Notices
Results 1 to 99 of 99

Thread: Another God Paradox

  1. #1 Another God Paradox 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Hades
    Posts
    3
    The bible implies that God was around prior to the existence of time, the universe and all that we know, he is the creator and always "was" and always will "be"

    This statement strikes me as extremely flawed for something cannot exist "prior" to the existence of "time". It creates a logical paradox.

    Time itself is how we measure past, present and future therefore "prior" is a reference that can only be used if time itself exists.

    In other words; "God existed prior to the existence of something that can make it "prior" he then proceeded to create the thing in which he existed prior to it being created"

    This mind boggling paradox perplexes me.

    Discuss.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    It makes perfect sense if you consider that god doesn't exist and was created by flawed humans.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Senior questor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    385
    The Bible is so full of paradoxes that even some Christians now say that one needs an expert symbolist to interpret the book supposedly written in plain text for the common man. Species have proved not to be immutable, so-called prophesies were written after the fact, there never being even one that no one could know, even into the future, morality predated Moses, etc.; you could look them up. So, don’t rely on it. It would even take time to invent time; that is my way of saying that it didn’t happen that way.

    There were a few bad religious threads lately, but good for the non-religious, the latest of which is:

    ‘Immortal Soul’

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=28125
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Hades
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    It makes perfect sense if you consider that god doesn't exist and was created by flawed humans.
    lol Just as I suspected!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Hades
    Posts
    3
    Thank you for the insightful reply, questor. Also, thank you for the link, I have often pondered Lance's thoery/idea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Senior questor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    385
    And probably a multitude of other such threads nearby in the religious forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    i am by no means a theist. i do not believe there is a such thing as a god. however in there interest of playing the devil's advocate i will propose a sitiuation in which a "god" (defined by me as a being that creates an entire world, or has immense power over it) could exist before time itself.

    imagine a world much like ours, where there is a set of physical laws, the concept of a creator may or may not exist in that world, but regardless of that there is no direct evidence of such a being. if in that world there was a civilization more advanced than our own which could create a computer with enough memory to store all the data about all the particles in our world. in this universe which you are imagining, we do not exist.

    if an intellegent being were to access this computer and turn it on, that would be the beginning of our universe. without the being writing any programing for the fictional universe(which would later become our own) within the computer, it would have no physical laws or matter or energy. it would be a universe of nothing, and time would not exist within its bounds. the creator would exist at that time, working away at its super-computer. it would be possible for that creator to form any type of creation that they desired, and with the help of the computer's high processing power, the creator could make every particle follow the physical laws we are subject to here. the same creator could create the particles in the same formation they were in the beginning of our universe.

    in that way a single creature could create an isolated universe and the same creature could exist before time existed in the context of that universe. my idea states that the creator never was a part of the universe it created, thus it could create it in a way (before time) that would be paradoxical within the confines of the universe.
    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Senior questor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    385
    Creatures and aliens can be granted existence, but they don't qualify as God because they cannot be fundamental in and of themselves. There's no Devil, either, but there can be advocates.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    they can't be your god, because you define your god that way. we define gods differently, as do most people. how is it that you define your god? it has to be fundamental in and of itself, what does that mean?
    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Senior questor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    385
    Quote Originally Posted by saul
    they can't be your god, because you define your god that way. we define gods differently, as do most people. how is it that you define your god? it has to be fundamental in and of itself, what does that mean?
    Take me, for example. I am not fundamental, for I am a system, whose parts would be even more so, on down to the level of the elemental, and thus depended on. You could define me, Dr. Rocket, or an alien as God if you wish, but then you go against the meaning of what most call 'God', so what good does that do, overloading the word into confusion?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: Another God Paradox 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    899
    Quote Originally Posted by RiffRaff
    The bible implies that God was around prior to the existence of time, the universe and all that we know, he is the creator and always "was" and always will "be"

    This statement strikes me as extremely flawed for something cannot exist "prior" to the existence of "time". It creates a logical paradox.

    Time itself is how we measure past, present and future therefore "prior" is a reference that can only be used if time itself exists.

    In other words; "God existed prior to the existence of something that can make it "prior" he then proceeded to create the thing in which he existed prior to it being created"

    This mind boggling paradox perplexes me.

    Discuss.
    This post reminds of individuals I have heard stating that they are inclined to believe that Jesus is the son of God but have doubts because they have a problem accepting the miracles really happened.
    I accept the fact that Jesus was a real historical figure, but do not believe he was or is the son of God. One reason for this is that I do not believe in God. If I did, and also thought Jesus was the son of God, I would not have a problem believing such a powerful entity was able to circumvent natural laws and perform what we term miracles.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by Dictionary.com
    God   /gɒd/ Show Spelled
    [god] Show IPA

    –noun
    1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
    2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of islam.
    3. ( lowercase ) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
    4. ( often lowercase ) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
    5. Christian Science . the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
    6. ( lowercase ) an image of a deity; an idol.
    7. ( lowercase ) any deified person or object.
    8. ( often lowercase ) Gods, Theater .
    a. the upper balcony in a theater.
    b. the spectators in this part of the balcony.
    –verb (used with object) god·ded, god·ding. ( lowercase )
    9. to regard or treat as a god; deify; idolize.
    –interjection
    10. (used to express disappointment, disbelief, weariness, frustration, annoyance, or the like): God, do we have to listen to this nonsense?
    Use god in a Sentence
    See images of god
    Search god on the Web

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Origin:
    before 900; Middle English, Old English; cognate with Dutch god, German Gott, Old Norse goth, Gothic guth

    —Related forms
    non·god, noun
    sem·i·god, noun
    sub·god, noun
    un·der·god, noun
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god

    throughout that whole article i didn't find the word "fundamental" used once. the dictionary definition of god (or at least the first one) requires one basic thing for a being to be called a god, it must have created the universe.

    the only "fundamental" things we've even witnessed in this world are the physical laws. they dictate how matter behaves at the lowest levels. these fundamental forces don't have any intellect, any intuition, any ability to create, thus in our experience as human beings a god not only does not have to be fundamental, it can not be.
    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Senior questor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    385
    As said, you can have a smart alien, but you haven't even shown that.

    In fact (In humor), here's a fun story about that very guy:

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...r=asc&start=60
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    i read your post about god on trial, i've got to give you props for the humor, but your view of god is not the general idea of him. many christians deny the miracles of the bible, but they agree jesus was his son. muslims and jews deny jesus was his son but agree with most or all of the miracles of the old testament.

    and the situation i presented about an alien being god is not something i need to show, it's just a hypothetical.
    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    It makes perfect sense if you consider that god doesn't exist and was created by flawed humans.

    8)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: Another God Paradox 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by RiffRaff
    The bible implies that God was around prior to the existence of time, the universe and all that we know, he is the creator and always "was" and always will "be"

    This statement strikes me as extremely flawed for something cannot exist "prior" to the existence of "time". It creates a logical paradox.

    Time itself is how we measure past, present and future therefore "prior" is a reference that can only be used if time itself exists.

    In other words; "God existed prior to the existence of something that can make it "prior" he then proceeded to create the thing in which he existed prior to it being created"

    This mind boggling paradox perplexes me.

    Discuss.
    Perhaps god exists independently of time. Certainly time has different qualities in different areas of the universe. Thus, time is not immutable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,891
    The biggest God paradox is the fact that He is only a belief and yet Theology exists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Bachelors Degree 15uliane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    depends...
    Posts
    425
    Time is a dimension, using it as a measure of time is a human notion. God is not a human.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,891
    Quote Originally Posted by 15uliane
    God is not a human.
    Do you think God could become human in every aspect*? Or for that matter any of Earth's creatures?

    *It would mean giving up God status
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Isn't that a bit like asking if I think a flying unicorn can go faster than the speed of sound, and whether or not it's purple, pink, or white has an impact on it's acceleration characteristics?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,891
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Isn't that a bit like asking if I think a flying unicorn can go faster than the speed of sound, and whether or not it's purple, pink, or white has an impact on it's acceleration characteristics?
    In case this is a serious reply then a unicorn has limits. It has a single horn protruding from its head and cannot grow another one simply by willing it. If you are intimating that God and unicorns are both fictional and what does it matter, then I'm ok with that. If so then I don't expect you to answer as if God exists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Which god?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,891
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Which god?
    Pick one, but in case that doesn't work then I'll rephrase the question to say..."Can a god give up being a god? IOW become a human (or snail, I don't care) without any godlike power. I didn't think this would be that difficult.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Which god?
    Pick one, but in case that doesn't work then I'll rephrase the question to say..."Can a god give up being a god? IOW become a human (or snail, I don't care) without any godlike power. I didn't think this would be that difficult.
    What do you mean by ''godlike power''?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Hippocampus
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Which god?
    Pick one, but in case that doesn't work then I'll rephrase the question to say..."Can a god give up being a god? IOW become a human (or snail, I don't care) without any godlike power. I didn't think this would be that difficult.
    What do you mean by ''godlike power''?
    This is amazing! :wink:

    Something no animal or human, if you're inclined to think differently, possesses. Any snail that goes about creating a universe does not qualify. IOW can God become a human in every aspect. IOW He is not a God any longer once He performs this transformation.

    __________________________________________________ ____________________

    ****I'm editing this post at this late hour to avoid any more clarifications and tell you where I'm going with it.

    Think of God becoming a human. I'll still continue to refer to him as God for simplification. Once human, God is no longer a god. God then can only believe in a god or not. He has no proof, for or against. As human, God will eventually die. What happens next? Does he go to live with for the rest of eternity? Does anybody?

    Back to the present.....because He is God then I see no problem with Him waving a finger and poof He transforms into a human. Can He really do this while risking everything?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26 Re: Another God Paradox 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by RiffRaff
    The bible implies that God was around prior to the existence of time, the universe and all that we know, he is the creator and always "was" and always will "be"

    This statement strikes me as extremely flawed for something cannot exist "prior" to the existence of "time". It creates a logical paradox.

    Time itself is how we measure past, present and future therefore "prior" is a reference that can only be used if time itself exists.

    In other words; "God existed prior to the existence of something that can make it "prior" he then proceeded to create the thing in which he existed prior to it being created"
    I thought that goes perfectly along the theory of Big Bang, where scientists claim time stood still.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    8
    What you view as time is an idea created by man (much as you perceive God to be). Who's to say whether the "laws" of our universe are constant, or whether or not we just don't fully understand how the universe really works? My point is, you cannot prove or disprove God with logic or scientific reason because we do not completely understand the nature and laws that control the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskanwerewolf
    Who's to say whether the "laws" of our universe are constant, or whether or not we just don't fully understand how the universe really works?
    This sounds theist. I'm sure this argument has been used to validate God's magic.

    My point is, you cannot prove or disprove God with logic or scientific reason because we do not completely understand the nature and laws that control the universe.
    For theists, they better hope this trend continues because as we understand more about nature & its laws, the harder it is going to be for anyone trying to understand God. Its as if scientific discovery will eventually turn God into nothing but a parlor trick artist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    8
    The problem with your argument is that it is biased, you flat-out refuse to acknowledge any argument on the opposing side as valid
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskanwerewolf
    The problem with your argument is that it is biased, you flat-out refuse to acknowledge any argument on the opposing side as valid
    As opposed to the unbiased creationist theist argument.

    I'm not even arguing that there isn't a possibility for God's existence. I freely admit there's always a chance. Maybe perform magic even. Have you seen some recently?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    8
    I'm not arguing for creationism, I am merely stating that any debate, for or against, is useless because of our limited, maybe even vastly incorrect, knowledge of how the universe works.

    And even though something is being unobserved does not mean it does not exist. Have you ever seen my mother? Probably not, but she still exists. I'm not arguing for magic either, merely acknowledging the possibility tha somewhere in the universe, or even on our own planet, it could be being performed, just not to your knowledge.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskanwerewolf
    I'm not arguing for magic either, merely acknowledging the possibility that somewhere in the universe, or even on our own planet, it could be being performed, just not to your knowledge.
    Then anything's possible. Do you really believe it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    8
    I was about to say "Not anything, I am obviously not a fish" but as "fish" dont exist really in so much as the word is just an invention by humans I could be a fish to a different creature's perspective. So yes, anything is possible
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskanwerewolf
    So yes, anything is possible
    No physical law should exist then, right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    8
    No, I'm just saying that what we think of as laws might not be as concrete as we would believe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Sophomore MiguelSR1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    San Diego C.A. United States
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskanwerewolf
    I was about to say "Not anything, I am obviously not a fish" but as "fish" dont exist really in so much as the word is just an invention by humans I could be a fish to a different creature's perspective. So yes, anything is possible
    I think some things are impossible, what is done right now is done and cannot be undone even if time travel happened. A paradox occurs but no matter the action has taken place and cannot ever be reversed in that particular point in existence. I'm new here :-D
    Imagination is key to the logic of thought, a greatest eternal truth.

    ME
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3
    Science and man-kind insist on establishing definite beginnings and definite endings. As a race we feel there must be boundaries as we are instinctively scared of Nothingness. Religion, when I look at it, seems not to acknowledge time. It tells us we will be in either heaven or hell for all eternity, where there is no 'end' to time. In the creation story, many Christians now believe that God didn't create everything we see in nature today within 144 hours exactly. Therefore in my opinion time is a man-made concept. Who said that a day has to be 24 hours exactly? Who's to say that there must be only one sunrise and one sunset in a day? Man. And so, if man created time and God existed before man then God must also exist before time. God is agless and doesn't fall subject to the boundaries of the years as He did not specify what a year was. Man did that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskanwerewolf
    No, I'm just saying that what we think of as laws might not be as concrete as we would believe.
    If a law states no magic and the same law allows magic then it isn't a law. There can then only be one law: There is no laws.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    153
    beginning and ends are for man to understand. No beginning I can not understand that , I don't think man has the ability to understand that.
    Some ask who created God?
    The only answer that there can be is God was always there. No beginning.
    But the scientists have the same problem.
    What was there before the material in space. If it was energy where did that come from?
    You could also ask the question , where is the beginning and end of space, with no material in it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,919
    0=-1+1. Hey look, something from nothing!
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,891
    Quote Originally Posted by epignosis
    The only answer that there can be is God was always there.
    Where did there come from?

    Was there already in place for God to show up in all of a sudden or did He arrive first and despite being nowhere manage to create there? Maybe God and there arrived simultaneously but that would mean He didn't create Himself or there. Looking a lot like there was first. If God wasn't around to create it then if I understand you right, some entity is responsible?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    0=-1+1. Hey look, something from nothing!
    Can you answer it better than I could?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    Quote Originally Posted by epignosis
    The only answer that there can be is God was always there.
    Where did there come from?

    Was there already in place for God to show up in all of a sudden or did He arrive first and despite being nowhere manage to create there? Maybe God and there arrived simultaneously but that would mean He didn't create Himself or there. Looking a lot like there was first. If God wasn't around to create it then if I understand you right, some entity is responsible?
    Yes where did 'there' come from?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,891
    Quote Originally Posted by epignosis
    Yes where did 'there' come from?
    The question is: What came first, God or there? You can do all the logic you want but there is no way God could have preceded the place He needed to exist in. The closest you can get is both God and there popping into existence at the same time. IOW God didn't create where He exists prior to Himself coming into existence.

    Could there have been responsible for God? It really looks like there is a definite prerequisite to just about everything that is going to exist. So it follows that God is not responsible for creating anything. God can only be a tool of there . You can call it creation, like a baker making a cupcake, but without the there nothing is going to happen.

    We can create a god this way, it's no different than making a cupcake.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    153
    The question is: What came first, God or there? You can do all the logic you want but there is no way God could have preceded the place He needed to exist in. The closest you can get is both God and there popping into existence at the same time. IOW God didn't create where He exists prior to Himself coming into existence.

    Could there have been responsible for God? It really looks like there is a definite prerequisite to just about everything that is going to exist. So it follows that God is not responsible for creating anything. God can only be a tool of there . You can call it creation, like a baker making a cupcake, but without the there nothing is going to happen.

    We can create a god this way, it's no different than making a cupcake.
    But then you would have to ask where did the there come from? And then where did that, there, before the other there come from? 8)

    I don't think that man is capable to understand something that has no beginning.

    The scientists can theorize, , but it still does not make a cupcake just happen on it's own. Someone still has to create it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,919
    Quote Originally Posted by epignosis
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    0=-1+1. Hey look, something from nothing!
    Can you answer it better than I could?
    Do you even understand the question?
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by epignosis
    We can create a god this way, it's no different than making a cupcake.
    But then you would have to ask where did the there come from? And then where did that, there, before the other there come from? 8)

    I don't think that man is capable to understand something that has no beginning.

    The scientists can theorize, , but it still does not make a cupcake just happen on it's own. Someone still has to create it.
    [/quote]

    i'm fine with the answer we don't know and thats the same answer you should
    take until we actually know.

    your current logic:
    we do not know how the universe came into being.
    therefore god did it.
    god of the gaps. we don't know? god did it.
    just fill every gap of knowledge you have with holy spirit(r)
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    153
    'm fine with the answer we don't know and thats the same answer you should
    take until we actually know.

    your current logic:
    we do not know how the universe came into being.
    therefore god did it.
    god of the gaps. we don't know? god did it.
    just fill every gap of knowledge you have with holy spirit(r)
    The reason I say that there is a God, is from the evidence. Life can not come from anything else but life. ( creator)
    And over the last 150 years of the scientists trying to prove it didn't, and they are further away now than before. The reason this is so, is because the more they learn, the more they realize this. And DNA is programmed code for life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Sophomore MiguelSR1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    San Diego C.A. United States
    Posts
    141
    you show so much persistence to your cause 8)
    Imagination is key to the logic of thought, a greatest eternal truth.

    ME
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by MiguelSR1
    you show so much persistence to your cause 8)
    I'm sure not everyone out there is a non thinker. There might be on or two that might at least start to think again. 8)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by epignosis
    The reason I say that there is a God, is from the evidence. Life can not come from anything else but life. ( creator)
    What is this evidence?
    The mark of a moderate man is freedom from his own ideas - Tao Te Ching

    Fancy a game of chess?
    http://www.itsyourturn.com/
    Challenge me, Delphi, and join the Pythian games.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    He's been asked that before and basically responded something stupid like, "because dogs have puppies." Exercise in futility, fellas.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    153
    What is this evidence?
    These 3 facts

    1 life comes from life
    2 dog get more dogs
    3 there is design in the life we see.

    Creation is supported by these three facts
    What the scientists say, goes against these 3 facts and the evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,919
    @ a-pig-nose's;
    In the line of my work I occasionally enter churches, I take my hat off when I do so.
    After all, it is someone else's space, and common decency demands at least that much respect.
    If I ever find out which church you attend, I will go piss on the god damned doorknob.
    Well okay, I can't hold the doorknob responsible for your inequities, so maybe it's safe for now.
    What I will do is tromp up in the middle of service and loudly proclaim "god is a suck ass myth".
    If anyone should ask, "Why do you say such things?", I will simply bellow out again, "god is a suck ass myth". Much as you do concerning science.
    By the way, did you know that jesus blows goat's? Yes it's true, because I say so. I read it in a book somewhere.
    By the way, let me apologize for all those theists that the scientists have tied to stakes and immolated while still alive.
    By the way, jesus is a proper name which I haven't capitalized on purpose, HA!
    By the way, either attempt to make a cogent argument, backed by empirical observation, concerning your positions, or crawl back under your bible and stay the hell out of my Science Forum.
    By the way, "mother" is only half a word.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by epignosis
    And over the last 150 years of the scientists trying to prove it didn't, and they are further away now than before. The reason this is so, is because the more they learn, the more they realize this. And DNA is programmed code for life.[/color]
    wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong! since the rennaisance, creationists have been backpedalling because of scientific advances.
    the more we learn, the more the bible becomes a silly old storybook. atheism is on the rise, lets hope one day religion is dead and buried.

    back in the middle ages, the church was a MAJOR powerhouse. they could do anything.
    if you were a king, and you messed with the church, you were in SERIOUS trouble. you could risk being excommunicated or worse. and they were insanely rich. where do you think all of the artwork in the vatican came from?
    the church was big business, it was the biggest snake oil salesman in town.
    if you paid the correct sum, you'd escape purgatory, achieve salvation, and get directly into heaven. not to mention the persecution of jews. oh yes, everyone hated the jews for what they'd done to jesus. 1500 years after the death of christ, jews were being stewed into "jew ghettos", feared, and killed.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by dejawolf
    Quote Originally Posted by epignosis
    And over the last 150 years of the scientists trying to prove it didn't, and they are further away now than before. The reason this is so, is because the more they learn, the more they realize this. And DNA is programmed code for life.[/color]
    wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong! since the rennaisance, creationists have been backpedalling because of scientific advances.
    the more we learn, the more the bible becomes a silly old storybook. atheism is on the rise, lets hope one day religion is dead and buried.

    back in the middle ages, the church was a MAJOR powerhouse. they could do anything.
    if you were a king, and you messed with the church, you were in SERIOUS trouble. you could risk being excommunicated or worse. and they were insanely rich. where do you think all of the artwork in the vatican came from?
    the church was big business, it was the biggest snake oil salesman in town.
    if you paid the correct sum, you'd escape purgatory, achieve salvation, and get directly into heaven. not to mention the persecution of jews. oh yes, everyone hated the jews for what they'd done to jesus. 1500 years after the death of christ, jews were being stewed into "jew ghettos", feared, and killed.
    Actually what you said here about religions is true. They have been more harm than good for sure.
    And governments are going to go against religions in a big way in the near future.
    So it will look like your wish will come true. But there is a catch.

    I am not allowed to talk about religion on this forum. That means I have the advantage, in that I can rip away at the scientists, without fielding any questions against religion. So that makes it easier for me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,919
    Quote Originally Posted by epignosis
    I am not allowed to talk about religion on this forum.
    Quote Originally Posted by epignosis
    The reason I say that there is a God,
    Quote Originally Posted by epignosis
    Creation is supported by these three facts
    Quote Originally Posted by epignosis
    Actually what you said here about religions is true. They have been more harm than good for sure.
    And governments are going to go against religions in a big way in the near future.
    Dude, FAIL! Now go away.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by dejawolf
    Quote Originally Posted by epignosis
    And over the last 150 years of the scientists trying to prove it didn't, and they are further away now than before. The reason this is so, is because the more they learn, the more they realize this. And DNA is programmed code for life.[/color]
    wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong! since the rennaisance, creationists have been backpedalling because of scientific advances.
    the more we learn, the more the bible becomes a silly old storybook. atheism is on the rise, lets hope one day religion is dead and buried.

    back in the middle ages, the church was a MAJOR powerhouse. they could do anything.
    if you were a king, and you messed with the church, you were in SERIOUS trouble. you could risk being excommunicated or worse. and they were insanely rich. where do you think all of the artwork in the vatican came from?
    the church was big business, it was the biggest snake oil salesman in town.
    if you paid the correct sum, you'd escape purgatory, achieve salvation, and get directly into heaven. not to mention the persecution of jews. oh yes, everyone hated the jews for what they'd done to jesus. 1500 years after the death of christ, jews were being stewed into "jew ghettos", feared, and killed.
    I think what you said here is true about religions.
    But the scientists are no better.
    The scientists have given man the ability to ruin the earth.
    Years ago a man could even have improved the ground. But today I can leave garbage that last a 1,000 years.
    Today we have radio active materials that we can't get rid of . We have space junk in orbit.
    Scientists have made all sorts of chemicals , that have polluted our water, killed wildlife destroyed reefs.
    Scientists can be bought and sold, used for makeing weapons of war, and have used these on people.
    So the scientists as a group are no better than religions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,919
    Quote Originally Posted by epignosis
    I think what you said here is true about religions.
    But the scientists are no better.
    The scientists have given man the ability to ruin the earth.
    Years ago a man could even have improved the ground. But today I can leave garbage that last a 1,000 years.
    Today we have radio active materials that we can't get rid of . We have space junk in orbit.
    Scientists have made all sorts of chemicals , that have polluted our water, killed wildlife destroyed reefs.
    Scientists can be bought and sold, used for makeing weapons of war, and have used these on people.
    So the scientists as a group are no better than religions.
    All of which are citations of the potency of scientific knowledge, which previously you have denied as being legitimate. So which is it, science doe's, or doe's not, work?
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,891
    Quote Originally Posted by epignosis
    I don't think that man is capable to understand something that has no beginning.
    That is why you believe in a god? I think I get your drift, if it's understood then no god is required. The harder it is means God only knows. So if a scientist understands something you don't then it is normal for them to be atheistic and for you to remain a believer. Knowing and understanding then become a rightful logical reason to dismiss God while a person incapable of understanding even one thing, defaults to being a theist. Bizarre. By your logic God doesn't believe in Himself.

    The scientists can theorize, , but it still does not make a cupcake just happen on it's own. Someone still has to create it.
    God is your cupcake.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    Quote Originally Posted by epignosis
    I don't think that man is capable to understand something that has no beginning.
    That is why you believe in a god? I think I get your drift, if it's understood then no god is required. The harder it is means God only knows. So if a scientist understands something you don't then it is normal for them to be atheistic and for you to remain a believer. Knowing and understanding then become a rightful logical reason to dismiss God while a person incapable of understanding even one thing, defaults to being a theist. Bizarre. By your logic God doesn't believe in Himself.

    The scientists can theorize, , but it still does not make a cupcake just happen on it's own. Someone still has to create it.
    God is your cupcake.
    Actually the understanding that the scientists have uncovered , supports a God, and what they have really done is given us an appreciation, of how incredible the creation really is. We all take for granted that we can walk and run.
    But what the scientists have done is shown us the laws that go into that.
    You try to build a robot that can do what we do and you will soon realize how amazing that is.
    And we don't even have to consciously think about how to do it.
    Wouldn't a computer programmer like to write software with an interface that a human just uses without having to think about it. Isn't that what they are trying to do?
    Actually we are all the cupcakes, though some walk around with their chest out saying how great I am. Forgetting how we got here in the first place.

    People like to live the life style they want without accountably. So the scientists will tickle their ears for them, and tell them what they want to hear.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,891
    Quote Originally Posted by epignosis
    scientists ....... tell them what they want to hear.
    Them....not you. Accordingly, everything scientists do should eventually prove God. What will they tell them then?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    Quote Originally Posted by epignosis
    scientists ....... tell them what they want to hear.
    Them....not you. Accordingly, everything scientists do should eventually prove God. What will they tell them then?
    Scientists will cover it up just like now. But eventually they will lose control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,891
    Quote Originally Posted by epignosis
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    Quote Originally Posted by epignosis
    scientists ....... tell them what they want to hear.
    Them....not you. Accordingly, everything scientists do should eventually prove God. What will they tell them then?
    Scientists will cover it up just like now. But eventually they will lose control.
    Fact is you, me, scientists and every person on Earth knows nothing about a god. Not one single thing said about a supreme being can be labelled as fact. However much of the world is under the pretence that what is revealed as truth by some holy authority here on Earth is irreproachable gospel. It is nothing more than cryptotheology(). IOW gods are undetectable but you know they are there simply by judging on how things appear.

    I hope like hell scientists find a god. It would be the discovery of all time. Imagine...no more guesswork, no more dogma, just the plain truth. Until then best keep your god beliefs to yourself, just a personal yes or no, explanations why are not required. Want to prove gods then show us the proof and admit to failure when you can't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    153
    Fact is you, me, scientists and every person on Earth knows nothing about a god. Not one single thing said about a supreme being can be labelled as fact. However much of the world is under the pretence that what is revealed as truth by some holy authority here on Earth is irreproachable gospel. It is nothing more than cryptotheology(). IOW gods are undetectable but you know they are there simply by judging on how things appear.

    I hope like hell scientists find a god. It would be the discovery of all time. Imagine...no more guesswork, no more dogma, just the plain truth. Until then best keep your god beliefs to yourself, just a personal yes or no, explanations why are not required. Want to prove gods then show us the proof and admit to failure when you can't.
    Actually they have, found God. But are too blind to see him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,891
    Quote Originally Posted by epignosis
    It is nothing more than cryptotheology. IOW gods are undetectable but you know they are there simply by judging on how things appear.
    Actually they have, found God. But are too blind to see him.
    Cryptotheology....... Your god and the Sasquatch have lots in common.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Sophomore Eleven's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Dallas,TX
    Posts
    140
    I do not believe in God. If I did, and also thought Jesus was the son of God, I would not have a problem believing such a powerful entity was able to circumvent natural laws and perform what we term miracles.
    This should be the definition of a God, a creature who can violate the laws of physics.
    Always take hold of things by the smooth handle.

    An enemy generally says and believes what he wishes.

    Thomas Jefferson
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Eleven
    This should be the definition of a God, a creature who can violate the laws of physics.
    This got me thinking that if the natural state of things in the beginning was absolute nothingness then the laws of physics themselves violate a natural order . God is likewise a violation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    London, Earth.
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    It makes perfect sense if you consider that god doesn't exist and was created by flawed humans.
    I wish I could "thumbs up" this comment.

    Only illogical morons believe in "god". Period.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Rickz2020
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    It makes perfect sense if you consider that god doesn't exist and was created by flawed humans.
    I wish I could "thumbs up" this comment.

    Only illogical morons believe in "god". Period.
    Thanks, but while I am myself very confident in my non-belief position, and am very often frustrated and disheartened by people who do believe, I would challenge you on the final comment here. There are many very intelligent and otherwise logical people who believe in god. I agree with you that they don't have good evidence to do so, but that does not automatically mean they are (as you so eloquently espoused) "illogical morons."

    I know where you're coming from, and I appreciate the frustration you feel, but there are vast social and learning pressures which cause people to have belief. Indoctrination is a very powerful force, and so too is the unspoken pressures we feel from the community in which we reside. Further, we are evolutionarily predisposed to "over-read causality," and to posit actors where none actually exist. There are mountains of research with children demonstrating this to be the case.

    There are many reasons people believe in god, it's just that those reasons are not based on evidence. While this definitely makes them illogical on the concept of deities, and means they are holding an illogical/unsupported belief, it does not make them overall an illogical person, and it certainly doesn't make them a moron.

    However, I'll cut you some slack and concede that there are some real paste eating morons out there who speak in defense of religion, and those tend to be the ones whom we encounter on the internet. My point, though, is that this is not likely to be representative of most theists who hold the god-belief position.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    London, Earth.
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskanwerewolf
    So yes, anything is possible
    It's impossible for anything to be possible because if anything is possible, then it must be possible for some thing's to be impossible, right??? This possibility means that the statement "anything is possible" must be false.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    London, Earth.
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by epignosis
    Someone still has to create it.
    BS. Why does "someone" have to create it? This is one of the many flawed concepts of religion... It seems that most, if not all, religious people need this "someone" to "create" whatever it is they are defending.

    None of us know how the universe came to be but by putting a label on the mystery and calling it "god" is both ignorant and dangerous.

    Science provides new insight into the nature of the the universe every day and every day "god" is pushed further back and it's only a matter of time until "god" is pushed out completely and it will be then that we will finally be free from such an archaic mindset.

    It saddens me to think how many lives have been lost/taken all for the "love" of an imaginary being.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    London, Earth.
    Posts
    65
    Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the one and only, out of the loony bin, crazy: epignosis...

    Quote Originally Posted by epignosis
    What is this evidence?
    These 3 facts

    1 life comes from life
    2 dog get more dogs
    3 there is design in the life we see.

    Creation is supported by these three facts
    What the scientists say, goes against these 3 facts and the evidence.
    1: so god is not alive then?? Because if the crazy ass imaginary being is alive then he/she/it must come from something(life) right??

    2: from where? The pet store??

    3: so u r saying that it's not the strongest that survives, it's who god chooses to survive?? Hahahah. I doubt if there was a god that someone with such an ignorant mind such as the one you have would ever be created.

    You need to stop going to Sunday school and instead, get yourself a bowl of cornflakes and read/watch some info on biology backed by proven facts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Rickz2020
    It's impossible for anything to be possible because if anything is possible, then it must be possible for something's to be impossible, right??? This possibility means that the statement "anything is possible" must be false.
    Possibly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Rickz2020
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskanwerewolf
    So yes, anything is possible
    It's impossible for anything to be possible because if anything is possible, then it must be possible for something's to be impossible, right??? This possibility means that the statement "anything is possible" must be false.
    Some might argue that impossible is just a number, as in the possibility of doing something is zero. At the other end of the possibility spectrum resides anything is possible. That's the only place God fits in right now.

    Now if anything is possible then before this day is over you might very well have shagged Jennifer Lopez. Any number of events could lead to this eventuality, so it is not entirely out of the realm of possibility even if you think it is.

    On another day you decide that you want to jump off the Earth into space. Try as you might it can't be done. The laws of physics will forever prevent this. The possibility of you jumping into space is zero which I would think is equivalent to impossible. Unless of course you believe the laws can change or that in some other part of the universe the laws permit you to jump into space from a similar to Earth planet.

    It has always been my contention that in order to believe in God, one must also believe in many other things. God it seems, has to have superhuman attributes to make Him the most powerful entity known. So if I am to believe in God then I have to believe this is possible. There's no two ways around it. Ergo, God can jump into space from anywhere on Earth.

    Faith or hope in God is dependent on more than just believing He exists. Anyone can believe in a God and that belief can stand on its own only if no other supportive belief is deemed necessary. IMHO it's not the god belief that's troublesome but the additional beliefs that come with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76 Re: Another God Paradox 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by RiffRaff
    The bible implies that God was around prior to the existence of time, the universe and all that we know, he is the creator and always "was" and always will "be"

    This statement strikes me as extremely flawed for something cannot exist "prior" to the existence of "time". It creates a logical paradox.

    Time itself is how we measure past, present and future therefore "prior" is a reference that can only be used if time itself exists.

    In other words; "God existed prior to the existence of something that can make it "prior" he then proceeded to create the thing in which he existed prior to it being created"

    This mind boggling paradox perplexes me.

    Discuss.
    That isn't correct.

    Time isn't some ultimately fundamental thing, it is:
    (1) A possibility for a dynamic system to exist, and
    (2) For a concrete dynamic system - e.g., for Matter in our Universe - Time is a concrete rule (one of others) for the system"How the system must evolve" .

    Besides - for the Absolute, i.e. - for the Set "Information", Time doesn't exist in certain sense - in the Set "everything have happened already and always". On other hand - since among the things in the Set there exist dynamic/ evolving systems (an example - Matter again) which "are happening" [in time], as that, e.g., humen can observe.

    So there isn't such a paradox in God existence.

    (Though, of course, one should define the notion "God" before a discussion...)

    More - see http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712

    Cheers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77 Re: Another God Paradox 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,891
    Quote Originally Posted by SSDZ
    That isn't correct.

    Time isn't some ultimately fundamental thing, it is:
    (1) A possibility for a dynamic system to exist, and
    (2) For a concrete dynamic system - e.g., for Matter in our Universe - Time is a concrete rule (one of others) for the system"How the system must evolve" .
    All you're saying is that time provides an opportunity for a dynamic system to occur and if that happens then time allows the system to evolve. You've dressed it up to make it appear as if there's something profound about your words but in reality they are no different than RiffRaff's. The paradox he describes still exists.

    I think what you're saying is that God is not a dynamic system. Therefore He is timeless and as such timelessness existed prior to God creating time. This is what makes perfect sense to you. Even then the paradox is still there.

    Perhaps we need another word for exist that doesn't imply time. Simpler to say God didn't exist prior to time than to say He did exist.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78 Re: Another God Paradox 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    Quote Originally Posted by SSDZ
    That isn't correct.

    Time isn't some ultimately fundamental thing, it is:
    (1) A possibility for a dynamic system to exist, and
    (2) For a concrete dynamic system - e.g., for Matter in our Universe - Time is a concrete rule (one of others) for the system"How the system must evolve" .
    All you're saying is that time provides an opportunity for a dynamic system to occur and if that happens then time allows the system to evolve. You've dressed it up to make it appear as if there's something profound about your words but in reality they are no different than RiffRaff's. The paradox he describes still exists.

    I think what you're saying is that God is not a dynamic system. Therefore He is timeless and as such timelessness existed prior to God creating time. This is what makes perfect sense to you. Even then the paradox is still there.

    Perhaps we need another word for exist that doesn't imply time. Simpler to say God didn't exist prior to time than to say He did exist.
    It seems that you didn’t read SSDZ post Jun 25, 2011 3:20 am (as well as the paper in the arXiv link) till its end. So I repeat the section after your citation:
    ___

    Besides - for the Absolute, i.e. - for the Set "Information", Time doesn't exist in certain sense - in the Set "everything have happened already and always". On other hand - since among the things in the Set there exist dynamic/ evolving systems (an example - Matter again) which "are happening" [in time], as that, e.g., humen can observe.

    So there isn't such a paradox in God existence.

    (Though, of course, one should define the notion "God" before a discussion...)

    More - see http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712
    ____

    Rather large number of Gods were invented by humanity, main difference – they exist always or were born by some "always existing" Essences (e.g., - Chronos/ Zeus); the first Ones, e.g., - Bible’s God or Brahma.
    At that – the only thing that can be proven "be always" is the Set "Information", where an possibility/ rule(s) for an existence of dynamical [informational] systems , including possible Gods, i.e., Time, is an inherent property of the information, i.e. Time – existed/s/will always also.

    So for "born" Gods one can said that "Time was before", though that isn’t totally true – every things, including any God, "existed far before the birth" as a can "there isn’t this God and His/Her evolution" where the God's birth and evolution "were written" absolutely exactly.

    Further, if a self – organization is an intrinsic property of Information, then the Set Itself can indeed be classified as the "Prime Creator", Deo, - as, e.g., G. Cantor said (see Wiki) "…The actual infinite arises in three contexts: first when it is realized in the most complete form, in a fully independent otherworldly being, in Deo, where I call it the Absolute Infinite or simply Absolute…"

    But, on another hand, here a problem appears – can we consider an Essence as intelligent, when this Essence is absolutely complete and so cannot change anything in itself? Insofar as even the Essence will attempt to change something in itself, for example – to begin our Universe (and corresponding God), It must absolutely exactly follow to the scenario of this change, when this scenario existed "always", including – "far before" of some Beginning.



    Cheers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79 Re: Another God Paradox 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,891
    Quote Originally Posted by SSDZ
    But, on another hand, here a problem appears – can we consider an Essence as intelligent, when this Essence is absolutely complete and so cannot change anything in itself? Insofar as even the Essence will attempt to change something in itself, for example – to begin our Universe (and corresponding God), It must absolutely exactly follow to the scenario of this change, when this scenario existed "always", including – "far before" of some Beginning.
    If God is not a dynamic system then He cannot change. This means He can't even create. I think it's wonderful because I collect things God cannot do. Anyway, I digress....

    However you're saying that divine creation presents a problem in that God would have to change or become dynamic. Unless creation, like God, also existed always, before a beginning of time.

    If I have a period (for lack of a better word) of no time then it is more or less a zero point. IOW there is no before time. Time starts from the zero point, therefore time has always been. How can an essence always be in zero time?

    Does always was mean always omniscient too? I think it's important to know this because if God knows all then He should not be able to learn anything. Now if you consider intelligence as the capacity to learn then God has none.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80 Re: Another God Paradox 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    Quote Originally Posted by SSDZ
    ....
    If God is not a dynamic system then He cannot change. This means He can't even create. I think it's wonderful because I collect things God cannot do. Anyway, I digress....

    However you're saying that divine creation presents a problem in that God would have to change or become dynamic. Unless creation, like God, also existed always, before a beginning of time.

    If I have a period (for lack of a better word) of no time then it is more or less a zero point. IOW there is no before time. Time starts from the zero point, therefore time has always been. How can an essence always be in zero time?

    Does always was mean always omniscient too? I think it's important to know this because if God knows all then He should not be able to learn anything. Now if you consider intelligence as the capacity to learn then God has none.
    Again – Time is a necessary possibility for a dynamic system to exist at all; is a rule (among other rules) that determines how the system must evolve; and reveals itself somehow – as e.g., as the movement of the pointer on a clock. For systems (including Gods), e.g., possibly for our Universe, that had a start, Time evidently "begins" at the start and the clocks at start can point out "time is equal to zero".

    For "eternal" – that exist "always" - dynamic systems one cannot point out the moment "time is equal to zero".

    But there are "always" and "absolutely always", roughly speaking – existing during "infinitely long time" and during "absolutely infinitely long time". The last system is the Set "Information".

    The notion "absolutely infinitely" ("absolute infinity") is applied here rather intuitively, really it is rather interesting problem for mathematics and philosophy.

    As to notion "God".

    Above the example of possible classification of the Set as a God was given. The term "intelligent" is, possibly, not too good; and in the context means that this God is "helpless", including – cannot "think" because He "absolutely infinitely long time" ago have created "already" all/anything/everything and have "thought out" all/anything/everything.
    Though note - any information inside the Set spreads with (not absolutely!) infinite speed, when something "non-instant" take place - e.g. - our Universe evolution. So the Set's "helplessness" is in certain sense questionable.

    As to others possible Gods – there is absolutely infinite place in the Set outside the subset "our Universe", or maybe more correct – outside the subsets "Matter", "Alive" and "human Consciousness" for existence some Essences that can be "Gods" for the humans. About possible "God for our Universe" – see something in a couple of SSDZ posts in
    http://personalitycafe.com/science-t...th-proves.html
    pages 3-4.

    And, besides, - any possible God in the informational conception - in contrast to any religion - ceases be a mysterious transcendent Essence, He/She becomes be cognizable. Though with some caution...

    Cheers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81 Re: Another God Paradox 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,891
    Quote Originally Posted by SSDZ
    Above the example of possible classification of the Set as a God was given. The term "intelligent" is, possibly, not too good; and in the context means that this God is "helpless", including – cannot "think" because He "absolutely infinitely long time" ago have created "already" all/anything/everything and have "thought out" all/anything/everything.
    It's definitely a paradox.

    Is Omniscient God like a computer? Could you say machines have knowledge and create answers without thinking? Does knowledge contained within a computer's files exist in limbo? Is it easier to think of God as a machine rather than a timeless essence?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82 Re: Another God Paradox 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    Quote Originally Posted by SSDZ
    Above the example of possible classification of the Set as a God was given. The term "intelligent" is, possibly, not too good; and in the context means that this God is "helpless", including – cannot "think" because He "absolutely infinitely long time" ago have created "already" all/anything/everything and have "thought out" all/anything/everything.
    It's definitely a paradox.

    Is Omniscient God like a computer? Could you say machines have knowledge and create answers without thinking? Does knowledge contained within a computer's files exist in limbo? Is it easier to think of God as a machine rather than a timeless essence?
    The Set “Information” is indeed very paradoxical, but at that – It isn’t self-contradictory.

    Besides:
    You apply too many terms without their definitions. Though that possibly follows from the fact that these terms, as a rule, aren’t defined in other philosophical discussions, because of in philosophy fundamental notions, i.e. – "Matter" and "Consciousness" (what somewhere means also "God", "Spirit", etc.) are non-defined since are transcendent.

    Just therefore they in the informational conception are defined in certain extent rigorously:

    (1) they are defined only for our Universe, when the Universe is some [comparatively] infinitesimal subset in the Set "Information". What is outside the Universe – we have no data till now. Moreover, as that I. Kant shown, we cannot prove – there is/are or not some other Consciousness(s) in addition to humans’ (and to analogous somebodies else, e.g., “extraterrestrials”) in the Universe ? – e.g. “Universe’s” God(s)?

    (2) All what we know till now can be differentiated on three qualitatively different groups: "Matter", "Alive" and [humans’ till now] "Consciousness" at least basing on one common characteristic – on the capability to produce/apprehend a false information. This characteristic has important property – "material" things can use only true information and change/ evolve under rigorous logical rules and so are more stable in the Set where all Set’s elements always communicate (and so - interact), at least by primary universal bond "I’m not You". An example – an usual (let - IBM) computer handles the data well, though there are much of impacts outside – gravity, electromagnetic fields, etc.)

    A human’s body is material computer that works under resident codes (spinal cord and somewhere brain), where every organ, cell, DNA, RNA, etc – down to elementary particles - are some subroutines; but on this material computer the non-material thing lives – human’s consciousness; which, as it seems, can operate only basing on a stable material base.

    Continuing the analogy – Matter in our Universe - which is material computer also - can be "somebody’s" body, and this body can be of God of our Universe, i.e., It is some self- organized Essence (having a self- identification, some aims, etc.

    The examples above show, that it would be useful to use the term "computer" only for material instruments having rigorous structure and operating by using logic (fuzzy logic is a logic also in this case, any included "uncertainty" is rigorously defined in the computer fundamentally). It seems there aren't necessaty to make this term wider.

    All that is in the arXiv paper pointed above. Again – it would be useful to read the paper before posting-?

    Cheers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83 Re: Another God Paradox 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,891
    Quote Originally Posted by SSDZ
    All that is in the arXiv paper pointed above. Again – it would be useful to read the paper before posting-?
    Theres no reason for me to do so. Here's a philosophy for you..... I don't think a consciousness is that special. It's just something we have. When we all go extinct it won't even be missed.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Freshman Latin_of_delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Cathedral City, CA
    Posts
    54
    Well, philosophically anything is possible! If God were manifested as, say, the universe then obviously God is reall and very powerful and has exclusive control over everything (I'd like to see a Logician wiggle out of that one!). And of course God would predate time itself (God would predate a time when the laws of physics became a reality--the PRE-universe, or whatever you want to call it {No scientist claims that the universe came from nothing; they only claim it arose from a very condensed state prior to the existence of the known laws of physics]).So there you have it: God is prefectly capable of being real and pre-dating "time" itself!
    "The future isn't what it use to be."

    "The function and consequence of sentiency is physics."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Freshman Latin_of_delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Cathedral City, CA
    Posts
    54
    If the universe is conscious--which I suspect strongly it is (in my opinion it's the only good rational way of explaining our own consciousness as organisms)--then it's quite obvious that it exhibits purpose and will, as revealed through the laws of physics. The laws of physics are fairly consistent throughout the universe (so we believe) so there indeed is some great plan or great direction to the cosmos and this indicates a universe that is aware of its own future.
    "The future isn't what it use to be."

    "The function and consequence of sentiency is physics."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    jjg
    jjg is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    33
    Time deals with contingency. The whole reason for concluding that there is a first cause that is eternal is to explain the existence of contingency to begin with.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by Latin_of_delight View Post
    If the universe is conscious--which I suspect strongly it is (in my opinion it's the only good rational way of explaining our own consciousness as organisms)--then it's quite obvious that it exhibits purpose and will, as revealed through the laws of physics. The laws of physics are fairly consistent throughout the universe (so we believe) so there indeed is some great plan or great direction to the cosmos and this indicates a universe that is aware of its own future.
    It is rather possible that isn’t so and Universe’s consciousness (if exists) doesn’t determine "the laws of physics"; It only uses Matter as a convenient house to live. When Matter is rigorously determined informational system – some "computer" that evolves under rigorous logical rules (including laws of physics). All is some like as in a human situation - a human’s consciousness can act without any understanding – how the human’s organism is built.

    Cheers
    Last edited by SSDZ; August 18th, 2011 at 06:16 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by jjg View Post
    Time deals with contingency. The whole reason for concluding that there is a first cause that is eternal is to explain the existence of contingency to begin with.
    Time doesn’t “deal with contingency” specially. More see this thread above and, e.g., More Relativity Questions - Science Forums , at least page 2, SSDS post of 9 August 2011 - 01:02 PM.

    Cheers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    jjg
    jjg is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    33
    Space-time is just a modern way of saying that the universe is stamped with contingency. The First Cause is not a temporal beginning, but the first in the order of rational sufficiency.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4
    Its seems to me that alot of you lost faith. It was also stated he (god) is the first, the last, and what is yet to come. Also if people didnt believe in afterlife and post life judgement urban dumb dumb's would have hijacked the world and science wouldnt be where it is today.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Freshman Latin_of_delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Cathedral City, CA
    Posts
    54
    Time can only be measured WITHIN periods where the laws of physics are consistent. Should the laws of physics be transformed, then from the frame of reference of an intelligent being after this moment of transformation, it would appear as though the laws of physics didn't exist--when in fact they could have, just in a very unfamiliar way! And we know for a fact that some FORM of the universe DID exist before the laws of physics as we understand them today came into existence!Logicially, if the universe IS a manifestation of God, then we can validly assume that God existed even before our own understanding of time (with respect to the current's Era's physics) came into being. So the logic stands and no paradox necessarily exist!(Hey! I've been trained in logic!)Einstein even insinuated something like this when he made the bold declaration that the speed of light has to be the same to every frame of reference, otherwise the laws of physics would be inconsistent and there would be no regularity in the universe! Well, this would be true of the laws of physics in general, too! Time ceases to be a trustworthy way of recording events with any abrupt change in the laws of physics!
    Last edited by Latin_of_delight; August 20th, 2011 at 11:14 AM.
    "The future isn't what it use to be."

    "The function and consequence of sentiency is physics."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    London, England, UK
    Posts
    1
    I thought God was an entity that exists outside time, if that's possible? For all we know there might be a dimension where time is not available.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Col_Everett_Young View Post
    I thought God was an entity that exists outside time, if that's possible? For all we know there might be a dimension where time is not available.
    To complicate matters even further and to defy logic, why doesn't someone ask 'If God existed prior to time, what was prior to him'

    'What was the mechanism that created God? Then, who made sucn a mechanism and so on?'

    The answer to all these questions "FAITH"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Deepak Kapur View Post
    The answer to all these questions "FAITH"
    Unless one asks how much faith is required to believe in something, there is no amount of faith that can answer anything.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95 God doesn't believe in the existence of time 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1
    I do not believe God is constricted to a huma belief in the existence of time. God exists beyond time. Quantum Physicists believe that time is a human word for distance in the cosmos.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Peter Palms View Post
    I do not believe God is constricted to a human belief in the existence of time. God exists beyond time. Quantum Physicists believe that time is a human word for distance in the cosmos.

    “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. At least He's keeping track
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Freshman Lander_Greys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    55
    ^Isn't that describing the second coming? Who's to say that the triggers hes waiting for have anything to do with time.
    I've never met a man who was more intelligent then I was. Then again, I've never met one who was as ignorant as me either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,891
    Can you keep track of time in a timeless place or if you exist beyond it?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Freshman Lander_Greys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    55
    Well, in speaking in terms of "The Trinity" of God I suppose the "Spirit" form could possibly do that. To be honest there are alot of perspectives on "God" that could be used here from the different denominations of Christianity.
    I've never met a man who was more intelligent then I was. Then again, I've never met one who was as ignorant as me either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •