Marijuana.com

Cassius

You were good up until the point where you said "This ever present movement must have had an origin." Why? What evidence do you have that indicates an origin is necessary for existence? Isn't it possible that it has ALWAYS existed, without an origin?

Personally, no. I fully admit the possibility that maybe there is a God who created the universe, and then had nothing to do with it afterwards, and doesn't give a damn what happens to us.

However, most religions don't accept such notions of God. They not only write "God" in the blanks to all the unanswered questions of their lives, but they also postulate (without evidence) that God cares very deeply what happens to them.

It is THAT assumption that gets me worked up, and tends to lead me into arguments where I equate God with religion. I recognize that there is a difference between the two, but most religious people don't, and so when I argue with religious people I tend to do it from their perspective.

__________________

{ Cassius, Your Humble Narrator }
{ Posting Guidelines | Erowid Drug Information Resource | instantfilehosting.com }

 

smoke_j

Okay, let me take a crack at this. Here is a made up conversation between a Christian theist and an atheist -- more specifically an atheist who believes that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

CT - Christian theist
A - Atheist.

<hr>

CT: Will the sun rise tomorrow?

A: Yes

CT: How do you know?

A: Because in the past the sun always rose.

CT: So you're saying that the future will be like the past as far as nature's uniformity goes?

A: Yes.

CT: How can you prove that one?

A: Well, in the past the future was like the past.

CT: Aren't you guilty of circular reason here?

A: How so?

CT: You're trying to justify induction by using an appeal that requires induction to gain any force (that the future is like the past because in the past the future was like the past).

A: Induction?

CT: The process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances. You're saying that the future is like the past (general principle) because it was observed that in the past the future was like the past (particular facts).

A: So science can't justify why nature is uniform...it still works.

CT: Well, if it cannot justify it's assumption about the uniformity of nature then science's feet are on unsteady ground...or no ground at all.

A: Okay, so get to the point.

CT: I say that Christianity can account for the workings of science and uniformity of nature. In Genesis 8:22 God reveals to us that He runs His universe in a timely fashion. He says, "While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter, And day and night, Shall not cease."

SevenLeafs

Cassius said:
If you would have kept on reading and understanding what I wrote, you would have ventured with this line (which comes before the point you mention):

SevenLeafs said:
In other words, like you seem to have put it, the movement should have always existed. But this does not mean that it must not have an origin. There may be a time when the universe, the one we live in, started moving, but it did not need that 'movement' to be inflicted upon it. The universe started its own movement, by itself, "why?", you ask, and I answer "because another movement was stopping, and in that moment, ours started".

I have my evidence. It is necessary that my body has an origin in order for me to be the person I am now. Without this origin, I would never change, I would never develop, and I would never end. This, in turn, would go against one of my strongest beliefs: the only constant thing in this universe is change.

I prove that belief with exactly the same subject we are having. The universe, ever-expanding or ever-collapsing, always changes. If it does nothing more than expand, it is always different from what it was before. If it is always in constant expansion-collapse, then it is always changing, also.

So, again, I end up with the same argument and question:

Wouldn't you consider that, if the Universe has been in movement since it was nothing and that it does not need anything else for it to initially start moving, it would be God?

Peace.7L

__________________

"A soul in tension that's learning to fly
Condition grounded but determined to try
Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies
Tongue-tied and twisted just an earth-bound misfit"
- Pink Floyd -

Just say KNOW!