What created God?

[wotgoplunk]

Right, so religion appears to be a rather hotly debated subject 'round here. These are my collective thoughts on the (non-)existence of God. Forgive me if I've breached some sort of taboo by starting this thread.

So:
1. It takes something complex to create a complex being.
2. God is complex.
3. Something more complex than God must have created him.
4. Something even more complex must have created that.
5. This leads to irreducible complexity.
6. Alternately, you may say God has always existed.
7. This goes against the First Law of Thermodynamics, that states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
8. The counter-argument is either:
8a. God created the First Law of Thermodynamics. Or:
8b. God is immune.
9. Rebuttals for these are:
9a. God could not have created the First Law of Thermodynamics, because it negates his existence.
9b. In order for God to be immune to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, he must exist outside spacetime.
10. Spacetime is contingent on God, as God would have created spacetime if he were outside it.
10a. Because the existence of spacetime implies the existence of God, God is also contingent on spacetime. They are mutually contingent.
10b. We now have circular logic. God "created" spacetime, and spacetime "created" God. Now God has no special status as "creator".
10c. If God exists outside it, then he must have created it.
10d. Therefore, God cannot exist outside spacetime.
11. Therefore, God does not exist.

Is there a flaw in my logic? And faith is not an argument. 

EDIT: I noticed I typed 2nd law, it should be 1st.

EDIT AGAIN: I think point 7 needs explanation. God exists within spacetime due to the mutual contingency. Spacetime is finite. Therefore, God must have had a starting point. The Big Bang from the HH initial state, doesn't go against the First law, whereas God, being finite, does.

YET ANOTHER EDIT: I found this definition of contingency and causality:

 Causation is a special case of contingency. When X is said to cause Y this means that Y is contingent on X and that X preceded Y. A characteristic of Y is that it is that which is caused by X so the existence of Y implies the existence of X.

This, however, does not mean that Y caused X: X precedes Y and the object which comes first is given “priority” and regarded as the causer. This makes causality an intrinsically temporal concept.

If God is outside space-time then God cannot “cause” space-time in a temporal way. We cannot deny God totally with this reasoning, however, because it could be argued that causality is just a special case of contingency and that when people say that God “caused” space-time they really mean that space-time is contingent on God.

Outside time, even if we admit the coherency of “causation” by calling it “contingency” any direction for it is lost, there being no time in which to order things.

 Let us accept the coherency of the concepts of existence and contingency outside space-time: we must if we are going to admit the possibility of God.

[debussy symbolism]

Greetings

First of all, if an entity is created by another entity, then the first entity cannot possibly be called God. An entity which we might call God would have to be a primal, most supreme entity that could not have been created.

Humans are also complex. If we are talking about the level of complexity, we are going to be talking about different creatures that humans might refer to as Gods due to their complexity. Obviously, the chance of them being divine is very unprobable, following the logic that less complex beings look at more complex beings as divine. Primitive cavemen would have believed that we are unwordly.

If God is a supernatural entity, then you can throw all physical laws out the window.

Actually to be clear, it is most probable that humans created God, not the either way around. Humans assume there is a God, without ever truly presenting any coherent and logical evidence of His existence.

To look at it from this way, one would have to see God as either a spiritual entity, or a living, more technologically advanced entity. Knowing that less advanced cultures see the more advanced cultures as divine, it is most probable that the humans also see more advanced races such as ET's as divine. This scenario is much more probable than a scenario in which God is divine because there is so far more evidence to support that ET life exists, than evidence that supports any kind of divine forces.

[jlh]

The atheist Bertrand Russell wrote in his book "Why I am Not a Christian" that if it is true that all things need a cause then God must also need a cause. He concluded from this that if God needed a cause then God was not God (and if God is not God then of course there is no God). This was basically a slightly more sophisticated form of the childlike question, "Who made God?" Even a child knows that things do not come from nothing, so if God is a "something" then He must have a cause as well, right?

The question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be.

The answer is that the question does not even make sense!  It is like asking, "What does blue smell like?" Blue is not in the category of things that have odor, so the question itself is flawed.  Another similar question might be, "to whom is the bachelor married?"That's absurd because by definition a bachelor is not in the same category as people who are married.  In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created, or come into existence, or are caused. God is uncaused and uncreated - He simply exists.

How do we know this? Well, we know that from nothing, nothing comes. So if there was ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence then nothing would have ever come to exist. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been existing. That ever-existing thing is what we call God.

[rimv2]

Right, so religion appears to be a rather hotly debated subject 'round here. These are my collective thoughts on the (non-)existence of God. Forgive me if I've breached some sort of taboo by starting this thread.

So:
1. It takes something complex to create a complex being.
2. God is complex.
3. Something more complex than God must have created him.
4. Something even more complex must have created that.
5. This leads to irreducible complexity.
6. Alternately, you may say God has always existed.
7. This goes against the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
8. The counter-argument is either:
8a. God created the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Or:
8b. God is immune.
9. Rebuttals for these are:
9a. God could not have created the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because it negates his existence.
9b. In order for God to be immune to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, he must exist outside spacetime.
10. Spacetime is contingent on God, as God would have created spacetime if he were outside it.
10a. Because the existence of spacetime implies the existence of God, God is also contingent on spacetime. They are mutually contingent.

Is there a flaw in my logic? And faith is not an argument.

The first flaw in your logic is that it takes something complex to create something complex.

Starting at the basic level, there's animal, organ, organism, molecule, atom, subatomic particle, energy, etc.

At each new level something more is discovered. This process continues, perhaps, infinitely.

Given that the process is seemingly infinite, it cannot really be determined which level is more complex.

To say whether or not god is complex means that you know for certain, you are complex.

To say that something more complex must have created something complex means you know for certain that the something you see as more complex is indeed more complex.

Etc.

Another flaw.

6. Alternately, you may say God has always existed.
7. This goes against the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

How so? If god indeed always existed.

10b. We now have circular logic. God "created" spacetime, and spacetime "created" God. Now God has no special status as "creator".
10c. If God exists outside it, then he must have created it.
10d. Therefore, God cannot exist outside spacetime.
11. Therefore, God does not exist.

And what if god's existence doesn't defy the law of thermodynamics? This would mean that god exists within space time, would it not?

Through almost all religions two facts that remain unchanged about god.

God exists and always has existed.
God  is never created nor destroyed.

So what does god really sound like here?

[rimv2]

To look at it from this way, one would have to see God as either a spiritual entity, or a living, more technologically advanced entity. Knowing that less advanced cultures see the more advanced cultures as divine, it is most probable that the humans also see more advanced races such as ET's as divine. This scenario is much more probable than a scenario in which God is divine because there is so far more evidence to support that ET life exists, than evidence that supports any kind of divine forces.

ET sighting have been recorded throughout history. And, in the Book Of Ezekiel, he describes what seems mostly like some sort of flying saucer animal mixture. So, that's not far from plausible.
 

[pianogeek_cz]

For one, the arguments are a bit vague at points.

I fully agree with rimv2's observations.

Also:

In 8, the counter-argument is still assuming God is a physical being, which is ruled out in 7. 8a is not valid, were God a physical being: if he had created the 2nd LoT, being a physical entity, he would still be subject to it, therefore, according to 7 (Which is debatable: the 2nd LoT is, bear in mind, -not- a no-excuses law - it merely states that the odds of arbitrary de-enthropizing are very, very slim indeed.), the next step would be 8b - God is a physical being, but immune. Which would make him -slighlty- hypocritical, possibly - so, in order to avoid that, the counter-argument (still thinking of God as physical) is 8b: God is the ultimate physical improbability.

Following this line of God-physical-improbable, 9a is invalid.

(Now, I'm not sure about other anti-God arguments from this physical side...)

But, the much more plausible construction is to assume that God is -not- a physical being (9b). That is, outside spacetime indeed. I fail to grasp the logic of 10a, though. How and why exactly should spacetime imply the existence of God, and how and why exactly should, because of that, God be contingent on spacetime? Even if we accept the antecedent (spacetime -> God), implication is just a one-way relationship. I simply don't see why should [a non-physical] God need/depend on spacetime.

Now, let's assume there's a good and bulletproof answer to this how&why, but 10b is also a bit odd. It is assuming that contingence means creator-creation relationship?

...

Food for thought: isn't the -point- of God that He can't really be proven/disproven, but rather believed in/not believed in? *goes to ponder*

[rimv2]

Ah so 

[pianistimo]

good question!  jlh sums up what i think, too.  if God is Spirit (thus indicating eternity - and yet an existing living being) what we consider 'nothing' is really something.

scientists have discovered that in the places of space they thought were 'nothing' - actually have somekind of force.  otherwise, the spaces would be absolved by other masses and come together(fold in on self).  what holds these spaces of 'nothing?'  i think God.

also - the complexity idea holds some merit because (imo) when i look at the constellations i see a story that God is telling thru the heavens.  'the heavens declare the glory of God...'  i think it's a story about early mankind - thru Christ - and onto the future.  we even see the old serpent - or dragon - in these star images.  now, some use the heavens for astrological purposes - but in abraham's time - (who used to live in ur, btw - the center of chaldean thought) - he passed along the biblical stories and probably had the true meanings of the 'stars.'  what they meant.  after all - there was a star which brought the three wise men to the location of Jesus Christ when he was born.

anyways - the complexity - as i see it - is eliminated by the Spirit - which brings understanding to us that we simply could not find elsewhere.  just the same as with interpretation of dreams and knowing the future.  who can reveal these things excepting God who knows all.  how He was the alpha and omega - and yet without beginning or end.  this is not understandable by a finite mind.  yet, he says we are 'children' and 'heirs.'  so are we going to inherit eternity?  i think so.

[prometheus]

The first flaw in your logic is that it takes something complex to create something complex.

This is of course the premise that is already being postulated by those that claim there is a god.

How so? If god indeed always existed.

If god has always existed then so can that that caused the big bang.

And what if god's existence doesn't defy the law of thermodynamics? This would mean that god exists within space time, would it not?

I also don't understand the thermodynamics thing.

Through almost all religions two facts that remain unchanged about god.

God exists and always has existed.
God  is never created nor destroyed.

I strongly disagree with this. Many myth talk about the creation and destruction of gods.

[wotgoplunk]

The first flaw in your logic is that it takes something complex to create something complex.

Starting at the basic level, there's animal, organ, organism, molecule, atom, subatomic particle, energy, etc.

At each new level something more is discovered. This process continues, perhaps, infinitely.

Given that the process is seemingly infinite, it cannot really be determined which level is more complex.

To say whether or not god is complex means that you know for certain, you are complex.

To say that something more complex must have created something complex means you know for certain that the something you see as more complex is indeed more complex.

The thing is though, is that something less complex, cannot create a more complex being. A human couldn't create God, because humans don't fully understand God. God is more complex. God may have created us, but we could not create him, so we can logically deduce that he is more complex. Things like evolution or the Big Bang, this doesn't apply to. It doesn't create in the sense that it doesn't have a creator. It's a process, not a direct creation.

Another flaw.

How so? If god indeed always existed.

I already showed how God exists within spacetime. If God exists within spacetime, he cannot be eternal. Since God exists within it, and cannot be eternal, he must have had a starting point. This goes against the Second Law.

[cmg]

What created God?  Human need. 

The  projection of protective/judgmental qualities onto supernatural entities -- thus deemed god-like -- probably derives from those members of cultures with the greatest status.  If animals are venerated, they are anthropomorphisized, i.e. given human (male or female) attributes.

"Eternity," in Buddhist thought, is the absence or end of Time, which is a construct of human intelligence.

To illustrate the fabricated and unrealistic nature of Time, you only have to observe that the "past" is that which is gone, dead.  The "future" is a simple projection of the past, equally dead and non-existent.  (One cannot imagine a future without the experience of the "past.")  The present is the only true reality.  It is timeless.  If there is a God, that's where God can be found.

So, does God exist?  One will only know when the conditioned mind (which is created by the artificial construct of Time) is ended.  "Death" is the common term we give to that destruction of the conditioned mind.  "Awakening" or "enlightenment" is an option wherein one can experience the absence or end of Time.  But it's an arduous and nearly impossible goal for most.     

[timothy42b]

Most of you are assuming that because you have attached some definitions to the concept of God, He must therefore obey them.

For example, God is by definition all powerful, so he must be.  And good, so he must be.

But of course that is just plain silly.  He is what he is.  It says in the bible I AM. 

So here's one easy possibility.  God may be the ultimate evolution of awareness.  Millions of years in the future, awareness evolves to the point where it escapes time.  And now He exists in the past as well. 

[rimv2]

also - the complexity idea holds some merit because (imo) when i look at the constellations i see a story that God is telling thru the heavens.  'the heavens declare the glory of God...'  i think it's a story about early mankind - thru Christ - and onto the future.  we even see the old serpent - or dragon - in these star images.  now, some use the heavens for astrological purposes - but in abraham's time - (who used to live in ur, btw - the center of chaldean thought) - he passed along the biblical stories and probably had the true meanings of the 'stars.'  what they meant.  after all - there was a star which brought the three wise men to the location of Jesus Christ when he was born.

You seem to be an intelligent person, and I'm sure you'd more like one by not including information, such as this, in a debate. 

I strongly disagree with this. Many myth talk about the creation and destruction of gods.

Which is why I say "most" and not all.   

What created God?  Human need. 

The  projection of protective/judgmental qualities onto supernatural entities -- thus deemed god-like -- probably derives from those members of cultures with the greatest status.  If animals are venerated, they are anthropomorphisized, i.e. given human (male or female) attributes.

"Eternity," in Buddhist thought, is the absence or end of Time, which is a construct of human intelligence.

To illustrate the fabricated and unrealistic nature of Time, you only have to observe that the "past" is that which is gone, dead.  The "future" is a simple projection of the past, equally dead and non-existent.  (One cannot imagine a future without the experience of the "past.")  The present is the only true reality.  It is timeless.  If there is a God, that's where God can be found.

So, does God exist?  One will only know when the conditioned mind (which is created by the artificial construct of Time) is ended.  "Death" is the common term we give to that destruction of the conditioned mind.  "Awakening" or "enlightenment" is an option wherein one can experience the absence or end of Time.  But it's an arduous and nearly impossible goal for most.     

Hmmmmm.....the plot thickens

The thing is though, is that something less complex, cannot create a more complex being. A human couldn't create God, because humans don't fully understand God. God is more complex. God may have created us, but we could not create him, so we can logically deduce that he is more complex.

Where do you start to define the complexity? What we can actually observe is limited. Is god truly more complex than man, or is man more complex than god? Any argument based on complexity is inherently flawed as complexity is either subjective or based on frame of reference.

Also, simply because we cannot comprehend something does not make it more complex. Assuming complexity on the hierarchial frame you suggest opens up another realm of questions. First one must ask, what is comprehension? Then one must ask if there is anything in the universe that one can truly comprehend. Can one comprehend light or sound? We see and hear them. We make theories for them. But do we actually comprehend them?

Things like evolution or the Big Bang, this doesn't apply to. It doesn't create in the sense that it doesn't have a creator. It's a process, not a direct creation.

That's assuming the universe was actually created. Let's assume that the universe (or the universes that were responible for its existence in it current form) and god have always existed.
Heck let's say the universe is god. All processes in the universe were responsible for "creating" life. Man is the inevitable result of the creation of life. The universe is responsible for creating man. God is responsible for creating man. This being god in the most object frame.

And now let's analyze creation. Creation doesn't exist. Nothing is the universe is truly created. Creation is a human idea. All things created were merely constructions of some kind. To construct something one most combine various parts. Given that it's assumed the universe is a construct, bits and piece woven together, by our own logic, the universe is a creation. And what are we to call the force behind this construction? Who knows? So, I'll just stop here.

I already showed how God exists within spacetime. If God exists within spacetime, he cannot be eternal. Since God exists within it, and cannot be eternal, he must have had a starting point. This goes against the Second Law.

No you didn't. 

There's no way to actually prove that god's existence violates that law of thermodynamics.

All we have are theories and postulates.

And as far as proving and disproving something like god, that's all we will ever have.

Oops, did I say that?


While I was typing:

Most of you are assuming that because you have attached some definitions to the concept of God, He must therefore obey them.

For example, God is by definition all powerful, so he must be.  And good, so he must be.

But of course that is just plain silly.  He is what he is.  It says in the bible I AM. 

So here's one easy possibility.  God may be the ultimate evolution of awareness.  Millions of years in the future, awareness evolves to the point where it escapes time.  And now He exists in the past as well. 

Tempted to say something mean, but Ah refrain

You do know the bible was written by men, right? Their version of god can be no more or less valid than any other man's. Especially when the faith is involved.

[timothy42b]

Where do you start to define the complexity? What we can actually observe is limited. Is god truly more complex than man, or is man more complex than god? Any argument based on complexity is inherently flawed as complexity is either subjective or based on frame of reference.

Clearly you at least partly right.  The Intelligent Design people (Behe, Demski, et al) rely on a concept called irreducible complexity, yet every definition they have proposed for it has quickly been shot down.  It appears to be impossible to define operationally, so it probably doesn't exist.

Yet on the other hand, if a God really designed our universe at the micro-level, including all the chemical and biological relationships, and really maintains and manages an individual development plan for each of 8 billion people, then He must be complex beyond any of our experiences so far. 

If you are proposing God as the ultimate designer and controller then He must be complex.  If He gave the universe a kickstart and let it run according to natural principles, then perhaps not. 

If he is the ultimate designer then it is hard to find fault with Dawkin's logic that he must have been designed by an even more advanced being.  If not then there exists the possibility he evolved by chance. 

[pianistimo]

what if our brains can only comprehend a minute amount of complexity - and within God's brain He knows what He means when He says 'eternal' - in regards to 'eternal life.'  without time.  if time is a construct that we cannot get past - how will we be able to analyze this question properly without the Spirit.  the Holy Spirit is also eternal and was 'hovering' over the waters - as 'wisdom.'  wisdom is sometimes spoken of in the feminine gender - so in the gentle and feminine sense - we have a 'dove' representing this wisdom, gentleness, kindness (all qualiites of God) - but most importantly LIFE GIVING force.  the seed of God is all inclusive - i guess - both male/female.  the Spirit gives life to whomever is chosen by God to merit it.  and the only merit isn't ourselves - but our willingness to be obedient.   that's how i see it.  God shows us through His glory and power that there is someone greater than us that we must come to honor and obey before He will grant us the rewards of His kingdom and power and glory also - to reign with Him.  the disciples were aware of this when they asked who would sit at his right hand when He came into His kingdom.  what if His kingdom is right around the corner.  will we give up our 'crowns' for material things on this earth because our minds can't wrap around this idea of eternity?  why should we lose something eternal for something temporary.  i say - forget trying to understand it - just have faith that it is.  that God is all-wise, all-benevolent, all-knowing (even the hearts and minds of people).  take a chance - and risk and get to know Him.  he is LIFE - and because He lives - we live.

[opus10no2]

I think it's quite clear god doesn't have a brain

[pianistimo]

well, he can manifest himself - and perhaps his 'brain' is the Holy Spirit.  the mind of God.  it doesn't need 'grey matter' - but rather - it must be seeking and probing and renewing things that are in the process of dying.  even in death - Christians live.  that is why it is a life-giving force and why JEsus said to the samaritan woman that He could give her a type of water that she could drink and never be thirsty again.

[ahinton]

even in death - Christians live.  that is why it is a life-giving force and why JEsus said to the samaritan woman that He could give her a type of water that she could drink and never be thirsty again.

I bet they'll discover that and start making a fortune out of bottling and marketing it at some point. Seriously, though - cannot you accept that this is simply a piece of imagery? - even if JEsus (that's an all-time record for you in the use of capitals, is it not?!) had actually uttered those very words. No water will do that - and I suspect that it would be the cause of no end of renal, urinary and other medical problems if it did...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

what if our brains can only comprehend a minute amount of complexity.

You have personally proved this.

Thal

[pianistimo]

and, you, mr thal haven't got a clue what the fingering is for mussorgsky's gnomus (at the velocissimo).  not that it matters.  does it really matter if you do things perfectly with all reason - or just wing through life without many worries or cares.  i'm not suggesting foolishness, mind you - i'm just asking 'who's going to be the most stressed out?'  possibly the person trying to do it 'the right way.'  complexity only leads to more and more and more complexity - until you're completely and utterly lost and forgot where it all started.

i say - do your best and don't worry if the complexity is beyond you.  in fact, revel in the fact that there are things that you don't know.  if you knew everything - you still wouldn't get a good nights sleep.

go to the beach.  listen to a conch shell.  that's basically the secret to a stress-free life.

[thalbergmad]

I would ask for a 2nd opinion if i were you.

Your current treatment is not working.

Thal

[pianistimo]

a second opinion about what?

[rc]

What came first; God or the egg?

(and why do we care?)

[wotgoplunk]

does it really matter if you do things perfectly with all reason - or just wing through life without many worries or cares.  i'm not suggesting foolishness, mind you - i'm just asking 'who's going to be the most stressed out?'  possibly the person trying to do it 'the right way.'  complexity only leads to more and more and more complexity - until you're completely and utterly lost and forgot where it all started.

So you're saying just to lean back, and not strive for answers?

Nothing is ever accomplished by doing that

Also, it seems to be the Christian mantra: "Don't question your religion, and all will be okay."

[pianistimo]

as i see it - there is only so much time.  so - what you do with your time IS extremely important. (minus a few hours on pianoforum) and, what you put into your brain.  but, at the end of the day - can you stop and just relax.  some propellor heads cannot.  their brain keeps going forward as though they will solve the world's problems.  face it - we cannot know everything.  we never will.  until we are given material which is above our current brain function - and it might have to be with some other 'sense.'  a sixth sense?  anyways - a sense that will make sense of seeming nonsense to our brain now.

[wotgoplunk]

We cannot know everything, but we can still question. We can still learn. We can strive to know more.

[rc]

as i see it - there is only so much time.  so - what you do with your time IS extremely important. (minus a few hours on pianoforum) and, what you put into your brain.  but, at the end of the day - can you stop and just relax.  some propellor heads cannot.  their brain keeps going forward as though they will solve the world's problems.  face it - we cannot know everything.  we never will.  until we are given material which is above our current brain function - and it might have to be with some other 'sense.'  a sixth sense?  anyways - a sense that will make sense of seeming nonsense to our brain now.

Intuition is a useful thing that the propellerheads (I like that term) tend to dismiss.  Sometimes you just know something, and it takes time to give words and reason to it.

(I'm often a propellerhead BTW)

[rimv2]

Clearly you at least partly right.  The Intelligent Design people (Behe, Demski, et al) rely on a concept called irreducible complexity, yet every definition they have proposed for it has quickly been shot down.  It appears to be impossible to define operationally, so it probably doesn't exist.

Yet on the other hand, if a God really designed our universe at the micro-level, including all the chemical and biological relationships, and really maintains and manages an individual development plan for each of 8 billion people, then He must be complex beyond any of our experiences so far. 

If you are proposing God as the ultimate designer and controller then He must be complex.  If He gave the universe a kickstart and let it run according to natural principles, then perhaps not. 

If he is the ultimate designer then it is hard to find fault with Dawkin's logic that he must have been designed by an even more advanced being.  If not then there exists the possibility he evolved by chance. 

Unless god is not a character like god is made out to be.

Given that the universe is possibly the combination of two or more universes or dimensions, it's probable that the universe was formed on the macro level down. That is, with large piece combining to form smaller pieces.

Within this universe, as we observe it, almost everything within seems to operate with static parameters. The ultimate goal, seeming to be, to achieve balance. Universe A and universe B collide at various points for form E, which is comprised of combination of universes A and B. Unfortunately. Universe A is  comprise of Xs and Ys while universe B is comprised of Xs and Zs. Zs happen to be comprised of a number of negative X's and Y's. Within the multiverse, perfect balance cannot be achieved. Matter is formed. Life forms from matter.

Or something like that

What force compels it to operate like it does? Ah mean, if this is how it does operate?

What would we call it if we did know?

Ah know what ah would call it

[prometheus]

Intuition is a useful thing that the propellerheads (I like that term) tend to dismiss.  Sometimes you just know something, and it takes time to give words and reason to it.

(I'm often a propellerhead BTW)

Intuition only deceives you when it comes to science. So many things in modern science are counterintuitive or just defy any attempt at being subjected to intuition.


Imagine calling the force of gravity god just because we don't know enough about it. No need to turn it into some modern form of Zeus or Jahweh. It is not a helpful thing to do at all.

[rimv2]

Intuition only deceives you when it comes to science. So many things in modern science are counterintuitive or just defy any attempt at being subjected to intuition.


Imagine calling the force of gravity god just because we don't know enough about it. No need to turn it into some modern form of Zeus or Jahweh. It is not a helpful thing to do at all.

Why not?

Let's call lightning Hera, the b!@h, and thunder Ares, as it echoes with the sound of war.

We'll call time Prometheus, he robs you of your fun without you noticing. The backstabber!

 

[pianogeek_cz]

Given that the universe is possibly the combination of two or more universes or dimensions, it's probable that the universe was formed on the macro level down. That is, with large piece combining to form smaller pieces.

Within this universe, as we observe it, almost everything within seems to operate with static parameters. The ultimate goal, seeming to be, to achieve balance. Universe A and universe B collide at various points for form E, which is comprised of combination of universes A and B. Unfortunately. Universe A is  comprise of Xs and Ys while universe B is comprised of Xs and Zs. Zs happen to be comprised of a number of negative X's and Y's. Within the multiverse, perfect balance cannot be achieved. Matter is formed. Life forms from matter.

Hmmm.... so, what we observe would be like the excess that wasn't able to cancel itself out with something and got stuck here? Interesting idea.

But... why should there be any excess of anything at all? I mean, if everything tried to achieve balance, why start out unbalanced in the first place? Or, why start at all?

[rimv2]

Hmmm.... so, what we observe would be like the excess that wasn't able to cancel itself out with something and got stuck here? Interesting idea.

But... why should there be any excess of anything at all? I mean, if everything tried to achieve balance, why start out unbalanced in the first place? Or, why start at all?

The ripple effects, ah guess. Don't know the simpler term. All the matter doesn't enter at the same point or time, but within close proximity. Looking at the make ups of the universes there is clearly an imbalance. Once the matter spews out, portions collide in on themselves or slow down due to gravity. Gravity is a weak force in this space so those that are not slowed or/and collided as well as those that are, expand almost infinitely (There's also speculation that what we perceive as moving outward is actually a curving around). Balance cannot be achieved thought it seems to be the ultimate goal.

Ah might be oversimplifying this, or possible all off, so ah suggest you google - multiverse and big bang. The amount of information will astound you

[pianistimo]

what about dark matter?  some say it holds the universe apart (and from falling in on itself) - and what about the vortex that black holes have and which we know very little about - not being able to verify it from the other side.  we have hurricanes on the earth - and know by gravity it will all fall back.   but, where do things go in the universe.  is it possible God might have a form of teleporting anywhere in the given universe (or that He can be everywhere at once).  how this is?  i don't know.  i don't think we'll ever be able to explain away everything - because for one thing - we are relying on satellites, shuttles, etc that are now 20 years old.  in fact, if we don't replenish some of them our weather forcasting might be financially impossible (as NASA's budget is busted).  and, then there's the problem of light.  space is dark.  we need light and telescopes and still barely see what's out there.  there is SO much more.  of course, we have fly-by satellites for other planets - but, they are limited by heat/cold/weather/asteroids.  we don't know everything.  therefore - some of science claims are guesstimates.  this isn't bad - it's just that they don't always say 'this is a rough guess.'  they give rounded numbers as though it has been calculated.  somehow - it makes it seem official. 

say - if you are correct about the universe 'swirling' - or even having a sort of funnel shape - would we know (excepting by the relative size of the stars in the constellations at various times of year) where we are in the swirl?  perhaps our standard of measurement will always be off.

gravitational pull is very important - although in smaller quantities - in space isn't it?  also, magnetic.  now, what if we haven't even discovered the inherent properties of water?  and we've been living with it for a long time.  if water is at the core of the earth - it must have some elements in it that contain things that cause magnetism to be very strong and hold the earth where it is without 'tottering.'  athough - how the planets work in tandem is also an issue.  of course, as christians see it - God holds the world literally in His hands.  it is his 'handiwork' and He is capable of setting it into space and watching over it.

[rimv2]

what about dark matter?  some say it holds the universe apart (and from falling in on itself) - and what about the vortex that black holes have and which we know very little about - not being able to verify it from the other side.  we have hurricanes on the earth - and know by gravity it will all fall back.   but, where do things go in the universe.  is it possible God might have a form of teleporting anywhere in the given universe (or that He can be everywhere at once).  how this is?  i don't know.  i don't think we'll ever be able to explain away everything - because for one thing - we are relying on satellites that are now 20 years old.  in fact, if we don't replenish some of them our weather forcasting might be financially impossible (as NASA's budget is busted).  and, then there's the problem of light.  space is dark.  we need light and telescopes and still barely see what's out there.  there is SO much more.  of course, we have fly-by satellites for other planets - but, they are limited by heat/cold/weather/asteroids.  we don't know everything.  therefore - some of science claims are guesstimates.  this isn't bad - it's just that they don't always say 'this is a rough guess.'  they give rounded numbers as though it has been calculated.  somehow - it makes it seem official. 

say - if you are correct about the universe 'swirling' - or even having a sort of funnel shape - would we know (excepting by the relative size of the stars in the constellations at various times of year) where we are in the swirl?  perhaps our standard of measurement will always be off.

gravitational pull is very important - although in smaller quantities - in space isn't it?  also, magnetic.  now, what if we haven't even discovered the inherent properties of water?  and we've been living with it for a long time.  if water is at the core of the earth - it must have some elements in it that contain things that cause magnetism to be very strong and hold the earth where it is without 'tottering.'  athough - how the planets work in tandem is also an issue.  of course, as christians see it - God holds the world literally in His hands.  it is his 'handiwork' and He is capable of setting it into space and watching over it.

G.... O.... O.... G....

Aw hell Click Here!

[pianistimo]

there is no vaster amount of material than God has.  why would i care about googling what some scientist said - when i have the bible which says what God says.  he says - don't worry about space.  worry about inheriting it.  eternity.  if you die in 70 years - you'll never know all the answers if you are judged and doomed to a second death.  what information will be gleaned then?  but, if God holds all these answers - then He will share them with you for eternity.  i think the second earth and heaven will be spiritual in nature and not even within time and space.  something awesome that we can't see - and 'pleasures forever more.'  that means he can create something even more pleasureable than sex.  how can this be?  God is God.  He can do anything He puts His mind to.

test Him.  test if He is real.  ask Him some questions and wait.  if science is a construct of God's own powers of creation - then going beyond science is certainly God's realm.  miracles.  faith.  much power there!

and God said: 'let there be light....'  BANG    ok that was the bang. 

[ramseytheii]

test Him.  test if He is real.  ask Him some questions and wait.  if science is a construct of God's own powers of creation - then going beyond science is certainly God's realm.  miracles.  faith.  much power there!

"It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

Walter Ramsey

[rimv2]

beep...beep...beeep...beeep

[pianogeek_cz]

why would i care about googling what some scientist said - when i have the bible which says what God says.

Ah, the Ignorant's Manifesto.

The ripple effects, ah guess. Don't know the simpler term. All the matter doesn't enter at the same point or time, but within close proximity. Looking at the make ups of the universes there is clearly an imbalance. Once the matter spews out, portions collide in on themselves or slow down due to gravity. Gravity is a weak force in this space so those that are not slowed or/and collided as well as those that are, expand almost infinitely (There's also speculation that what we perceive as moving outward is actually a curving around). Balance cannot be achieved thought it seems to be the ultimate goal.

Ah might be oversimplifying this, or possible all off, so ah suggest you google - multiverse and big bang. The amount of information will astound you

Wait a sec, where are we looking at universes? I thought all we can observe is our universe... Or, all that we observe is supposed to be, by definition, one - our - universe. *a bit confused* My physics thinking is a bit rusty, and I don't have time to do some beyond-the-basics research... I'm putting it on my To Study list, though. Sounds interesting.

On a side note, the Multiverse... Meh thinks a bit A'tuin.

[thalbergmad]

why would i care about googling what some scientist said 

Because you would prefer to stay living in your sad blinkered imaginary little world.

Thal

[pianistimo]

friend, if i am having fun - what's it to you?

[soliloquy]

The first flaw in your logic is that it takes something complex to create something complex.

Starting at the basic level, there's animal, organ, organism, molecule, atom, subatomic particle, energy, etc.

At each new level something more is discovered. This process continues, perhaps, infinitely.

Given that the process is seemingly infinite, it cannot really be determined which level is more complex.

To say whether or not god is complex means that you know for certain, you are complex.

To say that something more complex must have created something complex means you know for certain that the something you see as more complex is indeed more complex.

Etc.

Another flaw.

How so? If god indeed always existed.

And what if god's existence doesn't defy the law of thermodynamics? This would mean that god exists within space time, would it not?

Through almost all religions two facts that remain unchanged about god.

God exists and always has existed.
God  is never created nor destroyed.

So what does god really sound like here?

I don't think you understood his post at all.  Also, there is not irreducible complexity to subatomic particles.  If this were true, the weak nuclear force would continue to approach 1/(infinity) per particle interaction as it was dispersed through an exponentially increasing number of subatomic particles until it was negated, therefore there would be no gravity   Also, your entire post seems to focus in on the idea of something more complex creating God, which is actually completely inconsequential to his postulate.  You would know this if you understood what he was talking about.

So what does god really sound like here?

Someone who needs a new fan base.

In 8, the counter-argument is still assuming God is a physical being, which is ruled out in 7.

Talk about vague arguments.  Please define "physical being".  Also, this is just plain wrong, if you follow through to 10.

8b: God is the ultimate physical improbability.

How can God be a physical improbability if he was before probability?  Are you saying he was not in the universe (assuming here there is only 1 universe), then created it, then survived due to a highly unlikely set of genetic features allowing him to... what?  This doesn't really make sense at all.

But, the much more plausible construction is to assume that God is -not- a physical being (9b). That is, outside spacetime indeed.

This was asserted in the original argument.  Then the original question must be answered as to his origins.  Your arguments do not prove anything.  Also, if God does not interact with spacetime then explain Jesus please.

I simply don't see why should [a non-physical] God need/depend on spacetime.

There must be a relationship, as he is supposed to be creator of all.  "All" encompasses the entire universe and time itself.  Also, there is interaction in passages of the Bible, more specifically as I mentioned earlier as just a good example that of Jesus.



Another question might be "WHEN was God created?"  I think that is more difficult. 

Food for thought: isn't the -point- of God that He can't really be proven/disproven, but rather believed in/not believed in? *goes to ponder*

Just a bit too convenient for him.  Unprobabalistically convenient

[thalbergmad]

friend, if i am having fun - what's it to you?

If ignorance is bliss, you must be truly happy.

Thal

[pianistimo]

if this world is so smart without God - how come angelina jolie can spot problems and she's not even a christian.  here is what she said: 'why can't we have an international community handle these things (dictators, agressors, hurting or raping children/women, using children for soldiers) in a swift, efficient manner?'

i can't be certain, btw, that she is not christian - since her actions speak very loudly.  and, despite the governments of inefficiency - it proves that the christian ideals of one person at a time living a life that is true to the ideals of Jesus Christ works!

show a better way.  is there another way to guarantee that people will value each other?  evolution promotes 'survival of the fittest.' that means women and children mean nothing.  someday - the world will see itself thru the eyes of God.  at the judgement.

i don't think christians particularly want to see what abraham and lot did.  an entire city burning.  but, it happened in any case - and there was nothing they could do but flee the area.  it is mentioned in the bible - that this will be a worldwide conflict at the 'end of the age.'  it's not unreasonable to expect.  and, i rather think that many who do not believe now - will then.  and, it is said that everyone who calls upon the name of God will be saved.  that's the happy part.  the sad part is for those who don't take a small risk and believe that faith is a good thing.  to hope for a better future.  why be depressed over things we cannot change - when Jesus Christ CAN change it?

[ramseytheii]

if this world is so smart without God - how come angelina jolie can spot problems and she's not even a christian.  here is what she said: 'why can't we have an international community handle these things (dictators, agressors, hurting or raping children/women, using children for soldiers) in a swift, efficient manner?'

Huh?  I think you just contradicted yourself - "if this is world is so smart without God," implying that it is not, "how come angelina jolie can spot problems and she's not even a christian."  Because you don't need to be religious to see problems in this world, that's for damn sure.  Do you really need God to tell you that fascism, rape, and brainwashing of children is bad?  Give yourself some credit.

i can't be certain, btw, that she is not christian - since her actions speak very loudly.  and, despite the governments of inefficiency - it proves that the christian ideals of one person at a time living a life that is true to the ideals of Jesus Christ works!

I don't understand this either.  But anyways, Jesus said, "Do not resist evil."  There is no Christian ideal or ethic for having an international union of powers to deal with rogue nations or barbaric practices; that's a purely secular concept.

show a better way.  is there another way to guarantee that people will value each other?  evolution promotes 'survival of the fittest.' that means women and children mean nothing.  someday - the world will see itself thru the eyes of God.  at the judgement.

Do you need God to tell you that other people can be valuable to you?  If it is ever right for you to steal from them, or kill them (when not in self-defense), it is also right for them to steal from you, and kill from you.  You can tell right away this is not a profitable arrangement, and you don't even need to mention God.

Survival of the fittest what?  Fittest individual?  Fittest family?  Fittest society?  Fittest nation?

I think the Bible does a much better job of reducing the value of women than any scientific theory.

i don't think christians particularly want to see what abraham and lot did.  an entire city burning.  but, it happened in any case - and there was nothing they could do but flee the area.  it is mentioned in the bible - that this will be a worldwide conflict at the 'end of the age.'  it's not unreasonable to expect.  and, i rather think that many who do not believe now - will then.  and, it is said that everyone who calls upon the name of God will be saved.  that's the happy part.  the sad part is for those who don't take a small risk and believe that faith is a good thing.  to hope for a better future.  why be depressed over things we cannot change - when Jesus Christ CAN change it?

Why abdicate your earthly responsibility to a stranger who existed 2000 years ago?  Your notion that the world cannot be changed by people is ludicrous and irresponsible.  You invoke Pascal's wager - that it is better to believe, just in case when you die it turns out to be true.  But wouldn't it be better just to do good without concern for God?  If he turns out to be false, then you have done good.  If he turns out to be true, perhaps you will be rewarded.

Walter Ramsey

[rimv2]

I don't think you understood his post at all.  Also, there is not irreducible complexity to subatomic particles.  If this were true, the weak nuclear force would continue to approach 1/(infinity) per particle interaction as it was dispersed through an exponentially increasing number of subatomic particles until it was negated, therefore there would be no gravity   Also, your entire post seems to focus in on the idea of something more complex creating God, which is actually completely inconsequential to his postulate.  You would know this if you understood what he was talking about.

Understood it fully. It's you who dont understand mine

[soliloquy]

Understood it fully. It's you who dont understand mine

It's possible, but only because it is incomprehensibly ignorant, stupid, illogical and asinine.

[jlh]

It's possible, but only because it is incomprehensibly ignorant, stupid, illogical and asinine.

Calm Blue Ocean. . . .  Calm Blue Ocean. . . .

 

Calm.....Blue.....Ocean. . . . . . . . .

[rimv2]

It's possible, but only because it is incomprehensibly ignorant, stupid, illogical and asinine.

Insults. And unfounded.

I never said whether complexity was irreducible or not. I said that it's impossible to know how complex something actually is. You can't say a human is more complex than a molecule, any more than you can say a molecule is more complex than a human. There's simply no way of knowing.

But I know I waste my time telling this because one with an ego like yours, wouldn't accept the truth if it was right in front of you.

Also, your entire post seems to focus in on the idea of something more complex creating God, which is actually completely inconsequential to his postulate.  You would know this if you understood what he was talking about.

Really. Because I thought, within his post, he asked if there were any flaws within his logic. I might have imagined it though. I do that sometimes. I merely pointed out the flaws.

And I did so without insult.

Is this something you are capable of?

Or do you feel that anything you don't understand or that doesn't fit within your reality is ground s for such behavior?

Nevermind, your post answered that.

[rc]

Intuition only deceives you when it comes to science. So many things in modern science are counterintuitive or just defy any attempt at being subjected to intuition.

Yes, I suppose the only place intuition might have in science is the hypothesis.  The scientists must do their thing.

[pianogeek_cz]

Talk about vague arguments.  Please define "physical being".  Also, this is just plain wrong, if you follow through to 10.

Physical being, as in subject to laws of physics, an amount of energy, etc.

How can God be a physical improbability if he was before probability?  Are you saying he was not in the universe (assuming here there is only 1 universe), then created it, then survived due to a highly unlikely set of genetic features allowing him to... what?  This doesn't really make sense at all.

IF we are talking about how it would be possible for God to exist - as a physical being, see above - AROUND the 2nd law of thermodynamics and not deteriorate, then there's an option. Also, saying "not in the universe, THEN created it" implies time existing independently on the universe, which - ahem - *points to science*. (There were some who had a hunch it could work like this even before the telescope had been invented. Question: "What did God do before he created the universe?" Answer: "Time is just a property of the universe he created." Look up for yourself, who the thinker was.)

And... Genetic features? That's assuming a lot.

This was asserted in the original argument.  Then the original question must be answered as to his origins.  Your arguments do not prove anything.  Also, if God does not interact with spacetime then explain Jesus please.

My arguments at least hint that I can disagree without insulting. And, pleeeeze, when I'm saying God, I'm relating it to any specific religion! This was asserted in the original argument, yes. So what? I was confirming the assertion.

There must be a relationship, as he is supposed to be creator of all.  "All" encompasses the entire universe and time itself.  Also, there is interaction in passages of the Bible, more specifically as I mentioned earlier as just a good example that of Jesus.

Well, yes, there's a one-way relationship, possibly. But - why should we assume God couldn't do without the universe (unless he exists inside)?

Another question might be "WHEN was God created?"  I think that is more difficult. 

I think that's pretty much irrelevant. See above.

Just a bit too convenient for him.  Unprobabalistically convenient

Na und?