Why a creative God cannot exist.

I am not for one minute suggesting that some kind of 'God' cannot exist, merely that God as many religons believe in it/he/she cannot.

Here is the basis of my argument (I'm planning on writing an essay to this effect so please point out any holes).

If 'God' is omnipotent, all knowing, all powerful, everywhere at once, then can he ever have had a creative thought, ie to create the universe and us?
Knowledge of 'everything' (by that I mean everything that has happend and everything that ever will as Christians believe), would mean that God would be aware of every 'thought' that he will ever have and thus not be capable of creativity, original ideas etc. (I have questions as to whether such a being would even be conscious but that is another matter). What I mean is without some type of random unknowable factor God could have no 'insipration' (I'm not sure if that is the right word), and nowhere to channel that infinite power.

So either God does not know 'everything' (and there I think that definition of God as is believed in breaks down) or God is simply an existance which cannot do anything except exist and therefore could not have created us.


Anyway this is the gist of my theory. Comments? Anyone who completely knocks it down has to come up with an alternative topic! :D

Any attempt to define God leads to paradoxes such as "If God knows everything can he learn anything new?" We end up with a moron God. In order to believe in God you must not try to define him, to do so automatically degrades him. Thus blind faith works.

Interesting. I might put that in.

I'm non-religous and have trouble grasping different people's idea of God. None seem to make sense to me. But generally do people believe that God wants people to become enlightened or just to, as you said, 'blindly' worship him?

Right! If god was everywhere, there would be no reason to move, if god knew everything, there would be no reason to think, if god were in total control, controlling would not be required. I think William Burroughs said, "If god is control, why does control need to control?".

In the same vein, he also said,"A functioning police state needs no police."

Right! If god was everywhere, there would be no reason to move, if god knew everything, there would be no reason to think, if god were in total control, controlling would not be required. I think William Borroughs said, "If god is control, why does control need to control?".

Your problem is very apparant. You try to think about god from your own datum with your own limits..Firstly, it should be noted that as human beings we perceive everything from a human perspective and formulate our views accordingly. To take one example, human beings act out of necessity or desire. We set out to do things because we have certain needs or are compelled. Through some infatuation in ill thinking, or ourselves we foolishly presume to compare God to ourselves and suppose that God acts as we do.?


God is different, the Quran describes god as:
He, God, is One; God, the Self-Subsistent, Eternally-Besought-of-All; He neither begets nor was begotten; and nothing whatever is like unto Him.

God is a figment of mankinds imagination, God is used as a tool to control and manipulate others. Most of all - it is bullshit!


YUEK! Can anyone smell beefburgers around here??

Nah, its OK. Its just Flores deoderant. :D

You can also add that god is as powerful as one can imagine. Definition of god is to be written by man and to be overwritten by another man.

If God exists, would the thought process of "imagining" be too low for it?

I'm non-religous and have trouble grasping different people's idea of God. None seem to make sense to me. But generally do people believe that God wants people to become enlightened or just to, as you said, 'blindly' worship him?
God never said he wants us to worship him!the priests did,to control,enslave and exploit the believers financialy and otherwise.

problems with believers is they cannot comprehend the contradictory aspects of god,
they will always try to make up some kind of an answer (even lie ) to your questions to justify their belief in their skydude.

why?they are afraid to be punished for eternity is my guess,the fact that theres no gods,souls,spirits heaven or hell anywhere to be seen doesnt seem to make any diffrence to someone who simply believes in something without having any evidence to the contrary.

heres something you might want to read
www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/
www.atheists.org
www.infidels.org/index.shtml

God never said he wants us to worship him!the priests did,to control,enslave and exploit the believers financialy and otherwise.
You're right, the priests and equal ranks of other faiths being the brainwashers and manipulaters.

problems with believers is they cannot comprehend the contradictory aspects of god,
they will always try to make up some kind of an answer (even lie ) to your questions to justify their belief in their skydude.
Yep, this is the result of brainwashing.. If you tell a lie often enough you begin to believe it, Thats a known fact.

why?they are afraid to be punished for eternity is my guess,the fact that theres no gods,souls,spirits anywhere to be seen doesnt seem to make any diffrence to someone who simply believes in something without having any evidence to the contrary.
A big percentage of mankind is on the brink of insanity by believing in something that isn't there. But this type of insanity is accepted.

If someone believed in say "the tooth fairy" with the same conviction as religious folk believe in "god", the guy would be certified. I wonder sometimes whether it is mankind itself that is questionable. Why does mankind justify a form of insanity, yet not another??????

I wonder sometimes whether it is mankind itself that is questionable. Why does mankind justify a form of insanity, yet not another??????

God is one hand clapping.

^^^^^^Have you ever heard that before? Do you know what group of people are affiliated with that maxim? Before you go marvelling at the intricacy of that statement, just remember, it makes ABSOLUTELY NO sense whatever. And yet people try to grasp it's meaning... because it sounds profound.

Umm... you said "he" couldn't be a creator because "he" can't know absolutely everything... why can't you know everything and not have created everything? I didn't invent the ThreeFold Law but i know everything about it... or lets just pretend i was an expert and did. Doesn't mean I created it.

God is one hand clapping.
^^^^^^Have you ever heard that before? Do you know what group of people are affiliated with that maxim? Before you go marvelling at the intricacy of that statement, just remember, it makes ABSOLUTELY NO sense whatever. And yet people try to grasp it's meaning... because it sounds profound.

What on earth are you talking about? The question of one hand clapping is a Zen Buddhist koan, a subject for meditation that has NOTHING to do with God. I believe this falls under the logical fallacy of a straw man argument, you are refuting a statement of your own creation.

Scaperzrule, it goes further than that - omnipotence is impossible. You cannot logically 'do anything'. God is either the entire universe and not aware, thereby not able to act, or He is less than omnipotent.

What on earth are you talking about? The question of one hand clapping is a Zen Buddhist koan, a subject for meditation that has NOTHING to do with God. I believe this falls under the logical fallacy of a straw man argument, you are refuting a statement of your own creation.

I was referring to the new form of mysticism "that exalts the absurd as a hallmark of religious truth." It's curious that you would speak of "logical fallacy" since the statement is profoundly irrational.
I wanted to RELATE the statement to the discussion underhand by showing that the Father of truth may not be the author of chaos/ambiguity.. whichever way you choose to see it.

---
I used the word "may" because I don't know where you stand on the doctrines of Calvinism.

What new form of mysticism? Who said "God is one hand clapping."? How does this relate to the notion that God is not responsible for those aspects of reality that seem chaotic?

I should point out that in the second century, the famous and respected Christian thinker Tertullian said,

"...The Son of God died: it is immediately credible--because it is silly.
He was buried, and rose again: it is certain--because it is impossible. "

,so absurdity as religious truth is nothing new.

I have been interested in Zen Buddhism for a long time, and those kind of statements that you refer to are not meant to be representative of truth. Indeed, it in the related philosophy of Taoism, they say, "the truth that can be told is not the eternal truth." The apparent absurdity of the Koan is a tool designed to get you questioning your most basic assumptions, turning the mind in on itself, with the eventual goal of displacing the common function of the mind, which is to intercede between you and reality. Once the distorting lenses are removed, reality can be experienced in a more direct and truthful manner.

Another facet in this line of thought is that the appearance of separate things is an illusion created by linear language. So, when observing something, like, for instance, a leaf, it is quite correct to say that the meaning of life is the leaf.

I don't know anything about Calvinism.

It's curious that you would speak of "logical fallacy" since the statement is profoundly irrational.
...but who's statement was it?

The real thing is not a statement, it is a question: "What is the sound of one hand clapping?", not "God is the sound of one hand clapping.".

Is no one going to refute the original argument? It's probably the most powerful I've ever heard (I've heard it before) and it ignores all the human-written nonsense and anti-scientific garbage.

God cannot think -> God is just a process, ie. laws of physics.
But God is clearly defined differently everywhere so you might as well just throw out the whole notion of him.

That god, or a creative principle, is actually a passive process is similar to the concept of Tao. Gravity has recently been thought to be distortion in some kind of all pervasive field things can sink into, as opposed to an active force. I think creativity can be seen in the same way, it is essentially empty, until we wriggle around and fall into an area of creative possibility.

The Tao is like a well:
used but never used up.
It is like the eternal void:
filled with infinite possibilities.

Tao Te Ching (http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html)

More applicable William S. Burroughs:

"Consider the impasse of a one god universe. He is all-knowing and all-powerful. He can't go anywhere since he is already everywhere. He can't do anything since the act of doing presupposes opposition. His universe is irrevocable thermodynamic having no friction by definition. So he has to create friction. War, fear, sickness, death to keep his dying show on the road... "

Josh

It's just a ride. - Bill Hicks

Some Hindus refuse to describe their God, Brahman (or is it Brahma?), in anything but negatives. ("Not this, no, not this,") This is because trying to explain him limits what he can do. I'm sure there are theists of this belief, too, that their God is beyond your logic and reasoning.

".., that their God is beyond your logic and reasoning."
...........................
If this is true, then even the best reasons for god's existence are only a matter of opinion.

Well, it is impossible to explain God by the means known to man. If an all mighty force was shown in its fullness, everything would be blown away. For, we are all made of atoms, and we know that if a strong enough power is applied to them that they can separated or combined. Realizing that God is omnipotent, then you begin to see that states He has power beyond this universes limits. To try to explain it by means of which we can see, feel, taste, hear, or smell would have complete fallability. It would be easy for Him to create anything He wanted, because He is omnipotent (all powerful). If He is omnipotent, then in His pure form He couldn't have boundaries. Thus, He must be omnipresent. And if He is omnipotent and omnipresent, this would be a waste of power and copacity if He was purely brawns and no brains. Looking at us, which would be His creation, we see an intelligence and a desire for perfect intelligence that must have come from some sort of Originator. This Originator couldn't be limited to this universe, because He must have perfect knowlege, and we have seen none in this because we are sitting here debating about something easy explained away as unexplainable. Thus, the Originator would have to be omniscient. Stating this, He becomes omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. A Being such as this would realize His singularity and would want to have a companion to share such a power, insight, and presence, so He would set up a perfect place to house this creature of adoration. His first attempt would be to make powerful servants that would constantly praise Him, but He was saddenned that they would do this without the choice. so, He decided to make another place that would be one that housed a creature that resembled Him and had this quality to choose. He would first set it up so that the place would have a period of light and dark, so it could see how He could show His glory in two contrasts. Then, He'd create a place for this creature to be housed. Realizing this place was dull and without resources for the creature to exhibit any ability, He'd place some water to cover it. Seeing this wouldn't be enough, He placed some lesser creatures, such as fish and some birds that could inhabit without worry this water planet, but they didn't seem to be enough. He brought in some land so that this creature could roam and see not only one place of wonder but look out and the next, the water, and think on the awesomeness and infinite glory that must be his Creator. Seeing, that this land was barren, the Creator would then place plants and some other lesser animals that could make this surely a place of vivid diversity. Thus completing the preparations, He would set out to creature His masterpiece. First, He would look at Himself and see what He was like. Realizing He is powerful, He would take up some of the earth, which He had made with support and strength to hold all His other creations that were upon it, and mold it into a form of strength. He would look at His intelligence, and then place in it the knowlege He had. For, it is a truth we don't use all of our brains, which would follow the account in Gen. 3 about the fall os man losing this perfect image of God. Also, He would have to look at His omnipresence, and realizing there would be know way this creature could be this and dwell in this place in capacity that would have it search each place to see what it was like, instead He would make a creature that could walk and be seen as different and above the others. He would make one that was upright to show it stood for the powerful Creator that seemed to be loving in the fact that He wanted companionship. He would make one that was different from the others which had complete fur, scales, or feathers. This one would have hair that would make it seem like it was wearing a crown, signifying its importance. When you look at all these things, you infere that I'm talking about man. Seeing that man would be lonely, because man would be subjected to seeing other animals with others of its kind, He would make a creature that would be perfect for man. This one would also take time, because He would want it to be special. Thus, He created woman, which means "out of man" (not a hard concept to think on). Being Omniscient, He knew that some of the creatures that He had first made to praise Him would rebel at the fact He loved this new creature and honored it more than they. This would really get to the one that He had placed in charge of all the others (because an omniscient Being would know order is peaceful and chaos is frustrating.) So, naturally this creature would get others that would follow him and rebel. Well, it would be impossible for him to win against God, so he would instead target his object of affection. This being man, he would find what would separate man from God. Well, God had given man dominion of the earth. Man could do anything except eat of one tree. On this tree He had placed the only knowlege that He had kept from man. It was the knowlege of sin. He did this so that man wouldn't look at himself or try to see if there would have been any "corrections" he could do to himself, thus taking away from his time with God. This would be worship, because worship is defined as the spending of your time with something or someone. Man was created to worship God. Well, man Since God is omnipotent, He would realize this would come. So, He took and made Himself into three forms, which wouldn't be impossible for an omnipotent God. One would be His pure form, the other a form would be one that would pay the debt man would have because He knew man would be seduced into eating of this tree by the creature created first (which are angels), because they are highly intelligent creatures, and finally a being that would come down after man's debt was paid to be with him until God had set up another place for him that would be filled only with those things that honored God and glorified Him. So, when man ate of the tree, it made Him realize His nakeness, which had not been shone to him before, and he hid. God asked Him why he hid (not to see what had happened, but to see if man knew his own guilt), and man amitted he ate from the tree. Well, you know of this story, but it seems to hold great truth. I'm not the author of it, nor am I most knowlegeable of it, but God would know. You look at how we came from having a world with many natural wonders to one that is covered in the artificial wonders we have created. We always seem to be trying to become supreme, but something always seems to be holding us back. The second Being was Jesus, and there is no question it was Him. A sole reason to see this would be the fact that out of all the religious leaders in the world, He is the only one whose body is unaccounted for. Also, of all the religions, Christianity is the one that is targeted by the others. Some may say that they don't, but then you see where they attack it in one form or another. It's odd that Christianity is the religion that says give testimony by living a life that reflects God's in the fact that God is loving, but not in a love man would be comfortable to show. It's not sensual, not one that asks for return, rather it is one that gives without thought of return. Christians are odd, because when they are about to be killed for their faith they are full of love and peace that couldn't come from man. For, man has part of Lucifer, the angel who led the rebellion, in them. We had traded God's image for Lucifer's. But Christ came to give it back to us. We just have to accept that He really did it. We can't explain it, because, since we rebelled, we lost that part of us that could realize such a love. God allowed the fall to happen because He wanted us to fully appreciate His gift. May Christ's hope shine to you. God bless. Bye.

Well, it is impossible to explain God by the means known to man. If an all mighty force was shown in its fullness, everything would be blown away. For, we are all made of atoms, and we know that if a strong enough power is applied to them that they can separated or combined. Tunneling the depths of non sequitur ...
May Christ's hope shine to you.... we get to the Christ fairy-tail on the other side. It's moronic at worst, pathetic at best.

Authentic human freedom and God's creative will converge in the eternal and timeless mind of God, but will remain irreconcilable to our finite and time-bound human minds.

God can be creative because His will and knowledge is not limited to Himself. He could imagine more than there was, and could make His imagination a reality. Isn't that what an artist does?

Who created God?

Who created God?

If God is eternal then he has no need for anyone to create Him.

Absolute Nothingness is the complete absence of the existence of all things whether in the form of matter, energy, space, or anything else known or unknown. It is the total absence of existence.

No real and actual thing can come from Absolute Nothingness for it has no existence, no energy, no matter, no space, or anything else known or unknown from which to create it. No real and actual thing can really and actually “spontaneously generate” or create itself from Absolute Nothingness. To do this it would have to either pre-exist itself or be created by something else. If it pre-exists itself then “it” actually exists and we do not have Absolute Nothingness. If something else created it then that “something else” actually exists and we do not have Absolute Nothingness. If a first cause of any kind exists then that “first cause” actually exists and again we do not have Absolute Nothingness. If there are fluctuations of space or energy, or the pre-existence of particles, or the pre-existence of anything of any kind whatsoever then it is not Absolute Nothingness.

Now, if Absolute Nothingness ever existed, then there would be Absolute Nothingness right now. For Something cannot come from Absolute Nothingness. However, Something does exist. In fact You exist. Therefore, the very fact that You exist is proof that Absolute Nothingness never existed. Now, if Absolute Nothingness never existed, then Something has always existed, and could never have not been. Something is eternal.

If Something is truly eternal then it would have no beginning. If Something has no beginning then it has no need for any cause or creator because it has always been. It would possess everything necessary for its own existence within its own being, whatever that is. It would be Self-existent. It must also have the “potential” and “ability” to create “Something else” other than itself, for if it does not, it would still be the only thing that exists today. “Something else” does exist. In fact You exist. You have a beginning so You are not the “Eternal Something”. This “Eternal Something” then is the uncaused cause of You.

If 'God' is omnipotent, all knowing, all powerful, everywhere at once, then can he ever have had a creative thought, ie to create the universe and us?By that definition God would have all thoughts, 'creative' and otherwise. But this does not create any prohibitions against God doing anything he likes. However, it does bring to mind the question of why he would bother. After all, he already knows what will happen down to the last detail, nothing could ever be new or interesting. Perhaps God deliberately created something that he does not know everything about so as not to be bored. Or perhaps God is only omniscient with respect to our Universe but not in regards to himself.

~Raithere

Umm... you said "he" couldn't be a creator because "he" can't know absolutely everything... why can't you know everything and not have created everything? I didn't invent the ThreeFold Law but i know everything about it... or lets just pretend i was an expert and did. Doesn't mean I created it.

For, man has part of Lucifer, the angel who led the rebellion, in them. We had traded God's image for Lucifer's. But Christ came to give it back to us. We just have to accept that He really did it.
Ummm, Lucifer wasn't an angel... he was an ancient Middle-eastern king who was nicknamed "lucifer" meaning "evil one" because he was corrupt. Then the Christians/Jews come along and say "evil one? Oh! They're talking about Satan!" wrong, Lucifer=King, Satan=evil. See the difference? They have nothing to do with each other.

We can't explain it, because, since we rebelled, we lost that part of us that could realize such a love. God allowed the fall to happen because He wanted us to fully appreciate His gift. May Christ's hope shine to you. God bless. Bye.
With all that last part you do realise how much of an idiot you sound? He ain't got know hope! He's dead for crying out loud! And also I don't ever remember rebelling... did I get doped up and pass out for a while or something to miss that? And also, if God allowed us to suffer to make us appreciate him he didn't suceed very well did he?!

By that definition God would have all thoughts, 'creative' and otherwise. But this does not create any prohibitions against God doing anything he likes. However, it does bring to mind the question of why he would bother. After all, he already knows what will happen down to the last detail, nothing could ever be new or interesting. Perhaps God deliberately created something that he does not know everything about so as not to be bored. Or perhaps God is only omniscient with respect to our Universe but not in regards to himself.

You miss the point, Raithere - you can't be omniscient only with respect to one part of the universe - say, the Earth. If you were able to manipulate the Earth and everything in it, but didn't know what you were going to do to Earth before you did it, you couldn't know what would happen on Earth. Omniscient really means OMNIscient.

The trouble is, if you already know what you are going to do, you can't have a creative thought, because that would require that you didn't know you would have it in advance. Omnipotence requires omniscience and also means that you are, quite literally, everything. Which means you can't think, feel etc. I.e. - the universe itself. God can only think, love, and create if He is less that omnipotent.

You have a beginning so You are not the “Eternal Something”.
Dude, I disagree, I had no beginning. "You" are the result of the common dictionary definition of a discrete entity, however your actual material nature can be traced back to the merging of egg and sperm, and further traced back to the beginnings of the universe itself. I agree nothing can come from nothing, and if there is something, that something must be eternal. Life is a temporary configuration of that which is eternal. But the eternal thing might just be the universe, not god. I suggest only inanimate forms can be eternal, not personalities. Where would god get his personality, where would this wish to create come from if god was an island in a sea of nothingness? What is the cause of god's supposed creativity? An eternal inanimate form is more likely, since complexity seems to build upon previous forms, rather than happening all at once.

You miss the point, Raithere - you can't be omniscient only with respect to one part of the universe - say, the Earth. If you were able to manipulate the Earth and everything in it, but didn't know what you were going to do to Earth before you did it, you couldn't know what would happen on Earth. Omniscient really means OMNIscient. Well, I didn't say that God was omniscience only in regards to one part of the Universe; I said that God might exist apart from the Universe. In other words God might be atemporal.

But your argument still depends upon what we mean by omniscience. Using the definition that omniscience means all knowledge without temporal or other modal constraints you are correct. Only I don't think the Bible and other such religious notions are quite that specific.

The trouble is, if you already know what you are going to do, you can't have a creative thought, because that would require that you didn't know you would have it in advance.Do you mean a thought about a creative act or an original thought God has never had before. Omniscience (as per your definition) only negates the latter and they are not the same thing.

Omnipotence requires omniscience and also means that you are, quite literally, everything.I disagree. How do you figure?

Which means you can't think, feel etc. I.e. - the universe itself. God can only think, love, and create if He is less that omnipotent.The problem is that you're using all sorts of nebulous terms as if they have some static meaning. Define think and love in the context of omniscience and universality that makes them impossible. In short, all we have so far is your assertion without an argument.

~Raithere

Well, I didn't say that God was omniscience only in regards to one part of the Universe; I said that God might exist apart from the Universe. In other words God might be atemporal.
But then the universe would be one part of Everything, and the part where God was would be another part. And its claimed that God's bit influences the other bit, so they are in effect part of the same Everything. So, its a contradiction in terms to say 'outside the universe'. The universe is literally everything.

But your argument still depends upon what we mean by omniscience. Using the definition that omniscience means all knowledge without temporal or other modal constraints you are correct. Only I don't think the Bible and other such religious notions are quite that specific.
They often can't seem to make up their minds - but I think God loses all authority if He is less than omniscient. Then He's just a very powerful being who wants us to do his bidding. Only if He knows all can he justify commanding us, and rewarding and punishing us. (But as I argue in 'the right of God to judge' thread, even that isn't good enough.)

Do you mean a thought about a creative act or an original thought God has never had before. Omniscience (as per your definition) only negates the latter and they are not the same thing.
True, but if you are omniscient, technically you would have all thoughts in your head at the same time. You couldn't suddenly think about creating something, because you should already have known that you would think that. I would even say that 'think' is the wrong word, because there is no need to think when you already know everything.

I disagree. How do you figure?
Omnipotence requires omniscience because if there was something you didn't know, you couldn't act on it. Omnipotence doesn't just mean that if you did know, you would be able to act; omnipotence means that you can do anything, no restrictions, and lack of knowledge would restrict your actions. Likewise, no restrictions means that you must be able to interact with anything, no matter the time or place. Having complete power means, in effect, that you are everything - as there isn't a single lepton that you don't have complete and utter knowledge of and control over. But since you also know everything, you cannot think, as I've said, and so you cannot act. You are just the dead universe. Making omnipotence meaningless - a logical impossibility, since potence requires that you are less than all powerful. Ergo, the omnipotent-yet-loving and perfectly just Abrahamic God cannot possibly exist. Sweet.

The problem is that you're using all sorts of nebulous terms as if they have some static meaning. Define think and love in the context of omniscience and universality that makes them impossible. In short, all we have so far is your assertion without an argument.

Hopefully I have now. Noone's actually ever challenged these ideas of mine before, so any critical analysis would be very welcome. If its correct, then we can compare God to invisible pink elephants or broke millionaires (things that don't make logical sense), instead of the same old Santa Claus and leprechauns (which are technically possible).

But since you also know everything, you cannot think, as I've said, and so you cannot act.
Unless, of course, knowing everything includes the ability to combine everything you know into different configurations, and choosing one - "freezing it" in thought, thereby... creating it. Just think for a moment: theoretically, all possible configurations of this universe could exist simultaneously, yet we are only aware of this one.

In that sense, "creation" is a limitation of what you know, not an expansion into what you didn't. And it confirms what we already knew: acting is choosing.

Awesome Spidergoat,

"...traced back to the beginnings of the universe itself."

If the universe has a beginning as you stated above then there was a time when it was not. If there ever was a time when the universe was not then it is not eternal as you stated below. Please clarify what you intended to say here because I’m not sure which one you really believe. Thank you for your considerate response!

"...But the eternal thing might just be the universe…”

I don't believe anything firmly about the origins of the universe, it seems to be a mystery. I tend to agree with the big bang hypothesis, but that does leave alot of things unexplained. Perhaps the universe is both eternal from the point of view of matter and had a beginning. Like the symbol for infinity, there is a convergence point in the center. This is the sort of beginning I mean, the emergence of the known universe might have been preceded by the collapse of another universe into a singularity. Since no information can survive a singularity, we might never know how it occured. Time itself might not be eternal. If time emerged as a property of the universe, then there was never a time in which the universe did not exist.

But then the universe would be one part of Everything, and the part where God was would be another part. And its claimed that God's bit influences the other bit, so they are in effect part of the same Everything. So, its a contradiction in terms to say 'outside the universe'. The universe is literally everything.Okay, here's the problem. It's only possible to disprove God if you put certain constraints upon the argument. The problem is that we don't know enough to properly constrain the argument; all we can do is postulate various scenarios. The same problem exists in cosmology; there are any number of conflicting hypotheses because we do not know what the boundary conditions of our Universe are. So while you can build certain arguments to 'disprove' God they are based upon assumptions about these conditions which may or not be correct.

So while you insist on defining 'Universe' as everything, it's not necessarily so. We might say 'observable universe' or that we exist in a universe but God exists in a meta-universe. The point I'm making (and that Theists often use) is that God could exist independently of our ST continuum. Now this in itself poses some problems regarding interaction with the Universe but it does allow for God to exist.

They often can't seem to make up their minds - but I think God loses all authority if He is less than omniscient.I tend to agree with you that he doesn't have the right to judge in the first place, but it's irrelevant to this argument.

Omnipotence requires omniscience because if there was something you didn't know, you couldn't act on it. Omnipotence doesn't just mean that if you did know, you would be able to act; omnipotence means that you can do anything, no restrictions, and lack of knowledge would restrict your actions.Actually, I like that argument. Of course, it could be conditional. That is God might know everything all the time but could know anything that he wanted to.

Hopefully I have now. Noone's actually ever challenged these ideas of mine before, so any critical analysis would be very welcome.Cool, I'm the same way.

If its correct, then we can compare God to invisible pink elephants or broke millionaires (things that don't make logical sense), instead of the same old Santa Claus and leprechauns (which are technically possible).If the conditions are arbitrary though we can hypothesize anything. And there is the argument that God's existence is beyond man's logic. They're fun exercises though.

~Raithere

Unless, of course, knowing everything includes the ability to combine everything you know into different configurations, and choosing one - "freezing it" in thought, thereby... creating it. Just think for a moment: theoretically, all possible configurations of this universe could exist simultaneously, yet we are only aware of this one.
In that sense, "creation" is a limitation of what you know, not an expansion into what you didn't. And it confirms what we already knew: acting is choosing.
But acting requires not acting at another time. Creation likewise means you are not creating... not creating... then you suddenly create. When you know that you will create, but are also able to speed through time, making time meaningless, then you have already acted. Of course, with power over everything, then there is no 'you' and 'the rest', because you are everything. Omnipotence is a real logical mess. To me, God doesn't make sense at all unless He and His powers are finite.


Okay, here's the problem. It's only possible to disprove God if you put certain constraints upon the argument. The problem is that we don't know enough to properly constrain the argument; all we can do is postulate various scenarios. The same problem exists in cosmology; there are any number of conflicting hypotheses because we do not know what the boundary conditions of our Universe are. So while you can build certain arguments to 'disprove' God they are based upon assumptions about these conditions which may or not be correct.
Yes, but the religious person has his own assumptions, and its these we can test. If omnipotence really is a logical fallacy, then God, whatever He his, is not omnipotent. We can cross that off the list.

So while you insist on defining 'Universe' as everything, it's not necessarily so. We might say 'observable universe' or that we exist in a universe but God exists in a meta-universe. The point I'm making (and that Theists often use) is that God could exist independently of our ST continuum. Now this in itself poses some problems regarding interaction with the Universe but it does allow for God to exist.
Yes, but not to be omniscient! To be omniscient about our universe, God needs to know every effect that He himself has on it, which means He also must be omniscient regarding Himself. If He knows that a meteor will hit Earth, and so decides to stop it, the meteor didn't hit Earth, and He was wrong.

If the conditions are arbitrary though we can hypothesize anything. And there is the argument that God's existence is beyond man's logic. They're fun exercises though.
God must be within our logic, or saying 'I believe in God' means nothing. If I said 'I believe in a floob, and so should you', and you asked 'what's a floob', and I said 'I don't know, its beyond my logic', then what reason is there for you to believe in it?

But acting requires not acting at another time. Creation likewise means you are not creating... not creating... then you suddenly create. When you know that you will create, but are also able to speed through time, making time meaningless, then you have already acted. Of course, with power over everything, then there is no 'you' and 'the rest', because you are everything. Omnipotence is a real logical mess. To me, God doesn't make sense at all unless He and His powers are finite.
How does having power over something make you part of it? You make many "logical" assertions that you don't seem to have thought through. Your omni-everything definitions included. Not because there's much wrong with your definition of omnipotence, but because your Omnipotence and my God aren't interchangable. To put it this way: you believe in Omnipotence (in order not to believe in God), I believe in God.

Creation means there is nothing... there is now... and now there is. I agree that if God decides He will do something it is as if He had already done it. We can have faith in it, even though we might not have experienced it yet.

For some reason you don't include "the ability to do something new" in your definition of omnipotence. Divine timelessness does not require that the future already exists. Therefore the objection to divine timelessness based on the future not already existing is unsound. Likewise, the definition of omnipotence (or omniscience or omnipresence)does not require that the object over which power/knowledge/presence is exerted already exists. Thus the objection that the act of creation is impossible based on the non-existence of something is unsound.

How does having power over something make you part of it? You make many "logical" assertions that you don't seem to have thought through. Your omni-everything definitions included. Not because there's much wrong with your definition of omnipotence, but because your Omnipotence and my God aren't interchangable. To put it this way: you believe in Omnipotence (in order not to believe in God), I believe in God.
Can God do anything and everything, or not? If so, He must be omnipotent. Omnipotence means that you are, in effect, everything, because there is nothing you are not aware of or in control over. You might consider that your arm, or your nose, or your bowels are a part of you, but we don't have complete control over them (unfortunately). God has complete control over them, so they are more part of Him than of you (but so are you...).

For some reason you don't include "the ability to do something new" in your definition of omnipotence. Divine timelessness does not require that the future already exists. Therefore the objection to divine timelessness based on the future not already existing is unsound. Likewise, the definition of omnipotence (or omniscience or omnipresence)does not require that the object over which power/knowledge/presence is exerted already exists. Thus the objection that the act of creation is impossible based on the non-existence of something is unsound.
I said that omnipotence was, in the end, meaningless, because you can't do anything. Think about it - if you have absolute power, there can never be a time in which you did not exist, because otherwise you could not go there, and that would be a limitation on your power. So, He must always have existed. There can also never be a time in which He 'starts' or 'creates' something, because it already exists. He has always known it. And He can’t do squat, because He already has done it, so to speak. Only there cannot be a time in which He ‘did it’. God must be finite to some degree.

If we take your version, then He has complete control over things that He creates, but not complete knowledge of Himself, where He came from etc. But then, He cannot know everything about what He creates, because He doesn't know what He Himself is going to do with it. This makes a lot more sense - it fits with the Bible (what I know of it, anyway) and with most people's idea of God. Nevertheless, He is not all-powerful, does not know where He came from, and does not know whether what He is doing is necessarily 'right' or 'good'. He might need His own God to believe in - ad infinitum. He would just be a big powerful alien looking at us in His own private petri dish.

[QUOTE=rainbow__princess_4]Ummm, Lucifer wasn't an angel... he was an ancient Middle-eastern king who was nicknamed "lucifer" meaning "evil one" because he was corrupt. Then the Christians/Jews come along and say "evil one? Oh! They're talking about Satan!" wrong, Lucifer=King, Satan=evil. See the difference? They have nothing to do with each other.


Actually, Lucifer is Latin for "Day Star." They translated it from the Hebrew word 'helel', which means "bright one." That may have been the name of a Middle Eastern King, but Isaiah 14:12 is talking about the angel whom rebelled against God.

So, god might be finite. We would call him omnipotent if, for all practical purposes, from our point of view, he is. If you controlled 99% of the other humans, you would control humanity. The 1% left would not matter so much. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist, the definitions of god are human ones.

So, god might be finite. We would call him omnipotent if, for all practical purposes, from our point of view, he is. If you controlled 99% of the other humans, you would control humanity. The 1% left would not matter so much. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist, the definitions of god are human ones.

This couldn't be, because all it would take is a movement to usurp Him or someone more powerful to come along to take Him down. This would have happened in all of the years humanity has been around, but I don't see anyone that can verify taking out God. To say God is finite would mean that someone would have had to create Him, because finite beings can't be self-sufficient. Not even a strong, intelligent human can keep himself alive by himself.

If God exists, he must be finite, since infinite things are purely conceptual, there are no infinite things. Even finite things can be very large and powerful. He could be slightly larger than the known universe, but smaller than everything, so nothing from the universe could upset his position. I don't think gods exist now, but they might reside at the end of time. This seems more likely than existing at the beginning. Our visions of god might be reflections from the future.

TimotheusBenj, I've been working on that last point. Through several reincarnations I think I've worked the bugs out of my plan to topple the big guy and effect a "regime change" (love that buzzword). He's been in hiding for about 100,000 years since our most recent development. He's only been talking to people for the last three thousand. We've flushed him out! He's a target now and he knows it!

TimotheusBenj, I've been working on that last point. Through several reincarnations I think I've worked the bugs out of my plan to topple the big guy and effect a "regime change" (love that buzzword). He's been in hiding for about 100,000 years since our most recent development. He's only been talking to people for the last three thousand. We've flushed him out! He's a target now and he knows it!

Actually, the Pentateuch (The books Genesis through Deuteronomy in the Bible) date back to as much as 12,000 years, so He's been talking for more than that due to the fact that oral tradition would have came before that. Anyway, you missed my point. I was saying that to show that God isn't finite. I believe, as it seems to be, that He is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. I stated that on the second page of this thread. It's hard to overthrow someone you can't exactly see. Also, what would you do if you could defeat Him? You would be risking destroying the very foundation of our world. God bless.

If God exists, he must be finite, since infinite things are purely conceptual, there are no infinite things. Even finite things can be very large and powerful. He could be slightly larger than the known universe, but smaller than everything, so nothing from the universe could upset his position. I don't think gods exist now, but they might reside at the end of time. This seems more likely than existing at the beginning. Our visions of god might be reflections from the future.

To whom would infinite be conceptual? To us, yes, but that wouldn't have to be for God. Where would these gods come from in the future? I don't think even modifying the human genome could produce the effect of what we define as God. For, there would always be a way to destroy them. A Creator God would be more fathomable, because we see where this world seems to be held to laws that had to be set up by an Instructor. Especially what C.S. Lewis called the Moral Law, which we all seem to possess. No matter where you go, you will find that several same principles. Such as an abhorrence to murder, rape, and theft. It's the only law that seems to be around that we can either follow or defy. Thus, making the concept of an Instructor and some opposition probable. Few religions that I know of talk of this. Three influential ones are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Judaism seems to be an empty religion in the fact that they can't do their blood sacrifices anymore, which was the basis of atoning sins and keeping them clean to enter heaven. Islam calls for its followers to kill infidels to insure a place in heaven, which makes you wonder why people want to follow it. On the other hand, Christianity calls for its followers in Galatians 5:22-23 to live a life filled with "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance." They don't call for bloodshed nor have a problem with their modes of service. It's illogical that God would send His only Son, but it's the truth. You probably want proof. Well, I would like to see someone produce Jesus' body from somewhere. If the disciples had stole the body, then why weren't the Roman soldiers put to death as Roman law commanded? The fear of insurrection surely would've weighed greatly against Pontius Pilot and he wouldn't have allowed them to be spared. Please, think on these things. I hope that you will look at Christ closely. "The Case for Christ" is a good book written by a former criminal-law Journalist, Lee Strobel. He just gives the facts that he dug up and allows the reader to decide on his/her own without pressuring them. He wrote it to see if there was any credence to his wife's conversion, so he made sure it wasn't biased. I hope you will look at this book. God bless.

Here's a link to a review of "The Case for Christ": Review (http://prayerfoundation.org/books/book_review_case_for_christ.htm)

P.S: Longsuffering means patience.

Yes, but not to be omniscient!I think we've gone over it enough times by now. There are indeed some logical problems with absolute omniscience, although I don't agree that an inability to act is one of them. The question though is not about your working definition of omniscience. For most theists I've discussed this with a God that is omniscient in regards to our ST continuum is sufficient and perfect and absolute omniscience as you have defined it is unnecessary. The question can be rephrased as simply as, "Can God change its mind?" I agree that it leaves some peculiar paradoxes lying about but then I don't find that the concept of God is logically reducible in any case.

God must be within our logic, or saying 'I believe in God' means nothing.This is an issue I've taken up in the past with Tiassa. The point I've come to is that God is simply an expression of the human condition. Like art, it need not conform to logic or reason but is an expression of the ineffable. At some point is simply must be accepted (though not necessarily believed in). Whether we're discussing God or anything else there comes a point in logical reduction where we cross into the absurd and relying purely upon logic will leave you foundering in nihilism.

~Raithere

You've come to the point where the verse in the Bible that says, "stay away from vain babblings," makes perfect sense. It's going to be fruitless to try to explain the extent of God, because where does it go? You ask that and you're hit with a ton of questions, which will only wear you down and frustrate you. Also, Alaric, stating, "I believe in God," can mean that you are trusting Him because you can't explain Him. It's where faith comes into complete context. One person once said, "seeing isn't believing."

Right, TB. So I guess I'll just have to 'have faith' that something whose existence is logically impossible exists. Of course, I have no reason to, it defies all logic and common sense, and its downright immoral, but none of that matters if you have faith, right? :rolleyes:

If you can't describe something, you don't believe in it. You may think you do, but you don't.

If logic and immorality prevents God from existing, howcome you are able to exist? How do you logically deduce that a specific person exists? "I think, therefore Alaric is?"

If you were proven to be a liar, does it logically follow that you were lying about your existence? Like the gullible idiots we are, everybody believed you did. In that vein, are your posts enough reason to accept your existence? Common sense would say yes, but then that's a contradiction, isn't it? And we all know what those mean...

www.godandscience.org (http://www.godandscience.org)

There is too much evidence to be ignored here.

Creation Column: Evolutionary Improbabilities
- by David Skjaerlund

Evolutionists claim that life originated by natural processes, when one organism changed into another solely by chance. They propose that successive species of life arose over eons of time to produce the vast complexity and diversity of life we see in the world today. However, upon closer examination of these "natural processes," one finds the statistical probability of life originating by chance to be incredibly small and unlikely.

The origin of life by natural processes would involve the following steps: 1) Formation of simple building blocks such as proteins and nucleic acids; 2) Arrangement of these molecules into biologically important compounds such as proteins and DNA; 3) Assembly of these proteins into a metabolically active system, and; 4) Origin of the first completely independent, stable and self-replicating cell. The probability of each step occurring by chance has been calculated by many scientists, and their conclusion has been that life could not simply arise by chance.

The Problem with Jelly Beans

Most of the cell's important functions are carried out by compounds called proteins which are a chain of amino acids linked together. There are 20 amino acids which can be arranged in any combination and the average protein consists of over 400 amino acids linked together. The protein's characteristics and function is determined by the number and particular arrangement of amino acids. A protein can be represented by a sentence which derives its meaning from the particular arrangement of letters, or amino acids.

According to evolutionary theories, amino acids were synthesized spontaneously and then linked together to form the first protein from a generic amino acid "soup." In experiments attempting to synthesize amino acids, the products have been a mixture of right-handed and left-handed amino acids. (Amino acids, as well as other organic compounds, can exist in two forms which have the same chemical composition but are three-dimensional mirror images of each other; thus termed right and left-handed amino acids.)

One would think that the formation of amino acids into protein would randomly use both left and right-handed amino acids and result in approximately 50 percent use of each. However, every protein in a living cell is composed entirely of left-handed amino acids, even though the right-handed isomer can react in the same way. Thus, if both right and left-handed amino acids are synthesized in this primitive organic soup, we are faced with the question of how life has used only the left-handed amino acids for proteins.

We can represent this dilemma by picturing a huge container filled with millions of white (left-handed amino acids) and black (right-handed amino acids) jelly beans. What would be the probability of a blind-folded person randomly picking out 410 white jelly beans (representing the average sized protein) and no black jelly beans? The odds that the first 410 jelly beans would be all one color are one in 2 410 or 109 123.

To put the odds in perspective, there are only about 10 18 seconds in 4.5 billion years, the approximate claimed age of the earth, and it has been estimated that there are only 10 30 particles in the universe. Yet the probability of choosing all left-handed amino acids, without even considering their particular order or specific arrangement, is much larger than that!

Monkeys Typing Shakespeare?

Proteins are functional because the amino acids are arranged in a specific sequence, not just a random arrangement of left-handed amino acids. The formation of functional proteins at random could be likened to a monkey trying to type a page of Shakespeare using the 26 letters of the alphabet. Anyone knows that the monkey is not capable of accomplishing the task set before him.

What is the probability of synthesizing a protein with a specific sequence? Let us simplify the situation first. For example, if there are 17 students in a class, how many possible ways exist for them to order themselves in a line? It would take the students a long time to physically try all the possibilities since there are over 355 trillion different ways. If the number of students were increased to 20, equal to the number of amino acids that exist, the number of possible ways would be over 10 18 different ways, the number of seconds in 4.5 billion years!

Remember: this is a simple example of a specific arrangement of 20 amino acids. The probability is even greater when we consider that there are 20 possibilities for each spot. Also, in a specific protein of 100 amino acids, or in the formation of a hemoglobin molecule which has 574 amino acids arranged in a specific sequence, the probability becomes astronomical!

If only one amino acid is changed in the sixth position, the disease sickle cell anemia results. The RNA within the tobacco mosaic virus contains about 6,000 nucleotides. The probability that this molecule resulted by the random chance arrangement of the four nucleotides is 1 out of 4 6000 or 2.3x10 3216 !

A Trillion Years to Solve the Rubik's Cube

Life is not contained within a single protein, however. Several proteins are required for even the basic functions of the simplest living organism. Even the most simple known cell, such as the mycoplasma, may have 750 proteins. The list of proteins essential for survival may be narrowed down to 238 proteins. The probability of forming these 239 proteins from left-handed amino acids has been calculated to be 1 in 10 29,345. Remember, the estimated number of particles in the universe is 10 30. (It seems that the evolutionists certainly believe in miracles ... but not in a Miracle Maker!)

Many times we hear evolutionists using the term "primitive cell," although we have no example of such. One of the simplest living systems, the tiny bacterial cell, is exceedingly complex. Dr. Michael Denton describes the bacterial cell, which weighs less than 10 -12 grams, as: "... in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up of one thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world."1

Our human body has over 200,000 types of proteins in its cells, and the odds of just one of those proteins evolving by chance is vast. Sir Fred Hoyle, still an evolutionist, likens this to a blindfolded subject trying to solve the Rubik's cube. The blindfolded man has no way of knowing whether he is getting closer to the solution or actually farther away. According to Hoyle, if the blindfolded subject were to make one random move every second, it would take him on the average three hundred times the supposed age of the earth, 1.35 trillion years, to solve the cube.2

Out of the 200,000 proteins in our body, roughly 2,000 provided the very essential function of cellular metabolism, similar to that in a bacterial cell. The odds of those essential enzymes arriving by chance is extremely large, almost improbable. As stated by Drs. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, "the trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10 20) 2000 = 10 40,000, which is an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup."3 This is about the same chance as throwing an uninterrupted sequence of 50,000 sixes with a pair of dice.

Hoyle described the thinking of those who leap to these improbable conclusions as a "junkyard mentality." To believe natural processes assembled a living cell is like believing a tornado could pass through a junkyard containing the bits and pieces of a airplane, and leave a Boeing 747 in its wake, fully assembled and ready to fly!

The magic ingredient in the evolutionists' model is time and chance, but it seems to take more faith to believe in chance than it does to have faith in the creative power of God. Nobel prize winner and discoverer of DNA's double helix structure, biochemist Francis Crick, concedes: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have to have been satisfied to get it going."4

Dr. Hubert P. Yockey, former chief of the Reactor Branch at Aberdeen Proving Ground in England, accurately summed up our present scientific situation: "one must conclude that ... a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written."

A Dead Cell Is a Dead Cell

When we gaze into the microscope of life, we observe the precision of an unparalleled system. Yet, even if we took all the proteins essential for a living cell and placed them within a test tube, we would still not succeed in producing life. A dead cell has all the essential components to function but something has offset the precision of its operation. Dead cells in a test tube will always remain dead no matter what is done to them, even though they seem to have the ingredients for life. Life does not simply consist of a mere assemblage of the right compounds or proteins.

When God created life in the beginning, He created life in its entirety - living cells, animals and plants. God imparted His life into all living things and was also the sustainer of what He made. Jesus Christ is often referred to as the source of life (John 1:4, John 14:6) and we know that all things were made through Him (John 1:30). It was through Jesus that God created the world (Hebrews 1:2) and by Him all things exist (Hebrews 2:10). The life of God is the very essence of all living things. Not only was it His infinite wisdom that assembled all the ingredients of life in perfect order, but it was His life that charged those ingredients with life itself.

1 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler, Publishers, Inc., 1985), p. 250.
2 Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1983), p. 12.
3 Fred Hoyle and C, Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space. (London: J.M. Dent and Sons, 1981), p. 24.
4 Francis Crick, Life Itself (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), p. 88.


There is no way life could have been born on earth without God. The beauty of it all is, is that, the more we learn, the more evidence points toward an intelligent creator.

That was a bit unnecessary... Please just provide a link if you're not going to add any comments yourself.

Actually, it was quite necessary, because others have done the same throughout the forum without reprimand. He displayed a valuable asset to this thread, which I, and hopefully, others will appreciate. Thanks JIL51. God bless. ~Timothy~

While surfing the web, I found a site which relayed the mathematical probabliity of all the things that come together to make life on earth possible. Considering all the factors like the size of our sun, the distance from it, the tides, the carefully networked food chain, photosynthesis, the ozone layer, etc. PLUS the incredibly low possibility of the aforementioned post on the construction of ammino acids. This is proof a creating God CAN AND MUST exist:

One in 1e1023

That is 1023 zeroes following a one. This is an ENOURMOUS number.

Yours in Christ,

Kevin

I'm not sure about your reasoning here, Kevin. Life evolved to fit within its environment, and probably shaped it at the same time. The minimum requirements for life to occur are not clear, since we only have one data point to study - Earth. It probably involves the existence of liquid water, and water is everywhere. We don't know that tides or an ozone layer are necessary for life, only that we are adapted to these exact conditions. As to a food chain and photosynthesis; at some point the Earth did not have these things, only a barren ocean.

I suggest that any life intelligent enough to look around will find itself on an improbable planet, because only improbably situated planets produce life.

[QUOTE=TimotheusBenj][QUOTE=rainbow__princess_4]
Actually, Lucifer is Latin for "Day Star." They translated it from the Hebrew word 'helel', which means "bright one." That may have been the name of a Middle Eastern King, but Isaiah 14:12 is talking about the angel whom rebelled against God.
*************
M*W: In Greek, it's 'helios'or the 'sun' i.e. 'son god'. 'God is the sun' etc. The sun heats the Earth and causes growth and evolution. Jesus wasn't the 'son of god,' the 'sun is god.' Lucifer sorta sounds like the 'sun god' or 'sun of god,' the "Day Star." Therefore, Lucifer is God, hence the place of 'helios' is a very hot place with lakes of fire. Come on, you Christians, admit you were misled by Christianity.

A Creator God would be more fathomable, because we see where this world seems to be held to laws that had to be set up by an Instructor.

SG-what laws? Is the world "holding to laws", or did we just apply our own systems of symbolism and relationship to an ever changing situation?

Especially what C.S. Lewis called the Moral Law, which we all seem to possess. No matter where you go, you will find that several same principles. Such as an abhorrence to murder, rape, and theft. It's the only law that seems to be around that we can either follow or defy. Thus, making the concept of an Instructor and some opposition probable.

SG-If moral law were innate, then there would be no question of a choice, you would just do the thing that made the most sense to you at the time. In fact that is what people do anyway. It's good to have a moral code, because society runs more smoothly if we all decide to follow certain rules, but Evil is not an eternal thing, it is a symbolism for an act harmful to society.

Few religions that I know of talk of this. Three influential ones are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

SG-Yes, they are all related. But don't you think you are biased in judging their worth? Weren't you raised by the same standards they teach?

Judaism seems to be an empty religion in the fact that they can't do their blood sacrifices anymore, which was the basis of atoning sins and keeping them clean to enter heaven.

SG-Don't you worship the sacrifice of Jesus? Anyway this is an obvious example of the standards by which you judge. Your premise is that the Jewish the tradition changed until it no longer resembled the christian principle of atoning for sin, so now, to you, it seems empty. So? These type of rituals are symbolic, the real atonement happens within your heart and mind.

Islam calls for its followers to kill infidels to insure a place in heaven, which makes you wonder why people want to follow it. On the other hand, Christianity calls for its followers in Galatians 5:22-23 to live a life filled with "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance." They don't call for bloodshed nor have a problem with their modes of service.

SG-Yet somehow when there's a war, it's "God bless our troops". Both cultures do what is expedient. A fixed ideology written on paper won't change that.


It's illogical that God would send His only Son, but it's the truth.

SG-Jesus never insisted he was God's only son. This is a christian invention.

You probably want proof. Well, I would like to see someone produce Jesus' body from somewhere.

SG-How could you tell a set of bones was jesus?

If the disciples had stole the body, then why weren't the Roman soldiers put to death as Roman law commanded? The fear of insurrection surely would've weighed greatly against Pontius Pilot and he wouldn't have allowed them to be spared.

SG- The world's knowledge about these events is all second-hand and filtered through the editors of early church doctrine. Maybe they were put to death, maybe Pilot stole the body as a trophy.
...............

im talking about a God that created the world, then sat back and watched the show
maybe no future existed before he created the universe, nothing did, time, space, love, creativity.

therefore, shouldnt he be able to do one creative thing, as soon as he does that, the universe pops into existance and he loses his creativity

Any attempt to define God leads to paradoxes such as "If God knows everything can he learn anything new?" We end up with a moron God. In order to believe in God you must not try to define him, to do so automatically degrades him. Thus blind faith works.

i dont about the creation part but your correct get back very interesting topic

While surfing the web, I found a site which relayed the mathematical probabliity of all the things that come together to make life on earth possible. Considering all the factors like the size of our sun, the distance from it, the tides, the carefully networked food chain, photosynthesis, the ozone layer, etc. PLUS the incredibly low possibility of the aforementioned post on the construction of ammino acids. This is proof a creating God CAN AND MUST exist:

One in 1e1023

That is 1023 zeroes following a one. This is an ENOURMOUS number.

Yours in Christ,

Kevin

Such calculations are true bastardizations of statistics. That is simply an invalid, ill-conceived number. The odds of all that are 100%, as they have already happened. We don't have "test universes" in order to truly establish such a probability as is claimed.

It's like the lottery.. If you have enough numbers, and enough time - your line will come up.

"In order to explain all life as we see it today, all we need is one single molecule capable of replication and mutation. Once we have that, Evolution will take over. This can be achieved in a molecule containing sequence of only 32 amino acids. How long will it take to order just 32 molecules out of the Billions of Billions of atoms available over a period of billions of years? Remember that these molecules are attracted to each other and will readily bond together given appropriate conditions."

"The "self-replicating" peptide from the Ghadiri group is a 32 amino acid long enzyme with a sequence of RMKQLEEKVYELLSKVACLEYEVARLKKVGE. It is a peptide ligase that makes a copy of itself from two 16 amino acid long subunits.

It is also of a size and composition that is ideally suited to be formed by abiotic peptide synthesis. But most importantly it Self Replicates.

The formation of this self-replicating peptide is not a huge improbability. When you consider the billions of amino acid molecules all trying to react and bond with each other over a billion years, what are the chances of just 32 of them coming together in the right order?"

Why a creative God cannot exist.

I am not for one minute suggesting that some kind of 'God' cannot exist, merely that God as many religons believe in it/he/she cannot.

Here is the basis of my argument (I'm planning on writing an essay to this effect so please point out any holes).

If 'God' is omnipotent, all knowing, all powerful, everywhere at once, then can he ever have had a creative thought, ie to create the universe and us?
Knowledge of 'everything' (by that I mean everything that has happend and everything that ever will as Christians believe), would mean that God would be aware of every 'thought' that he will ever have and thus not be capable of creativity, original ideas etc. (I have questions as to whether such a being would even be conscious but that is another matter). What I mean is without some type of random unknowable factor God could have no 'insipration' (I'm not sure if that is the right word), and nowhere to channel that infinite power.

So either God does not know 'everything' (and there I think that definition of God as is believed in breaks down) or God is simply an existance which cannot do anything except exist and therefore could not have created us.


Anyway this is the gist of my theory. Comments? Anyone who completely knocks it down has to come up with an alternative topic! :D

Atheistically speaking, god cannot exist. but Biblically speaking God always and eternally exists.

enton: Atheistically speaking, god cannot exist. but Biblically speaking God always and eternally exists.
*************
M*W: There are those in the know, and there are those who believe they know.

M*W: is that quote one of your own, it's brillient, it just about say it all.
well said.

M*W: There are those in the know, and there are those who believe they know.

There are those who know that they know nothing because they know everything (Socrates) The real trick to life is not to be in the know but to be in the mystery. Otherwise you'll never learn anything. If you really knew, you wouldn't need to talk about what you know.

There are people who talk about how good they are, and then there are people who never talk, and everything they do is good.

A creative God exists in hell.

My own query is shouldn't God have created himself if he or she is indeed everything? And thus how?

geeser: M*W: is that quote one of your own, it's brillient, it just about say it all.
well said.
*************
M*W: Thanks, geeser. Yes, those are my words.