I do think there is some strong evidence to support His existance. For now lets get rid of the word proof and stick with evidence. Do you think that evidence for the existance of God would remove faith. If you do then why?
Yes. Faith is the belief in God without evidence. I believe in God even though there are no photos, no video, no physical being I can touch or speak to. If solid evidence of God's existence was discovered, faith would no longer be necessary. People would look at the evidence and know. Knowing in your heart because of your soul is different than knowing in your brain because of evidence.
Do you think it is important to know that what your believe is real or not?
To myself, it's not important that I know that what I believe is real or not real. What I believe is defined by the logic part of my physical brain and the faith of my spirit. I don't need to know that what I believe is real, because I feel that is is real and that's good enough for me.
Friday, July 25, 2008
More follow up with responder 6
What happens to a person at death?
I think when you die that's it - it's over. You are gone. I wish I could say I believed in some form of life after death or some continuance of the spirit but I don't. Death is final.
What makes you come to this conclusion?
Many faiths that follow the bible have contradicting stories or beliefs or rules. Christian religions for me are the most unbelievable. The bible portrays "god" as a vengeful wrathful being. Do these things and I will strike you down to hell. I will not forgive you for doing these things and I will send you to a terrible place. With a god like that - No thanks. I have learned about other religions that believe in reincarnation or other version of afterlife/heaven/hell and I don't find solace in any of them. I'll stick with dying frees you from fear, emotion and pain. Death is the absence of all life.
Why should people take care of the poor and sick?
Taking care of others I think is a good thing. I think to improve as a race we should take care of the sick more often.
If death frees people from fear and pain then wouldn't it be helping the poor and sick to just kill them?
I do believe in euthanasia. If a person is terminal and is in excruciating pain - why not help them slip into death and free themselves from the pain and the agony. Of course it would be the patients choice and no one else should try to interfere with that choice such as government or religion.
What faiths that follow the bible have contradicting stories/beliefs/rules?
Christianity (includes Catholicism, lutheran, baptist etc) would be the one I am referring to. Prime example: whatever happens is God's will. God does things for a reason and we should not question that. So - why does the bible encourage prayer when God has already decided what shall be? Seems to me that praying is useless. Another example is that if you do one of these 10 things (commandments) god will send you to hell - directly to hell. But he is a merciful god and he loves you.
Based off of what you said about the bible I can see that you don't like it. How does just not liking something make it unbelievable?
Actually - if you change your question around you get my answer - I don't believe in God or the bible - therefor, I do not like it.
What other reasons do you have for not believing in a god or higher power?
As far as not believing in another higher power - I have not seen any evidence to support a theory of a higher power of any kind. I do believe there are other living beings in the galaxy that we don't know about be it human or another species all together but an omnipotent all knowing supernatural power - sounds a little too much like Santa Claus.
How do you determine what is right and wrong?
Part of it is the same as knowing you know. You can feel inside that your heart and brain are in sync and there is no anxiety in your body. (See next question for full detail) The other part I think is deeply rooted in childhood. I think you look back on experiences and ask yourself what is right. Since everyone had a different childhood perspective there is no simple answer as to what is right and wrong. Some believe in cultural norms or ethics or morals or whatever you want to call it. But determining what is right and wrong goes much deeper than what a culture says is OK. I rely on feelings to determine what is right and what is wrong. Again, it's the feeling that my heart and my brain are in sync. This is a very broad question and I think alot of my answer has to do with a specific right or wrong. Be it a personal decision, a question of someones business practices, a government decision, a religious practice.
Do you think that there is some objective moral standard of right and wrong or good and evil?
No. It's different for every one. I don't think with the world we live in today it could that black and white.
If rape was not illegal would it still be wrong?
Yes. Illegal does not automatically make something bad and legal does NOT make something automatically good. Rape is taking and violating someone against their will. Any act done to intentionally hurt someone and/or against their will is wrong in my opinion.
Why is what the hijackers did on 9/11 considered evil?
They killed innocent people for no other reason than they didn't like americans. They killed people because we didn't share their beliefs in Allah and they think americans are evil across the board. You want to commit suicide - go ahead and have fun. Don't take others with you. Killing in the name of any higher being is one of the worst - immoral - evil things going on. Violence begets violence. I don't think it solves the world's problems.
If there is no objective moral standard (ethic) then how can anyone say something is right or wrong?
Maybe we can't. Maybe we just decide our perception of right and wrong is the same one others should follow. I really think that as long as you are not physically or emotionally hurting some other living being that you're OK.
What if two people's feelings on what is right and wrong are diametrically opposed? Who is "right" in that case?
There is no simple answer as to who is right or wrong. Could be both, neither or one. Honestly, I think would depend on the situation. There is no way to say one person/culture/group/ideal is "right".
What if one person/culture/group/ideal feels it is right to kill off anther person/culture/group for being too short/tall or wrong color skin/hair/eyes?
Is that right or wrong and why?
It's wrong to kill others who don't believe in the same things as you do. Take for instance the Holocaust. Was it wrong for the Nazi's to kill Jews because of a different belief structure? YES Was it wrong of us to kill the Nazi's for killing the jews? No - The line I draw is the Nazi's killed the jews because of their beliefs/looks etc. We killed the Nazi's for killing innocent people. It all stems down to believe what you want. But when you hurt another living being you are committing a bad/evil act.
I think when you die that's it - it's over. You are gone. I wish I could say I believed in some form of life after death or some continuance of the spirit but I don't. Death is final.
What makes you come to this conclusion?
Many faiths that follow the bible have contradicting stories or beliefs or rules. Christian religions for me are the most unbelievable. The bible portrays "god" as a vengeful wrathful being. Do these things and I will strike you down to hell. I will not forgive you for doing these things and I will send you to a terrible place. With a god like that - No thanks. I have learned about other religions that believe in reincarnation or other version of afterlife/heaven/hell and I don't find solace in any of them. I'll stick with dying frees you from fear, emotion and pain. Death is the absence of all life.
Why should people take care of the poor and sick?
Taking care of others I think is a good thing. I think to improve as a race we should take care of the sick more often.
If death frees people from fear and pain then wouldn't it be helping the poor and sick to just kill them?
I do believe in euthanasia. If a person is terminal and is in excruciating pain - why not help them slip into death and free themselves from the pain and the agony. Of course it would be the patients choice and no one else should try to interfere with that choice such as government or religion.
What faiths that follow the bible have contradicting stories/beliefs/rules?
Christianity (includes Catholicism, lutheran, baptist etc) would be the one I am referring to. Prime example: whatever happens is God's will. God does things for a reason and we should not question that. So - why does the bible encourage prayer when God has already decided what shall be? Seems to me that praying is useless. Another example is that if you do one of these 10 things (commandments) god will send you to hell - directly to hell. But he is a merciful god and he loves you.
Based off of what you said about the bible I can see that you don't like it. How does just not liking something make it unbelievable?
Actually - if you change your question around you get my answer - I don't believe in God or the bible - therefor, I do not like it.
What other reasons do you have for not believing in a god or higher power?
As far as not believing in another higher power - I have not seen any evidence to support a theory of a higher power of any kind. I do believe there are other living beings in the galaxy that we don't know about be it human or another species all together but an omnipotent all knowing supernatural power - sounds a little too much like Santa Claus.
How do you determine what is right and wrong?
Part of it is the same as knowing you know. You can feel inside that your heart and brain are in sync and there is no anxiety in your body. (See next question for full detail) The other part I think is deeply rooted in childhood. I think you look back on experiences and ask yourself what is right. Since everyone had a different childhood perspective there is no simple answer as to what is right and wrong. Some believe in cultural norms or ethics or morals or whatever you want to call it. But determining what is right and wrong goes much deeper than what a culture says is OK. I rely on feelings to determine what is right and what is wrong. Again, it's the feeling that my heart and my brain are in sync. This is a very broad question and I think alot of my answer has to do with a specific right or wrong. Be it a personal decision, a question of someones business practices, a government decision, a religious practice.
Do you think that there is some objective moral standard of right and wrong or good and evil?
No. It's different for every one. I don't think with the world we live in today it could that black and white.
If rape was not illegal would it still be wrong?
Yes. Illegal does not automatically make something bad and legal does NOT make something automatically good. Rape is taking and violating someone against their will. Any act done to intentionally hurt someone and/or against their will is wrong in my opinion.
Why is what the hijackers did on 9/11 considered evil?
They killed innocent people for no other reason than they didn't like americans. They killed people because we didn't share their beliefs in Allah and they think americans are evil across the board. You want to commit suicide - go ahead and have fun. Don't take others with you. Killing in the name of any higher being is one of the worst - immoral - evil things going on. Violence begets violence. I don't think it solves the world's problems.
If there is no objective moral standard (ethic) then how can anyone say something is right or wrong?
Maybe we can't. Maybe we just decide our perception of right and wrong is the same one others should follow. I really think that as long as you are not physically or emotionally hurting some other living being that you're OK.
What if two people's feelings on what is right and wrong are diametrically opposed? Who is "right" in that case?
There is no simple answer as to who is right or wrong. Could be both, neither or one. Honestly, I think would depend on the situation. There is no way to say one person/culture/group/ideal is "right".
What if one person/culture/group/ideal feels it is right to kill off anther person/culture/group for being too short/tall or wrong color skin/hair/eyes?
Is that right or wrong and why?
It's wrong to kill others who don't believe in the same things as you do. Take for instance the Holocaust. Was it wrong for the Nazi's to kill Jews because of a different belief structure? YES Was it wrong of us to kill the Nazi's for killing the jews? No - The line I draw is the Nazi's killed the jews because of their beliefs/looks etc. We killed the Nazi's for killing innocent people. It all stems down to believe what you want. But when you hurt another living being you are committing a bad/evil act.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Unstoppable force vs. unmovable object
I'm not sure if this would qualify as a worldview question but I am going to ask it here anyway. Send your answer to worldview.experiment@gmail.com. I will post any answers I get next week.
Can an unstoppable force and and unmovable object both exist? Why or why not?
Update 7/18/08
Well I only got one response and here it is:
According to the dictionary, "unstoppable" is defined as: that cannot be stopped or surpassed; unbeatable: an unstoppable ball team. Unmovable is defined as: not able or intended to be moved; "the immovable hills." With that information, I hold the same answer as I did before reading the definitions. This is a fancy way of saying "Could God create a rock so heavy that even He couldn't lift it?" There is nothing greater or more powerful than God. God can not be contained or restricted in any way. He is everywhere and all knowing. So does that make God an unstoppable force? I suppose so, if that is the way you want to look at it. I don't view God that way though. God just is. God said, "I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' " How powerful God is. He didn't say "I was" or "I will be," just "I am." Those two tiny words transcend time and space. What could be more powerful than that? I digress. Now to the issue of an unmovable object. From a human being standpoint, yes, there are plenty of objects we cannot lift let alone move. This leads me back to God. He created everything with mere words. God can move the mountains and arrange the planets with just His words. Nothing is more powerful than that.
Update 8/15/08
I got another response
yes
3 ways
1. The unstoppable object started at the location of the unmovable
object and continued infinitely into space. Geometrically this would
be similar to a ray. With the theory that the universe is continually
expanding the unstoppable object would never stop and never loop back
around to interact with the unmovable object.
2. Relative view. If the object were large enough (say planetoid
size) a person seeing the object approach the object would appear
unstoppable. To a person located on the object it would appear to be
unstoppable.
3. Relative view. The object were moving slow enough, say a large
fraction of a small measurement per multiple millenniums. One observer
would say that the object is immovable since the movement could not
accurately nor quantifiablly be measured. A second observer would say
that although it can not be measured it is still moving and its
movement could be measure given enough time.
Can an unstoppable force and and unmovable object both exist? Why or why not?
Update 7/18/08
Well I only got one response and here it is:
According to the dictionary, "unstoppable" is defined as: that cannot be stopped or surpassed; unbeatable: an unstoppable ball team. Unmovable is defined as: not able or intended to be moved; "the immovable hills." With that information, I hold the same answer as I did before reading the definitions. This is a fancy way of saying "Could God create a rock so heavy that even He couldn't lift it?" There is nothing greater or more powerful than God. God can not be contained or restricted in any way. He is everywhere and all knowing. So does that make God an unstoppable force? I suppose so, if that is the way you want to look at it. I don't view God that way though. God just is. God said, "I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' " How powerful God is. He didn't say "I was" or "I will be," just "I am." Those two tiny words transcend time and space. What could be more powerful than that? I digress. Now to the issue of an unmovable object. From a human being standpoint, yes, there are plenty of objects we cannot lift let alone move. This leads me back to God. He created everything with mere words. God can move the mountains and arrange the planets with just His words. Nothing is more powerful than that.
Update 8/15/08
I got another response
yes
3 ways
1. The unstoppable object started at the location of the unmovable
object and continued infinitely into space. Geometrically this would
be similar to a ray. With the theory that the universe is continually
expanding the unstoppable object would never stop and never loop back
around to interact with the unmovable object.
2. Relative view. If the object were large enough (say planetoid
size) a person seeing the object approach the object would appear
unstoppable. To a person located on the object it would appear to be
unstoppable.
3. Relative view. The object were moving slow enough, say a large
fraction of a small measurement per multiple millenniums. One observer
would say that the object is immovable since the movement could not
accurately nor quantifiablly be measured. A second observer would say
that although it can not be measured it is still moving and its
movement could be measure given enough time.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Clash of worldviews
This man did what he did because of certain beliefs he has. In his worldview it is ok for a man to kill his daughter for bringing dishonor to his family. The predominant worldview of the US says that what he did is wrong.
Which worldview is more in line with reality? Would what he did still be wrong in a culture that allows honor killings?
Which worldview is more in line with reality? Would what he did still be wrong in a culture that allows honor killings?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
