God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesn’t Exist.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(Q): "So, I ask you then, what did he do before he created the universe? It must have been pretty boring".

Q's question is one of the most decisive objections that destroyed the theology of the Middle Ages and eventually killed the hypothesis of Divine Creation as a viable scientific theory.

These fatal objections arise as soon as one assumes that the Cosmos has a beginning and at the same time God is eternal.

What was God doing before creating His finite world?

Why was God waiting for an eternity to pass before starting the Creation?

What kind of a deity is that God who spent an infinite period of time, and then He came up with this finite Universe which by all accounts is not very impressive!

This imperfect Creation of His was pointed out long time ago by none other than the pious King of Spain who said that the world would have been perfect, if just God consulted His Majesty prior to Creation!

Was God unable or just lazy?

All these puzzles and riddles and questions are crying out for Diogenes'Dog' and Archie and others to answer and solve and resolve and settle the issue once and for all.

Will they succeed where others failed miserably?

We will see!

HINT: If God is eternal, then the Universe must be eternal as well.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

First off, it's "there", not "thier", in this case.
Secondly, nothing can just "always be there". Something has to cause it to occur. Besides, an entity that always has existed and always will exist is mathematically impossible.
And saying that humans cannot comprehend eternity is just ignorant of human intellect. Just because you are too stupid to comprehend eternity does not mean that other cannot.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well it only took you a few years to respond to this one, but you did now.

So, congratulations Haps, you took the extra step and read from the beginning. Which by the way, isn't often that many people do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think you have a clear idea of what eternity means AAF. Theists propose that God is eternal i.e. exists BEYOND time. At the Big Bang - time started. God wasn't waiting for ages to start the Universe - God is outside, beyond and unlimited by time.

Q's (and your) question is the same as asking "how long was it before time began". It's an oxymoronic question!

If you are asking why the universe isn't "perfect" - I would have to ask perfect for what? Perhaps it is perfect if we could see beyond our limited perspective.

Not very difficult. There are many more taxing theological conundrums than these. A better question on this theme for instance is why God waited 9 billion years before the earth (with the promise of life) was formed.

Alternatively, consider why the being that is you exists, and not someone else? Were you specified in your genes. Would you (AAF) be someone else, (and never known existence) if another sperm had got there first?

Errr... No.

 

Who said anything about time? The question was posed, what did god do before the creation of the universe? Since you appear to possess great knowledge of your god, perhaps you can answer the question?

Please remember, that when YOU refer to god as eternal, YOU are in fact invoking the concept of time as defined by eternal.

You may consider the question oxymoronic, but the answer can't be anything less than paradoxical.

With over 17,000 children dying of starvation every day, it would be perfect if they didn't have to.

And of course, theists fail miserably in answering even those conundrums.

Perhaps AAF WAS that other sperm that got there first. What does that have to do with gods?

 

(Q)]"Perhaps AAF WAS that other sperm that got there first. What does that have to do with gods"?

:bugeye:

I disagree! That was only one half of 'AAF'. The other half was an egg!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Q, let me explain the use of english - BEFORE is a concept of TIME. Before the "creation of the universe" is meaningless because that is when time/space came into existence.

Your question is therefore meaningless. As an explanation of the misunderstanding inherent in the question - several people have said that God is Eternal i.e. outside the dimension of time. If you still have difficulty with this concept, may I suggest you look up "Flatland" in Wikipedia or somewhere.

This at least is a genuine (if old) problem. Why they are suffering, I do not know, nor if it would be a perfect world without suffering. Maybe we had better work out how to do something about it.

...it has to do with the nature of existence.

 

Diogenes' Dog: "Q, let me explain the use of english - BEFORE is a concept of TIME. Before the "creation of the universe" is meaningless because that is when time/space came into existence".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Your answer, (D.D.), is completely unsatisfactory.

And furthermore, if it were correct even slightly, it would blow away or up the 'Eternal God' out of existense as meaningless. That is because, by the very definition, if there is no time, then there is no existense. PERIOD!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

AAF, it may come as a shock to you, but respectable atheist physicists speak of dimensions outside time. I think you need to look up what a "dimension" is (yes - time is one)! Maybe look at the Flatland reference above.

Saying: "...if there is no time, then there is no existense. PERIOD"
is like a dot on a piece of paper saying that nothing can exist off the paper. "...if there is no paper, then there is no existense. PERIOD".

 

Q, you either missed the part about "Why is a temperature of 10^-30 K impossible, Q?" or you can't answer it.

So you read one essay by John Baez and think you understand the secrets of the universe. You say my difference is with Mr. Baez; you only parrot him and pretend you have an argument.

Until you can answer the question I posed, don't waste time pointing other directions. And, don't waste time pretending you have any understanding of the subject.

As to the schools of thought, I use both.

The difference is not dissimilar to the difference between theoretical and experimental physics. Sometimes one must determine a theory to fit the facts; sometimes one must find facts to verify the theory.

We'll further discuss God's boredom when you understand the concept of the Kelvin scale.

Oh, General Relativity does not make any predictions about spontaneous generation of universes following the heat death of the universe. You're misreading Relativity or Baez or both.

John de Lancie would be so disappointed.

 

Not hardly. Divine Creation is not a viable scientific theory because it cannot be tested.

What fatal objection? So far the only argument you've made is "I don't like it!"

That proves you don't know what He was 'doing'; it does not preclude anything.

As mentioned, you don't know what He was doing. Your argument is "God does things I don't understand or would not do; therefore God didn't do it." That's pretty lame.

Not very impressive? Newton, Liebwitz, Einstein, Maxwell, Hubble, Hoyle, Hawking, Aristotle, Plato, Bacon, Shakespeare, Hemmingway, Molaire, O'Neil, Shaw, Wilde and Conan-Doyle couldn't explain it - after making that task their life's work.

What's that? It doesn't impress you? Oh... pardon me while I get the smelling salts.

Tell me AAF, did God consult you? Or is that the problem you have with the universe?

AAF, that's a really stupid question. You don't understand the question, have no clue to the answer, and then you want to denigrate God. That's really stupid, AAF. World class.

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument. Will either DD or me enable you to understand? Probably not. In the words of a fictional assasin, "Even the Master of Sinanju cannot make a silk purse from a pale pig's ear."

God is eternal.
The Universe is finite.
Deal with it.

 

Thank you. Now let me explain the use of synthesis - theists are the ones who claim god is ETERNAL, hence theists are the ones invoking time and space.

I probably don't need to ask you where in the bible is states that god is outside the dimension of time, as I'm sure you'll provide the adequate quote. And I probably also don't need you to explain how eternal, by definition, has anything to do with outside the dimension of time, as you probably have yet an answer in waiting, yes?

We would most likely have to conclude that the theists claim that god is eternal is also meaningless, by definition.

Perhaps before the Big Bang is a meaningless concept for us mere mortals, but I'm sure your omnipotent god would find meaning.

And how is it that this so-called place 'outside the dimensions of time' has meaning to your god, to theists, but no meaning in this discussion? Curious.

Pray to your god, make it happen, what's the problem? Chop-chop!

Of course, WE had better do something about it, your god appears indifferent to such tragedies, yet there is someone else on this forum who is absolutely convinced a prayer to his god mended his fathers back in just one night.

What the hell is your god waiting for anyways?

Shorten that a little, "It has to do with nature."

 

I never said it was impossible, but if you wish to see the derivative yourself, by all means:

http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0008/0008260.pdf

When will you stop using one and start using the other?

One of those methods is called pseudoscience, can you tell which one?

Are you going to treat us to your version of how god entertains himself?

Perhaps you're unable to follow through on a concept so I'll hold your hand while you salivate from your slack jaw. You also may want to put down your bible for just a moment.

The Robertson-Walker metric (based on GR) describes spatial curvatures of the universe. By following through on one of the models, we can predict the heat death of the universe, whereupon reaching certain temperatures (as derived above) will begin to show signs of fluctuations, the same fluctuations thought to produce the Big Bang. Am I moving to fast for you? Can you take it from here?

 

*sound of gavel hitting wooden block*

Lol, the authoritative finality of the theist mind never ceases to amaze.

 

Don't hurt yourself Q!
It won't make it work any better you know...

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Diogenes' Dog: "AAF, it may come as a shock to you, but respectable atheist physicists speak of dimensions outside time. I think you need to look up what a "dimension" is (yes - time is one)! Maybe look at the Flatland reference above".

Well, they are atheists, as you said, and free to think up whatever pleases them. But in any case, theirs is still just speculation. And their extra-dimensions are of the space type, and will never dare to add one more dimension of time without being ridiculed and suspected of being nuts, not now, not tomorrow, and not forever.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Diogenes' Dog: "Saying: "...if there is no time, then there is no existense. PERIOD" is like a dot on a piece of paper saying that nothing can exist off the paper. "...if there is no paper, then there is no existense. PERIOD".

I'm afraid that does not hold water at all.

Why on Earth you dismiss 'BEFORE' and 'AFTER' and 'NOW' and the like in the English language as meaningless, but still give a meaning of fundamental importance to 'EXISTENCE', in the case of no time!

You cannot justify or prove that by merely pointing to some unfounded speculations of atheist physicists who know nothing about theology and its devastating mine fields.

I'm disappointed in you and Archie too! Both of you have failed in resolving the DILEMMA just like those who came before you!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Q, AAF, I'll make you a deal. When you graduate High School and find out enough to discuss things with grown ups, I'll resume.

 

Un-invoking it actually.

Anyway, i love how you all are so authoritative on the subject of eternity, as if it were so easy to understand. You guys are fighting it out to the death with wooden swords.

 

Perhaps one of the most serious challenges to naturalistic evolutionary theory comes from the arena of information theory. Scientists are beginning to see life as an information-based process in which the DNA contained within each cell is based on a genetic language. In turn, this language contains huge amounts of information, more than would be contained in a library of one thousand volumes. This amount of information is not a total for the entire organism-there is this much information in each cell! Therefore, any explanation of life must explain the origin of this information. Dr. John Baumgardner, well-known geophysicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, states,

"Language involves a symbolic code, a vocabulary, and a set of grammatical rules to relay or record thought. Many of us spend most of our waking hours generating, processing, or disseminating linguistic data. Seldom do we reflect on the fact that language structures are clear manifestations of non-material reality."

"This conclusion may be reached by observing the linguistic information itself is independent of its material carrier. The meaning or message does not depend on whether it is represented as sound waves in the air or as ink patterns on paper or as alignment of magnetic domains on a floppy disk or as voltage patterns in a transistor network. The message that a person has won the $100,000,000 lottery is the same whether that person receives the information by someone speaking at his door or by telephone or by mail or on television or over the Internet.

"Indeed Einstein pointed to the nature and origin of symbolic information as one of the profound questions about the world as we know it. He could identify no means by which matter could bestow meaning to symbols. The clear implication is that symbolic information, or language, represents a category of reality distinct from matter and energy."1

In other words, language relies fundamentally upon an abstract association between the symbol (consisting of the arrangement of atoms within the matter) and the object, idea, or sound that is implied. This association, and hence the information, is totally non-physical, as one can demonstrate by changing substrates, without changing the information that is stored there. Information theorist Hubert Yockey also recognizes the non-physical character of messages:

"the meaning, if any, of words, that is, a sequence of letters, is arbitrary. It is determined by the natural language and is not a property of the letters or their arrangement ... For example, "O singe fort!" has no meaning as a sentence in English, although each is an English word, yet in German it means, "O sing on!" and in French it means "O strong monkey". Like all messages, the life message is non-material but has an information content measurable in bits and bytes"

The genetic code is just such a "sequence of letters" which carries inherent meaning and information distinct from the physical properties of its molecules. Dean Overman also recognizes that the genetic code has some non-physical properties:

"The information contained in the genetic code, like all information or messages, is not made of matter ... The meaning is not a property of the arrangement of the symbols or alphabet of the code. The message or meaning in the genetic code is non-material and cannot be reduced to a physical or chemical property."

Overman goes on to point out that "materialism does not explain the meaning in the code". So the genetic code contains information which clearly exists, but is distinct from matter or energy, and defies a materialist explanation. The existence of this non-physical property is a serious stumbling block to the naturalistic assumption that all that exists is matter and energy.

So how does all of this relate to Intelligent Design? The presence of non-material information not only implies a super-physical realm, but also a super-physical Intelligence. Without this super-physical Intelligence, the information in the code would have no meaning, no context, and even no existence. The very existence of the code can only be explained through a pre-existing Intelligence who put it there.

Some might argue that the high level of information in the genetic code could be generated without a guiding Intelligence through chance and physical laws that govern the behavior of matter. However, while laws can create information, they create a recognizeable pattern of low-level information not found in the molecules of biology:

"A law produces regular, predictable patterns ... Biologists originally hoped to find a general law of assembly for proteins. And how did they expect to discern the effects of a law? They looked for regularities, patterns. It was when geneticists failed to find an overall pattern that they realized that the were dealing with something not produced by natural law.

The same reasoning applies to DNA. If we were to find regular, repeating patterns, that would constitute evidence of an underlying law. But a repeating pattern encodes little information. Computer buffs sometimes like to create wrapping paper by commanding the computer to print "Happy Birthday!" again and again until the page is filled. The result is a repeating pattern that conveys very little information. The entire page conveys no more information than the first two words.

If the origin of the DNA sequence were a material force, such as chemical bonding forces, then we would get something analagous to computer-generated wrapping paper."

Origin of life theories must consider the origin of this abstract, non-material information. In every human experience, information always arises from a mind or intelligence. Information does not just "happen" by chance, random processes-and it could not conceivably arise from purely random physical interactions. For these interactions have no means of forming the abstract connections between a symbol (such as the letter "a") and its meaning (the sound we make whenever we read aloud the letter "a"). The genetic code is a prime example of this sort of arrangement, since a certain sequence of genetic letters (consisting of the chemical letters Adenine, Thymine, Guanine, and Cytosine) correspond with a specific protein, or cellular machine. Hence, each sequence of genetic letters is a genetic "word" that corresponds directly to its protein, or the meaning of that word. This correspondence is exactly analogous to the correspondence found in language structures; indeed, even the term "translation" is used to describe the conversion of DNA information into protein.

Because the symbol/meaning association at the heart of language is purely non-physical, there is no way that a purely physical interaction can create it. Information and language always arise from a mind that is not locked into the physical realm, and is able to step outside physical constraints into the world of ideas to form the abstract associations needed for a language structure to exist. Baumgardner goes on to note,

"The implications are immediate for the issue of evolution. The evolutionary assumption that the exceedingly complex linguistic structures which comprise the construction blueprints and operating manuals for all the complicated chemical nanomachinery and sophisticated feedback control mechanisms in even the simplest living organism simply must have a materialistic explanation is fundamentally wrong. But how then does one account for symbolic language as the crucial ingredient from which all living organisms develop and function and manifest such amazing capabilities? The answer should be obvious-an intelligent Creator is unmistakably required."

Clearly, if our paradigm for investigation excludes the existence of this Creator from the start, it is going to be insufficient to explain the nature of reality. And this is the case with naturalism, the current scientific paradigm.

 

Blimey Gordon, did you write that all yourself!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Most scientists are not quite ready to give up on the finding a naturalistic origin for DNA and the ATGC code. Invoking God to solve difficult problems in science has been proved wrong before. I believe that some sort of autocatalysis combined with competitive selection is a better avenue to investigate than invoking an "intelligent designer".

Fair cop CG.

In our defense, Augustine back in the 5th centuary considered much of this stuff (on eternity) before we got to it - it's not totally original.