If an infinitely complex and powerful entity just as God can exist without having had a beginning or ever having an end, then why can't souls exist without a beginning or an end. God does not need to exist for us to exist if existing without a beginning or end is possible. I think it is far more likely that if we live on, God still does not exist, or at least has nothing to do with this Universe.

If it is souls who are responsible for this Universe, then many things are cleared up. Motive is possible because the souls are not perfect, and the imperfection of this Universe is explainable through the imperfection of the souls who created it.

Amirite?

You will find a few but not many that agree that 'the imperfection of this Universe is explainable through the imperfection of the souls who created it' regardless if you are implying souls created the concept of imperfection of this Universe or that souls created the Universe. Which one are you implying since it is not explicitly explained. You will also find a few who do not even believe in the concept of souls.

I'm implying that souls created this Universe, if it is so that we live on after death.

souls did create the universe. our soul is part of a collective of larger 'soul' which created this universe to train itself from imperfection. our souls do exist without having a beginning or an end. the notion of god has been tainted by dogmatic beleifs. god is us, we are him in different bodies. beleiving we are not part of a collective 'sea of souls' (if you will) is true. we are seperated at the moment for each and every seperated section to learn what it needs to learn. which differs from person to person. this learned information gets the soul closer and closer to joining back with the 'sea of souls'. which is a place we are all longing for. complete paradise and perfection on every level.

I agree that parts of the stories or supernatural ideas we have and not totally dependant on each other.

This makes just as much sense. That is not to say I think it has evidence for it either......but I like how it cuts out the "Perfect God" bit, as that leads down nonsensical paths when people try to explain it IMO.

Humankind and it's hubris. The one true failing of our evolution.

Oh God I hate New Ageism. This ultimate consciousness stuff is scarier to me than a vengeful God, and I don't know how anyone would wish it to be true. It's like "Oh hey you're not really real, you are just the simulation of consciousness from a larger consciousness and when you die, you don't exist anymore; you get gobbled back up into the ultimate consciousness." Who wants this?

Oh no no, it is all blatant speculation. That is what should be said about all religious and spiritual beliefs by anyone who believes anything. This is why religion is dangerous, people think they are right when they have no more right to claim they are right than anyone else.

Hmmph good.....I wasn't sure. Thought you'd gone odd, all of a sudden

Well from my point of view I don't see anything which would give "god" or this concept of "souls" an equal chance of existing; both have the same thing in common though, no evidence and incoherence.Hypothetically, yeah why couldn't an imperfect "soul", whatever that is, have existed forever without the need for a god? I dunno, because both are just that, hypothetics! It could have, but until either case gets coherence and evidence they both are in the same box, "claims" and belifs. I agree, motives to create are possible for an imperfect deity of some sort rather than if he was perfect, but even if we considered a deity as having creating this universe , to me that creates more problems than it solves scientifically because we'd never be able to prove a "deity", imperfect or not, created the universe, so science would reject the notion anyway because no science or proof would ever be involved. Logically, it's possible for an imperfect deity of some sort to have created this universe, but it seems highly unlikely because there would be nothing whichs makes that notion more true as existing than any other possible thing we can think up as being a possible cause of the universe. Get meh?

I can tell you now that science wouldn't, under any circumstance, accept a proposition without a shred of tangible evidence to prove it's existence even if it's logically possible, because without evidence it remains just that a propositition. I think if souls were responsible for the creation of the universe that would just use a type of "God of the gaps" argument as the answer to our questions; lack of evidence, nothing to further investigate because "souls did it". It's no different from saying "god did it"; using any supernatural explanation without evidence to back it up submits ignorance as the answer to our complex questions about the universe, the explanation answers nothing but merely says "the deity Urban Legend did it, nothing else to explain, I dont know how he did it, but it's logically possible, so it's the most plausable because it explains everything"! rofl. I don't even know where or how we'd begin to collect evidence for something which is logical trancendant of our own universe, I don't think it's possible, unless  zeus comes down and reveals the deity who created the universe was really his brother so we should'nt get alarmed.....


I feel like Richard Dawkins on the issue of religion; why should we give any special respect or merit to people who have a religious belief which is based on no evidence, as if they're belief in godly creation deserves some special moderation over they're other beliefs such as liking one type of music over the other.

Lol, I was just speaking hypothetically if it were the case that we lived on after death. I'm not arguing for anything, just speculating.


Believe me I am the same way.

And I'm not debating.....just stating.
lol, same team!

if you are scared perhaps you should confront your fears. your cynical response is very unconvincing. this thread smells alot like flamebating. if you dont understand leave it at that. your not teaching anyone any part of your insightful wisdom through this lame stab at spirituality. well done

It seems you're more of the one flamebaiting. By your definition everything in the Spirituality vs Skepticism section is flamebaiting.

here's the point. it could be so. you may not want it , but you can't deny the possibility.

The human soul is not perfect. But our original predecessor (Adam) was. Humans became corrupted after the fall of mankind. Our souls were created by God from this infinite universe meaning in part that we have a beginning and we will not have an end. As our current state as humans we cannot contemplate such things as eternity and something having no beginning or an end. It won't sound logical, because our mortal flesh dies, and we had a beginning, this is why we cannot contemplate this. Just because something is not earthly or human does not mean it cannot be possible and some people tend to discard things like this because it is outside of their realm of understanding.

Simple: Because the Law of Causality states that everything that had a beginning had a cause. Therefore, everything that has a beginning, has an end. Thus, we die, and God lives. The universe, which is comprised of time, space, and matter had to have at least come from something that is outside of time. If something is not constrained to time like our universe is, then that something did not have a beginning, and therefore a cause. It just always was. Think about it, when you say our universe had a beginning, you state that all time, space, and matter had a beginning. What was before it then?

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the universe is running out of energy. The Law of Entropy (same Law) goes further to say that all energy expends until it reaches disorder. Even the sun is an example of this. All things in the universe die, even the universe itself. Einstein's General Relativity proves this. Therefore, for God to create the universe, He would have to exist outside of the time, space, and matter that comprises our universe, thus outside the universe. It is proven, by five arguments that the universe had a beginning. If the universe is comprised of time, space, and matter, then what was before it? We know the Big Bang is the best answer out there. But before that? It could not have been a universe before that, because the The Second Law of Thermodynamics shows that the universe is running out of energy, thus it could not compress on itself. And there could not have been several big bangs because this Law does not support it. Therefore, what was before this one? "In the beginning God..........said "Let there be light." Scientists Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the cosmological radiation that was emitted from the Big Bang, showing that there was great light which is now of a shorter wave length than microwaves. They picked up on the sound that was created from the Big Bang as well.

No. Based on the scientific evidence above, you are incorrect. If souls created the universe, then what is their functionality when the universe dies because it ran out of energy? Our souls cannot make something out of nothing, and therefore cannot make a new universe out of this old one. What you wrote sounds like humanity's age old focus of deifying mankind, which has miserably failed since his beginning.

what makes you think the soul has a beginning and and end ? proof please ? the soul maybe a piece of God and therefore itself have no beginning or end. not contrained to this universe ect ................

Nephilim_Slayer


who says the soul isn't perfect ?? Adam is a myth. no eden , no fall.

Just an interesting thought:



Source


--Mandalore--

So you know this to be fact huh?

Because, if the universe was created flawed because we are flawed, then how do you explain the preciseness of the universe's set up? If only one factor had changed or is changed, life on earth would be impossible, and you would not be typing your responses. As abstract and aimless as this theory is, I contend that your direction is not to raise up humanity, but to put down God (which inevitably raises up humanity). Becaues if souls created this universe, you would not be accountable for your flawed words and choices. You would not have to answer to anyone, and that is just how you like your life, from what I can observe. I could be wrong about you, but your unwillingness to accept the facts or even think of them as facts makes it kind of obvious that you have no desire to live an any truth but the one you belief in (which may not be truth!) Just because you don't believe in something, that doesn't mean it isn't real. I consider that when you present your theories and philosophies, but they don't have logical premises nor to they support themselves when tested against themselves.



If the soul was perfect, we wouldn't say to one another, "That's not fair!" or "That's wrong" because we would all perfectly agree with each other. Like I said, your premise needs to be logical. A perfect soul that is imperfect toward others and is not agreeable with other souls shows that both that: This soul is imperfect, and this soul must be accountable for it.

I guess .

Who says there is even a human soul? If people are going by the bible, then that explains a lot.

Oh, wow; you present a cosmological first cause argument and all the atheist run with they're disbelief tucked between they're tails. Shall we begin? The conclusion in your argument is basically that "God exist", yet gives no explanation as to why that is such the case. If you invoke God to answer the question "Why is there a universe rather than nothing?," you raise the further question "Why is there a God rather than nothing?" The fundamental question--"Why is there something rather than nothing?"--remains unanswered either way; so why invoke a potentially nonexistent God to explain a universe which we know exists? It serves no purpose. Your argument posits that because the universe is comprised of space, time, and matter it had to have come from something that is outside of time, but upon close investigation, that proposition makes no sense at all. It's contradictory to say an atemporal being "created" the universe which is a temporal process while at the same time remaining outside the realm of "time". The very act of "creating" requires time, its a temporal process, so it's incapable of being understood how a being "outside of time" can act at at any point in time while at the same time not become a subject to time; it's contradictory. This begs the question to be asked, what does it mean for something to be "outside of time"? If you're outside of time your also outside of change, so how can something which exist "outside of time" create anything!? To "create" implies a change, and requires time, so in essence what your saying is that God existed before the universe "without time" then "desided" to create the universe and cause time which caused change. Firstly, look at what's being said! Let's go to a state before the universe even existed, let's goto when only god alone existed, now keep the concept of "time" and "change" in mind, the very moment God "desides" to do ANYTHING, he creates time and change, if he chooses one thing over the other, he is within the realm of temporality. Every action requires time. So if God is to exist, he has to exist soley unchanging, alone, and doing absolutely nothing, which means he can't create anything unless he himself is within the realm of time and is not an atemporal being by nature, ultimately meaning God also had a cause. Unless Bluefinger, you want to show us an instance in which an action can be performed without bringing time into existence, your argument for God fails, and horribly. But to do such is logically impossible so you can't possibly show us.

Furthermore, the idea of an a-temporal causation is totally incoherent. Of course, “time” is an aspect of our universe, but this means that we can’t speak of “causation” outside the context of our universe. This means that a “cause” of our universe is an incoherent concept. To rescue the argument, one has to develop a new conception of “causation” which is not dependent upon time. Perhaps this is possible, but it’s not immediately obvious that it is or, even if successful, that it’s a concept which refers to anything which actually exists; meaning it's purely imaginative thinking. This places all arguments about how the universe needs a cause on thin-ice. It would appear that you are insisting on the necessity of something incoherent and impossible, at least according to our current scientific understanding. At the very least, you'd need a new conception of causation — but if you manage that, you will no longer be able to distinguish between causation within the universe to the causation of the universe. The fact that events in our universe require causes cannot logically entail that the universe itself requires a “cause” in this new, hypothetical sense.

Im not done with your argument which has more than one flaw. Your argument follows as such: "Everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore, the universe has a cause." The clause "Everything that begins to exist" sounds artificial; it is not a phrase we hear outside the context of theistic philosophy. The clause cleaverly hides the flaw in argument of "begging the questions" and "circular reasoning". The premise "everything that begins to exist" implies that reality can be divided into two sets: items that begin to exist , and those that do not begin to exist. In order for this cosmological argument to work, things which do not begin to exist (if such a set is meaningful) cannot be a single existent, but more importantly, it must accommodate more than one item to avoid being simply a synonym for God. If God is the only object allowed to not begin to exist(NBE), then "things which begin to exist" is merely a mask for "the Creator", and the premise "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is equivalent to saying "everything except God has a cause." Unlike the other failures in this argument, this puts God into the definition of the premise of the argument that is supposed to prove God's existence, and we are back to the fallacy of "begging the question". Unless you can come up with another existent besides God which is uncaused then this argument fails. You won't come up with another thing which existed uncaused besides God because "God" created everything. If there are no other uncaused existents besides God then the argument is circular. It would be like a dictator staging an election that permits no other candidates but himself: it's rigged from the start. Additionally, if the only candidate for an uncaused existence is God, then the second premise, "The universe began to exist," would reduce to "The universe is not God," again assuming what the argument is trying to prove. If "existents which didnt begin to exist" is only synonymous with God, the argument looks like this:"Everything except God has a cause. The universe is not God. Therefore, the universe has a cause." In closing, Bluefinger your argument fails.


Well again, your argument rest on total incoherence. Another thing I forgot to explain...the concept of "creation". I cannot possibly understand why you believers continue to describe this "timeless" being "God" using only temporal terms. Phrases such as "God decided to create the universe" are taken by us mere mortals to be analogous to such natural phrases as "Annie Laurie decided to bake a pie." If such phrases are not equal or analogous to normal human language, and if they are not redefined coherently, then they are useless. We may as well say "God blopwaddled to scrumpwitch the universe."  The word "create" is a transitive verb. We have no experience of transitive verbs operating outside of time (how could we?!), so when we hear such a word, we must picture it the only way we can: a subject acts on an object. Considering the point at which an action is committed, there must be an antecedent state "during" which the action is not committed, and this would be true either in or out of time. To say or imply that "God created time" is not comprehensible to us. It's amazing how you can state God created the universe outside of time yet using temporal processes, that makes as much sense as saying "Im outside of the laws of gravity, yet I'm bound to the ground, and when I jump I travel down". Yeah, I can think about a bunch of thing to call that, contradictory, silly, illogical maybe? I guess based upon all of these supposed "facts" you've stated about the universe all of the mainstream scientist are simply deluding themselves about God, and are in total denial and choose to "ignore" these facts. Next........ 

Can I point out that by asking someone to just "not understand" something and leave it at that is exactly what I find the scariest about ANY belief system?

If we all just accepted things we didn't understand and left it at that, you wouldn't even have any "new age" spirituality to believe in. You would believe whatever you were taught originally because you wouldn't question it.

For me, God had a creator. The Primordial Vibration set into motion by the 'Big Bang'. Vibration sets Order from Chaos. Again to me, God is the Conscience of the Universe. The many aspects (7) of the Soul work together on the planes of existence as a connection from the Earthly plane (Malkuth) to the Divine plane (Kether).

I don't need to convince you. The point is to present my belief and you take it how you do. That is all. Apparently you take it skeptically. Thats good. But if you don't even test yourself, then you are not a true skeptic.
As I stated earlier, one would have to have experienced the other side in order to testify that it exists. You can't say something is or isn't without first having knowledge of it. That means I testify to have experienced God, whereas you don't. So the distinguishment is on my part. If you have yet to experience God, maybe you should be skeptical of your skepticism and pray for it.
If you really think about it, everything that begins has a cause. These words have a cause. These thoughts have a cause. This body had a cause. This planet had a cause. You don't suggest that universe doesn't have a cause, do you? Now, let me see if I understand you. You think that I fill in the unexplained gaps with God, am I right? Perhaps you are under the misunderstanding that I couldn't figure it out and thus just called it God. But, everything I said was characteristic thousands of years before we even discovered the likely origin of the universe. Science proves that this universe is composed of space (Can God be contained in a house? Scripture) It is composed of time (Jehova means Self-Existent; Eternal One). It is composed of matter (Yahweh means that I AM THAT I AM. Meaning that we cannot place a physical description of God lest we take from who He is. Thus matter can not fit God.) This isn't information given in light of the 'gap'. Its information given before the 'gaps' were discovered. Like I said, do with it what you want. I believe sciences such as the Law of Causality, The second Law of Thermodynamics, and General Relativity are all true. He have ample evidence to believe so. Just because the truth is there, it doesn't guarantee that people accept it. But thats based on will, not facts.


To redefine can also be to refine. I do not mean to refine my statements anymore than what they are, lest they be worthless. God is timeless. Otherwise, he wouldn't be God. You can either believe that God is timeless, or you can't. Thats your choice. Also, if time, space, and matter are the aspects of our universe, then whatever caused this universe was outside of that, or it too would somehow be affected.

and how would one go about 'experiencing' it? other than just deciding to believe in something they cant see or hear.
what is this 'experience' you have apparently had with god?

Pray for Him to reveal Himself to you. I don't doubt He will. Lots of times, we are the ones that come between us and God. If you want to experience Him, you'll have to ask Him. If you are not convinced, just keep an open mind about it. I know my God is well capable of proving Himself, I don't have to worry.

My experience:

I know what kind of person I am, and I do not deserve the blessings and answered prayers that I have received. When I sought God out, He made Himself known to me; sometimes through others, sometimes through the Bible, sometimes in just daily living. Through lessons I've learned and struggles I've gone through, I know He is faithful. And through the mysteries He's attracted me to and great blessings He's opened me up to, I can see His hand in all these great things. And this wonderful Church that I call my family has been there and shown the love of Jesus Christ to me. This may all be nothing to you, but it is everything to me. I don't deserve a thing I have, and have never earned it. It all came to me as a gift. That's my experience.

ok, soooo again, explain How he made himself known to you. you just said it was though others or through the old fable book, or just daily living. still didnt really answer my question. what you showed is, its just a matter of belief/opinion, and that this cant be proven to anyone, at any time. and that anyone can make up a god and have it 'reveal' itself to them.
so, how can it prove itself to you. i just want you to elaborate a little.

 (hits the floor....) Yeah, just when I thought you were going to attempt a rebutal, you simply retreat and use the "well it's my belief, believe it if you want" tactic. Pathetic. I could of swore this was the Spirituality vs Skepticism forum; you presented a ignorant misunderstanding of scientific law in which you take as "fact" then when you're shown how fallacious your argument is, you drift away from the debate. Well ok, let me show you exactly what kind of argument your above statement translates into.

"ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE"
(1)I believe God exist.....
(2)This, this, and THIS proves God exist!!!
(3)[Atheist refutes argument.....]
(4) I dont need to convince you!! Believe what you want!!
(5)Therefore, God exist.


Yeah, but still you fail to realize your argument is based off of total ignorance of science and incoherence. You admitted the universe is composed of space, time, and matter, yet you fail to explain how something can exist outside of time and space. What your talking about brings your argument into total incoherence and things which would be incapable of a human to understand. There is no way you can know what it's like for something to be outside of time. If something is outside of time, and space for that matter, it's also outside of change, ...then tell us in coherent ways we can understand, how this "God" can create anything? You haven't refuted any point I made but merely ended the discussion with "I dont have to convince you, believe what you want! My God exist!"  Either way you try to argue this "divine creation outside of time and space" the argument fails. You assume everything in your argument. Besides you believing that your argument is right or not, why dont you now begin to explain or in some way demostrate how something can occur "outside" of the realm of time and space. Explain how your atemporal God can create something outside the realm of time and causality. Must I even repeat myself again to show you how silly your argument is?


Yes Bluefinger, show us some type of causation which doesn't depend upon time. You have a belief in magic.




Explain how your God can be "timeless". Explain how something outside of time and change can "affect", "create" or do anything, when doing so requires time.

You're not getting it. NO ONE CAN EXPLAIN IT. You try explaining to me and all of the scientific community how the universe came from absolutely nothing. All you will be left with is scenarioes and theories. All our theories blow up in our faces by the time we get to the Big Bang. So, I really don't see why you are laughing and sounding so cocky, because you are asking me the same questions that you can't answer yourself.

All I know is that science has proven that the universe is composed of time, space, and matter. Thank Einstein for that one. Laugh at that and you'll be the only one laughing. I also know that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is king of laws in the universe. Therefore, this universe will not collapse on top of itself. Seeing that, what reason do we have to believe that it did before the Big Bang?

"The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation." — Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)

And even you admitted that the Law of Causation is true. Therefore, this universe had a cause. If you are upset that I can't give a scientific explanation of what caused the Big Bang, then you might as well be upset with all humanity, because we are all in the same boat. Have a good day Urband Legend.

No, Bluefinger, dont put words of illogic and ignorance in my mouth, your the one who believes in this "supernatural', all powerful, all knowing, "TIMELESS" deity. That alone is contradictory. My point is this, your argument is based off of total incoherence, therefore it holds no water. It holds as much water as saying "irgfjiergirg exist!". You can't explain what it means for something to be outside of time and change yet at the same time you believe something can be created without time and change, which is contradictory. How can this "timeless" being create anything? That's the point you fail to understand! Your reasons for believing in "God" is illogical, it's just like a child believing in an imaginary friend. Your argument rest or ignorance and incoherence. "Look look, I can't explain how the universe came about, therefore GOD is the cause of the universe, even though I have nothing to prove it! You sit here and invoke the Law of Causation yet you undermind the fact the there can be no causation without time or change. The human race will probably never know what is the cause behind the big bang, but for you to claim something you believe in is the cause, that to me, is the height of human ignorance; especially when you have NOTIHNG to prove it. You sit here and continually use the 2nd Law of Therodynamics as a shield for your belief in God when there is no significants between the two. For the sake of argument, even if something caused "everything" to exist, that doesn't point to your personal being "God". Actually, nothing points to God; you merely use God as a loop to fill in your gaps of knowledge. Scientist can say "well guys, before the big bang caused everything there was a singulariy, but hmm, what caused the singularity", even if we figured something had to bring about the universe that doesnt automatically entail a god or something supernatural did it. The only thing which proves your God created the universe is your lack of knowledge of whatever did it.

This is you........

"ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE
(1)I don't know what caused the universe.
(2)I don't know how something outside of time could cause anything!
(3)I don't know how causation can occur outside of time.
(4)God is timeless and is the only option left. I can't think of anything else which would make sense.
(4)Therefore, God exist!