Thread: Another God Paradox

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.

It makes perfect sense if you consider that god doesn't exist and was created by flawed humans.

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

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!

Thank you for the insightful reply, questor. Also, thank you for the link, I have often pondered Lance's thoery/idea.

And probably a multitude of other such threads nearby in the religious forum.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

Originally Posted by inow

It makes perfect sense if you consider that god doesn't exist and was created by flawed humans.

8)

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.

The biggest God paradox is the fact that He is only a belief and yet Theology exists.

Time is a dimension, using it as a measure of time is a human notion. God is not a human.

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

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?

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.

Which god?

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.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

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''?

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

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?

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.

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.

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.

The problem with your argument is that it is biased, you flat-out refuse to acknowledge any argument on the opposing side as valid

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?

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.

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?

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

Originally Posted by Alaskanwerewolf

So yes, anything is possible

No physical law should exist then, right?

No, I'm just saying that what we think of as laws might not be as concrete as we would believe.

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

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.

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.

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?

0=-1+1. Hey look, something from nothing!

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?

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

0=-1+1. Hey look, something from nothing!

Can you answer it better than I could?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

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?

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.

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.

Originally Posted by epignosis

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?

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)

'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.

you show so much persistence to your cause 8)

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)

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?

He's been asked that before and basically responded something stupid like, "because dogs have puppies." Exercise in futility, fellas.

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.

@ 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.

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.

Originally Posted by dejawolf

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.

Originally Posted by epignosis

I am not allowed to talk about religion on this forum.

Originally Posted by epignosis

The reason I say that there is a God,

Originally Posted by epignosis

Creation is supported by these three facts

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.

Originally Posted by dejawolf

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.

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?

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.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

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.

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?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

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.

Originally Posted by epignosis

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Rickz2020

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.

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.

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.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the one and only, out of the loony bin, crazy: epignosis...

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Rickz2020

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.

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

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.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

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

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.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

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

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?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Latin_of_delight

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

Originally Posted by jjg

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

Originally Posted by Col_Everett_Young

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"

Originally Posted by Deepak Kapur

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Dr Peter Palms

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

^Isn't that describing the second coming? Who's to say that the triggers hes waiting for have anything to do with time.

Can you keep track of time in a timeless place or if you exist beyond it?

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.