Are You Religious?

[BitBuster]

But the fact that we move through time (at a steady rate apparently) and in only one direction -- we didn't think that up ourselves.

That's not "time." That's just objects changing shape/form/energy/whatever. Can you reverse those changes? Well, if you could, you'd have a "time machine"...but it wouldn't be traveling through time itself, just states of being...

My point is that there is an external reality, and the time we experience and are stuck in doesn't exist there like it does here.

Wait...what?

[geodave]

An EXTERNAL REALITY. One without TIME. Just one possibility.

[James]

This has no bearing on anything at all, just thought it was humorous

https://mashable.com/2012/05/03/religiou...are-study/

The gist: According to Symantec, religious sites are around 3x more likely to carry malware than pornographic sites are.

(Among the other numbers they give, approx. 20% of blogs carry malware, which is a bit troubling.)

[IceyLava108]

What I sometimes have an anxiety attack over is...

If God had no beginning and will have no end... he didn't ever "become God" or "pop into place". He's always just been there. That's kind of strange to figure out, no matter how far back you go in time, beyond the beginning of the universe... God has always been there. A little strange, isn't it?

[geodave]

Very strange. But, since I can't think of a better explanation, I'm going with that one.

If you posit that beginning, ending, duration and time are just constructs of our existence, then the questions get unasked. MU.

[BitBuster]

If you posit that beginning, ending, duration and time are just constructs of our existence, then the questions get unasked.

...which is why it's just as likely that all this MATTER just "always existed." I fail to see how God is more probable (particularly given that we knowthat matter, or at least SOMETHING exists).

[geodave]

Welllllllllll

According to the current theory, nothing existed before the Big Bang except potential. Does THAT make any sense?

I think the key here is that you have to accept SOMETHING as existing before your own personal existence. Unless, of course, you're an existentialist -- in which case it doesn't really matter.

I do not think that the first cause argument will make someone ELSE believe in God, it just helps ME believe.

[BitBuster]

According to the current theory, nothing existed before the Big Bang except potential. Does THAT make any sense?

To me? No. It doesn't. But then, the fact of something existing forever doesn't make sense...within our limited POV, that is.

I think the key here is that you have to accept SOMETHING as existing before your own personal existence.

I don't know if you HAVE to, but either way, it requires adopting a POV beyond what we "know." Either something always existed, or something can come from nothing...nothing in our current perceptions really allows for this.

I do not think that the first cause argument will make someone ELSE believe in God, it just helps ME believe.

...you mean as an excuse? It seems like a means of justifying something you've already committed to, rather than being a reason TO commit. I dunno, maybe I'm misinterpreting you here, but that's the vibe I get...

[geodave]

...you mean as an excuse? It seems like a means of justifying something you've already committed to, rather than being a reason TO commit. I dunno, maybe I'm misinterpreting you here, but that's the vibe I get...

Excuse is a bit harsh. First cause isn't the reason for my belief system, nor is it required. What's nice about an argument like this (or design, or others) is that it enhances a belief system, makes it more rounded and complete.

So, it's not "justifying" as much as "fortifying".

[BitBuster]

...well, I'm still not entirely convinced that it's an "argument"...it just seems to come across as more of an explanation for something you've already bought into, but then, maybe that's just me.

Also: