Pastelland Forum

The Kakama wrote:God=being with infinite age.
Infinity doesn't have a beginning.(here we go again...)

Well, since time itself started, this seems to be false.

Well,God may not be a being bound by time(or any other dimension) ,allowing Him to exist before time.

Yeah, it God created everything, he must have created time too, and then he wouldn't have infinite age, not?

EDIT:

Well,God may not be a being bound by time(or any other dimension) ,allowing Him to exist before time.

"Before" has no sense if you have no time, as "eternal" has no sense either. For a being to be eternal it must be embedded inside a time dimension, and extend infinitely across that dimension, if that isn't possible then he can be just "instantaneous", at least until he creates some sort of time and allows himself to somehow extend backwards, violating causality.

what can I say... I'm atheist.

Sublevel 102 wrote:what can I say... I'm atheist.

you don't have to say, it looks like most people here are atheists too

So,a good thing or not?

The Kakama wrote:So,a good thing or not?

Why would it be bad? It's a personal matter.

I don't really know a lot about astronomy, but I have chosen to believe there is a god for now. Why? It is simpler. I think that is why most people do. If it was to be proven that there is no god, I would then probably think it was something else.

Out of the two choices:
A. Everything we can witness exists
B. Everything we can witness exists, plus another thing

Why do you think the second one is simpler? And why do you think something being simpler is an acceptable reason to believe *anything*? Believing that black people are just born inferior and that's why they aren't successful in a larger proportion than other races is simpler than other consistent alternatives, but that's totally not true, and also it is a completely inappropriate viewpoint to have.

azareus wrote:I don't really know a lot about astronomy, but I have chosen to believe there is a god for now. Why? It is simpler. I think that is why most people do. If it was to be proven that there is no god, I would then probably think it was something else.

Occam's razor, huh?

Well, I think it's rather a subjective matter, of what meaning do you choose for complexity.

For example I think it's less plausible and more troubly to explain that some being with human characteristics (at least with intention), and with capability to create universes (how could we explain that capability?) has existed/exists (why? how?) and chose to create an universe (for what purpose?) from a big bang (why that particular starting point?), and then let it evolve for such a long time until life is created (why so long?) to seemingly interaact with it, than simply the no-boundary proposal (space and time started in the big bang, so it makes no sense to speak of "before" the big bang or the "cause" of it, like how you can't go north of the north pole), which has less suppositions.

But it really depends on what point of view you take, so we can be both right depending on the perspective, or at least I think so.

EDIT:

And why do you think something being simpler is an acceptable reason to believe *anything*?

If we treat the world's phenomenons as statistical, the most simple explanations (the ones that make less assertments) are the most probable ones, as an example, it'd be more probable that you had a yellow T-shirt than that you had a yellow T-shirt and black socks, because the first event covers more possible cases. That's the principle under which the Occam's razor is based. However, there are often many different interpretations (not only statistical), and it's a subjective issue to choose one among them to perform stuff, so Occam's razor isn't a definite argument in most cases.