Debate: How God Can Create Something From Nothing - (A Response To GreyLorn)

[Nan_S]

The first of these laws says, among other things, that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It offers no qualifications, such as, “…except by God.” This law contradicts the commonly held religious belief that God created everything, including energy.

The attributes of the Creator were assigned to Him by highly ignorant men. Might not the laws of physics point us in a different direction?

Suppose that all of us were to wake up one morning with our beliefs eradicated, but our knowledge intact? I propose that we would soon find the need to believe in a Creator, or Extremely Intelligent Engineer, as cause of this universe. Would we not then think about the properties and characteristics of this Creator in terms of knowledge (physics) and come to a different conclusion than those dictated by traditional beliefs?

As a sideline interjector here, I would offer this thought:

For God to be God, He is by necessity greater than everything else and neither restricted by nor dependent upon anything else. That God created everything out of nothing is still affirmed as the absolute teaching of the church today. And the church leaders who still affirm this teaching today include many men and women from all over the world with advanced degrees who have just as much cutting-edge modern scientific knowledge and experience as anyone else in our time.

Yes, as far as we know, matter and energy can not be created nor destroyed – by anyone or anything WITHIN the universe. But God is not within the universe, nor is He bound by it. If He were, he would not be the omnipotent, almighty One God, greater than everything.

I would also remind you that during Isaac Newton’s time we humans were so proud of ourselves because we thought we had the laws of physics all worked out. 200 years later we found out just how wrong we were.

There is one answer that makes sense, and reconciles God with the laws of physics (as we know them): When God created the universe, He also established the laws of physics which he used to bind the universe together and makes it operate. When God had not yet created the universe, there was no need for the laws of physics to exist either.

 

[greylorn]

As a sideline interjector here, I would offer this thought:

For God to be God, He is by necessity greater than everything else and neither restricted by nor dependent upon anything else. That God created everything out of nothing is still affirmed as the absolute teaching of the church today. And the church leaders who still affirm this teaching today include many men and women from all over the world with advanced degrees who have just as much cutting-edge modern scientific knowledge and experience as anyone else in our time.

Yes, as far as we know, matter and energy can not be created nor destroyed – by anyone or anything WITHIN the universe. But God is not within the universe, nor is He bound by it. If He were, he would not be the omnipotent, almighty One God, greater than everything.

I would also remind you that during Isaac Newton’s time we humans were so proud of ourselves because we thought we had the laws of physics all worked out. 200 years later we found out just how wrong we were.

There is one answer that makes sense, and reconciles God with the laws of physics (as we know them): When God created the universe, He also established the laws of physics which he used to bind the universe together and makes it operate. When God had not yet created the universe, there was no need for the laws of physics to exist either.

Thank you for your reply, but I did not find it thoughtful. My request was to awaken one morning with your knowledge intact but your beliefs eradicated, and you did the exact opposite.

My ideas are not intended for you or for those with a similar mindset. They are for those who want to believe in a Creator and the potential continuance of their conscious mind after death of the body, but who have learned some basic physics and engineering principles which seem to conflict with their beliefs, and are therefore seriously considering atheism. I can offer interesting alternatives to those individuals, but have nothing to offer you.

Your beliefs must work for you, so you should keep them. I really wish I could have retained my Catholic beliefs, because they were so comforting, so I recommend that you treasure your Catholicism. But defending your beliefs in the context of physics and other ideas which you do not understand only discredits them. Making up your own rules for who is and is not within this universe does poor justice to your beliefs. .

I don’t know where you learned Catholicism, but I was taught clearly and repetitively, even by well educated Norbertine teacher/priests, that God is everywhere. I assumed that to mean, “within this universe,” but I am a simple-minded person and may have dozed off during the explanations of God’s relationship to hyperspace.

So tell us about your, “But God is not within the universe…” statement? Where did it originate? Have you been granted a secret audience with the Pope? Did you make it up? Or did you simply crib that opinion from nitwit “modern” philosophers like Nick Bostrom and include it here as a test to see if I’d taken my stupid-pill this morning?

 

[greylorn]

I apologize for not telling you about this thread, i wrongly assumed that you wouldn’t mind. Of course, i shouldn’t have used your name in particular if i was not going to get you involved.

Apologies are not necessary, so I’ll not accept any. Thanks anyway.

I don’t mind.

I put my ideas out on CAF and elsewhere to be used, and am delighted that you chose to use them, even if not quite in the way I intended. That has not happened since Doug Hofstadter used some of my published material in “The Mind’s I,” which except for my stuff, was not that great a book. He didn’t ask my permission either.

It would not have been appropriate to use my stuff as a talking point without attribution. Had you done something like that, you’d have compromised your integrity. You did almost exactly right/ But I have a personal history of not being invited to parties which I would have loved to attend. (Why wouldn’t people invite such a charming, thoughtful person to parties? Go figure.)

So here I am, self-invited. Whatever works.

Hey, I’m having a cynical night for a change. I neglected to mention my appreciation. You picked up on a relevant question and are evidently seeking logical answers. Therefore I’ll try to stay in the background on this thread, maybe trying to keep on the track you set.

Thanks!

 

[HelenaMT]

It is true that energy is the fundamental substrate of physical reality; but it is not reality by nature. Energy is by nature fundamentally dynamic; as in to say, it is energy because it is changing. Change is something intrinsic to it, and it doesn’t make logical sense to speak of energy outside of change. It becomes a meaningless term for which we have absolutely no evidence of. This means that anything which is not changing in some way cannot be described of in terms of energy. If energy is the fundamental nature of physics, then that which precedes or transcends change, is not energy and thus is not physical. Therefore energy cannot be the absolute being, since the absolute being, by the fact of it being absolute, transcends all potentiality and time/change, and therefore absolute reality is the existential ground that supports the existence of that which changes. Reality is therefore the cause of energy; not the other way round. A being that has the power to create natures is not subject to the principles of physical reality, since the principles of physical reality are not absolute beings; they are the stuff of creative potentiality.

In order to buy into your way of looking at reality, you have to assume the correctness of certain philosophical principles(such as : A being that has the power to create natures is not subject to the principles of physical reality, since the principles of physical reality are not absolute beings; they are the stuff of creative potentiality)that cannot be explained in any concrete way. They are concepts that don’t really clarify anything actual. Just in that one sentence above: what are natures, in any real sense? Why are principles of physical reality not “absolute beings”? What are “absolute beings” in the context of real life? How do those terms relate to our understanding of reality?

Also, as has been mentioned in other posts and threads, the definition of physical is not always understood the same way. If God interacts with physical things He is physical, or at least has a physical aspect.

Why does ultimate reality have to be entirely supernatural (meaning something completely beyond observation, measurement)? Why isn’t it perhaps just a level of reality we have not discovered yet?

I am very interested in understanding how something came from nothing but from your OP it seems like you are writing more for a small circle of philosophers who may have a better understanding at what you were trying to get at than I did. Perhaps that was your intention, since there are quite a few on this forum.

To sum up, God creates “ex nihilo” by sharing Gods nature or by extending Gods actuality to that which is contained within the divine imagination. Also, I believe that the natural evolution of physical reality would be more compatible with Gods creative and eternal act, since I believe that God, according to his fundamental nature, shares his creative expression.

This just seems to mean God creates whatever he wants to. Which is fine, but doesn’t really add anything concrete to how He created something from nothing. Your position is all based on justifying the assumptions made by philosophers, not from anything that correlates to any actual experience or observation. Which is also fine, but will probably not do anything to challenge Greylorn’s position, which seemed to be the purpose of this thread.

He might do this be setting up an actual “seed” containing all actual possibilities, which unravels or becomes manifest through a substrate of energy on the quantum level, which moves according to fundamental principles (the laws of quantum physics), rather than by classical causality. This is certainly what appears to be the picture currently being painted by science today.

What do you think this “seed” could be made of, or look like? It sounds like you mean a physical substance of some sort, but how could a physical substance contain all actual possibilities? Something like DNA? It would be helpful if you could clarify that concept. It’s interesting.

 

[Nan_S]

Thank you for your reply, but I did not find it thoughtful. My request was to awaken one morning with your knowledge intact but your beliefs eradicated, and you did the exact opposite.

My ideas are not intended for you or for those with a similar mindset. They are for those who want to believe in a Creator and the potential continuance of their conscious mind after death of the body, but who have learned some basic physics and engineering principles which seem to conflict with their beliefs, and are therefore seriously considering atheism. I can offer interesting alternatives to those individuals, but have nothing to offer you.

Your beliefs must work for you, so you should keep them. I really wish I could have retained my Catholic beliefs, because they were so comforting, so I recommend that you treasure your Catholicism. But defending your beliefs in the context of physics and other ideas which you do not understand only discredits them. Making up your own rules for who is and is not within this universe does poor justice to your beliefs. .

I don’t know where you learned Catholicism, but I was taught clearly and repetitively, even by well educated Norbertine teacher/priests, that God is everywhere. I assumed that to mean, “within this universe,” but I am a simple-minded person and may have dozed off during the explanations of God’s relationship to hyperspace.

So tell us about your, “But God is not within the universe…” statement? Where did it originate? Have you been granted a secret audience with the Pope? Did you make it up? Or did you simply crib that opinion from nitwit “modern” philosophers like Nick Bostrom and include it here as a test to see if I’d taken my stupid-pill this morning?

My, my. Aren’t we feeling irritable and presumptious?

The first problem here is thinking that the universe as we know it must be all that there is. If we can’t experience it or measure it, it must not exist? The second problem is thinking that the rules of physics must define everything. If our fallible minds can’t state and prove a rule, it must not be true? The greatest exhibition of man’s stupidity is to presume it is possible for men to come up with a theory which explains everything.

Much as we want to do so, it’s not possible for humans to understand nor define everything. Every time we find another answer, we also find new previously unconceived wonders to ponder. I’m not suggesting we should stop trying to learn, just that a little humility is in order here.

Please permit me to explain what I meant when I said “God is not within the universe.” I was not saying that God is absent from the universe. I was merely saying that God is not bottled up within the universe like a genie gets bottled up in a magic lamp. God is greater than everything means that God is greater than the universe. The universe is a created thing which is of necessity something less than God. All of God is not contained merely within the universe. There is a difference.

Of course, God does permeate the universe, and there is no part of the universe where God is not, including the places inhabited by the men who have rejected God. If hyperspace existed it would be another aspect of the universe, and God would be there also. The important point, however, is that God cannot be found JUST in the universe. God is much greater than His creation, and His creation does not – can not – limit Him.

You may wish to consider containing yourself when it comes to casually tossing around insults. They do nothing to bolster your position. They merely make you look foolish and ignorant, and unable to format pursuasive arguments.

 

[AlbertBall]

The first problem here is thinking that the universe as we know it must be all that there is. If we can’t experience it or measure it, it must not exist?

I would not say if we cant experience it or measure it, it** must not exist**. What i would ask is… If we can’t experience it or measure it, how do we verify it does exist?

 

[Nan_S]

I would not say if we cant experience it or measure it, it** must not exist**. What i would ask is… If we can’t experience it or measure it, how do we verify it does exist?

There’s the rub. Unfortunately, there is no DNA test or scientific measurement which definitively proves beyond all doubt that God exists. If that were so, this discussion wouldn’t be necessary.

I would say that our inability to measure something or touch it with our five senses does not preclude its existence. History is rife with such mistakes. When I look back on our human history and all the times we thought we knew the extent of the whole world, the limits of existence, the smallest particle, the fastest speed, or other limits, those who made such statements were proven wrong every time.

But do we need that absolute scientific proof before deciding to accept the teachings handed down to us on how to live?

So even though the historical records are not the same thing as scientific measurement proofs for God, we still need acknowledge that the significance of believing or disbelieving in the existence of God is a lot more critical than, say, believing or disbelieving in Bigfoot. Therefore, it is imperative that we leave room for the possibility God exists and not be so presumptious as to exclude the possibility.

For me, the next step was Pascal’s wager. If you bet your soul on the side that says “believe God exists” and in the end you are wrong, have you really lost anything? But if you bet your soul on the side that says “deny God” and in the end you are wrong, was what you gained really worth the price?

 

[AlbertBall]

There’s the rub. Unfortunately, there is no DNA test or scientific measurement which definitively proves beyond all doubt that God exists. If that were so, this discussion wouldn’t be necessary.

**I would say that our inability to measure something or touch it with our five senses does not preclude its existence. ** History is rife with such mistakes. When I look back on our human history and all the times we thought we knew the extent of the whole world, the limits of existence, the smallest particle, the fastest speed, or other limits, those who made such statements were proven wrong every time.

I agree, however while these things did exist before we knew about them, we did not know about them until we knew about them. (lol not very clear i know) What I’m getting at is, before we knew about these things it would be pointless to speculate about them.

But do we need that absolute scientific proof before deciding to accept the teachings handed down to us on how to live?

So even though the historical records are not the same thing as scientific measurement proofs for God, we still need acknowledge that the significance of believing or disbelieving in the existence of God is a lot more critical than, say, believing or disbelieving in Bigfoot. Therefore, it is imperative that we leave room for the possibility God exists and not be so presumptuous as to exclude the possibility.

I agree, however i cannot hold a positive believe in something until it has been verified to a degree of certainty.

For me, the next step was Pascal’s wager. If you bet your soul on the side that says “believe God exists” and in the end you are wrong, have you really lost anything? But if you bet your soul on the side that says “deny God” and in the end you are wrong, was what you gained really worth the price?

Pascals wager is problematic, firstly it required that there is only two positions. Believe and non believe, where as there are multiple beliefs that all claim to be the only way to salvation (note not all beliefs claim this, but many do). Secondly i would be ‘faking’ belief, wouldn’t any super natural being would surely know this?

 

[greylorn]

Reply 1 of 2 to post #45.

My, my. Aren’t we feeling irritable and presumptious?

Yes. If you weighed 830 pounds, had no legs, and had just visited a cosmetic surgeon who told you that the ugly wart you wanted him to remove from your face is actually your nose, you might feel a tad cranky yourself. Admittedly that does not justify my presumptuousness. Does knowing how to spell it count for anything?

The first problem here is thinking that the universe as we know it must be all that there is. If we can’t experience it or measure it, it must not exist? The second problem is thinking that the rules of physics must define everything. If our fallible minds can’t state and prove a rule, it must not be true? The greatest exhibition of man’s stupidity is to presume it is possible for men to come up with a theory which explains everything.

No one with even rudimentary physics knowledge and a 3-digit I.Q. would think that the universe we know is all there is. Certainly no one who has had irrefutable psychic experiences and also peered through a telescope would be that obtuse. No one who has actually made a serious study of physics and taken, say, a quantum mechanics, class would say that the rules of physics define everything. There’s a quote I remember coming across just recently, which began, “The greatest exhibition of man’s stupidity is to presume…”

It is possible for men to come up with a theory which explains everything, at least those things which can be explained. It will take some time, and some imaginative thinking. It will also take an entirely different approach than that taken by modern physics and philosophy. Specifically, in addition to explaining the mechanics of the universe, it must also explain the human soul, psychic phenomena, survival of post-death consciousness, and God.

Now would that be an interesting theory of everything, or what?

Instead of sitting on the turnip truck and declaring that this cannot be done, how about recognizing that since this particular turnip truck is on an uphill grade, you might want to jump off and lend a hand pushing?

 

[greylorn]

Reply 2 of 2 to Post #45

Please permit me to explain what I meant when I said “God is not within the universe.” I was not saying that God is absent from the universe. I was merely saying that God is not bottled up within the universe like a genie gets bottled up in a magic lamp. God is greater than everything means that God is greater than the universe. The universe is a created thing which is of necessity something less than God. All of God is not contained merely within the universe. There is a difference.

Your original statement (paragraph 2, Post #42) seemed pretty clear, and this revised version bears no resemblance to the original. Wouldn’t it have been simpler to admit that you were wrong?

Of course, God does permeate the universe, and there is no part of the universe where God is not, including the places inhabited by the men who have rejected God. If hyperspace existed it would be another aspect of the universe, and God would be there also. The important point, however, is that God cannot be found JUST in the universe. God is much greater than His creation, and His creation does not – can not – limit Him.

You have lots of ideas about the nature and properties of God which are not necessarily true. There is no logical reason why God cannot create a universe greater than Himself. If the Laws of Thermodynamics hold generally, God did not create the stuff from which He made the universe.

Consider, for example, that men can create and control things which are greater than themselves in many respects, such as moon rockets and stealth bombers, which men cannot actually fly. .

You may wish to consider containing yourself when it comes to casually tossing around insults. They do nothing to bolster your position. They merely make you look foolish and ignorant, and unable to format pursuasive arguments.

Perhaps you should be more judicious about when to feel insulted. The fact that I addressed your comments, twice now, is indicative of my respect for you as a worthy conversational antagonist. By definition, that means I will disagree with you. So how about getting used to it and not taking it personally? Most everyone on CAF disagrees with me, often rudely. I’m here to kick around ideas and try out arguments, not to be coddled.

Perhaps you felt insulted by my turnip truck analogy in the previous post. If so, kindly note that, by implication, I’m already behind it pushing.

Now, with luck, you and I can dispense with the pleasantries and get down to serious arguments.

 

[greylorn]

I would say that our inability to measure something or touch it with our five senses does not preclude its existence. History is rife with such mistakes. When I look back on our human history and all the times we thought we knew the extent of the whole world, the limits of existence, the smallest particle, the fastest speed, or other limits, those who made such statements were proven wrong every time.

A physicist would agree with your comment about measuring and touching, knowing that all measurements are inaccurate, and that we do not actually touch matter (the electric field around it precludes that) or see light (photons trigger short-term chemical changes, which send electrochemical pulses to our brains, which magically interpret the result as images).All our observations about the physical universe are inferential— as is belief in God.

That we’ve historically gotten it wrong about the nature of the universe does not preclude us from eventually getting it right.

I find it interesting that you are quick to point out the historic errors in physics. How quick are you when it comes to pointing out the errors in Biblical interpretation? Or do you still believe in literal genesis and a universe created in 4004 BC?

Are you truly comfortable with an absolute dogmatic acceptance of a God-concept invented in the dark ages by guys who knew less physics than a cat, and who believed that the earth was flat?

But do we need that absolute scientific proof before deciding to accept the teachings handed down to us on how to live?

I think not. For example, I think that the ten commandments are a good set of principles, and Jesus Christ had some remarkable insights into human behavior and interpersonal relationships. However I do not believe that God carved out the commandments for Moses on some mountain, or that Jesus was God.

So even though the historical records are not the same thing as scientific measurement proofs for God, we still need acknowledge that the significance of believing or disbelieving in the existence of God is a lot more critical than, say, believing or disbelieving in Bigfoot. Therefore, it is imperative that we leave room for the possibility God exists and not be so presumptious as to exclude the possibility.

I am certain that one does not need to believe in God (meaning, in what men have made up about him) in order to behave suitably. For example, of two mentors, the most fair, honorable, and trustworthy men I’ve known, one was an atheist EE/astronomer, the other a Catholic priest. As a good negative example, consider your complaints about my temperament— I believe in God and can still be ornery.

For me, the next step was Pascal’s wager. If you bet your soul on the side that says “believe God exists” and in the end you are wrong, have you really lost anything? But if you bet your soul on the side that says “deny God” and in the end you are wrong, was what you gained really worth the price?

You are bleeding in front of a shark. Months ago I started a thread on Pascal’s Wager, short-lived for lack of interest, or perhaps closed.

Pascal’s wager includes one implicit assumption, namely that what God wants man to do is to follow the commandments and church rules, go to mass on Sunday, tithe, and believe in His existence— i.e. trust and follow the Church. But what if this implicit assumption is incorrect? What if God, like a tough U.S. Marine recruiter, is looking for a few good men?

Consider this scenario. God set things up so that our brains would believe any schlock that they were programmed with. He also programmed us with a modicum of curiosity, so that we could wonder about how we and the world came to be. So, men wondered and invented a variety of primitive God-concepts. From tribes who worshiped monkeys, God would have sought those who at least had the wit to refuse worship. Back in the days when men worshiped Zeus, Apollo, and the other Greco-Roman gods, the real God would have been looking for men who refused to worship those soap-opera refugees.

Today, he will be sorting people raised Hindus who do not believe in Shiva, Muslims who don’t believe that suicide-murders are a path to heaven, and so forth.

Among those raised in a Christian world, God may be looking for someone with the courage to become an atheist on the grounds that the traditional God concept is illogical. (I hope not, since I find atheism to be not only less logical than the notion of an omniscient, omnipotent God, but a dreadful affront to common sense.)

Albert Ball got a near miss to this notion with his comments about binary choices. My approach is different. I’m proposing, in effect, that if we have gotten our God concept just as wrong as the ancient Greeks, we do not have the slightest clue as to why He created us. Lacking that knowledge, everything we think about God is just stuff that other humans invented.

If God gave me a mind capable of seriously studying these issues, and of learning a modicum of physics and a bit of critical thinking, I must put my faith in that mind, the only thing in the universe the existence of which I am certain.

 

[AlbertBall]

(I hope not, since I find atheism to be not only less logical than the notion of an omniscient, omnipotent God, but a dreadful affront to common sense.)

Well now theres something i can’t let pass.

Just so we are on the same wavelength.

I define an atheist as anyone that does not hold a theistic believe. In other words, if asked if you believe in god and you say anything other than yes, including i don’t know, you are an atheist.

I don’t not like to class myself as an atheist, for it is an utterly meaningless word. It has no descriptive value. It is like literally like calling someone a non-football fan.

I fail to see why it is dreadful affront to common sense to lack a theistic belief, but hey I’m all ears…

 

[greylorn]

Well now theres something i can’t let pass.

Just so we are on the same wavelength.

I define an atheist as anyone that does not hold a theistic believe. In other words, if asked if you believe in god and you say anything other than yes, including i don’t know, you are an atheist.

I don’t not like to class myself as an atheist, for it is an utterly meaningless word. It has no descriptive value. It is like literally like calling someone a non-football fan.

I fail to see why it is dreadful affront to common sense to lack a theistic belief, but hey I’m all ears…

It is not clear that you are asking a question here, and I’d be more engaged if I was addressing someone who sported at least one good eye and an open mind. Lots of ears doesn’t do much for me. Moreover, I’m writing this, not speaking it.

I know of many individuals who refer to themselves as atheists. For them the meaning is clear. If not so to you, perhaps you might invent another term to describe yourself.

I believe that we live in a created universe, because the evidence of brilliant engineering and beautiful design is obvious to me. But then, I’ve studied some sciences which further my sense of appreciation. I’ve also performed my own rough calculations on the highest possible (i.e. most favorable) odds against one million insect species coming into existence according to Darwinian principles. The odds are 1 in 10 to the power of 6,000,000. (That is not the same as 1 in 6,000,000, which is just a number for poor lottery odds.) Those who do not live in comfortably padded public housing translate this tiny probability into, “Can’t happen.”

Accepting the idea that we live in a created universe does require the existence of a creator, or of creators. My God-concept is inappropriate for description on the CAF because it requires some background (physics) which most people do not have, which is why I’m writing a book describing it.

It should be enough to note that while my God’s description does not match that of Christianity or any other religion, it is precisely and logically expressible in terms of properties and actions. This qualifies me as a theist.

Your analogy

I don’t not like to class myself as an atheist, for it is an utterly meaningless word. It has no descriptive value. It is like literally like calling someone a non-football fan,

is rather poor, IMO.

Atheists are those who do not believe in a created universe. That is pretty clear to me. If not clear to you, this conversation ends here on the grounds that do not waste overmuch time conversing with individuals who have trouble making distinctions. (That is not an insult to you; It is an invitation.)

Here is an exercise for the beginning student: Get a nice T-shirt made up (or sweatshirt in wintertime) which says, FOOTBALL SUCKS, then put it on and try to get a job in Green Bay. While standing in the welfare line, write a paper revisiting your opinion that calling someone a non-football fan has no descriptive value.

 

[AlbertBall]

It is not clear that you are asking a question here, and I’d be more engaged if I was addressing someone who sported at least one good eye and an open mind. Lots of ears doesn’t do much for me. Moreover, I’m writing this, not speaking it.

I know of many individuals who refer to themselves as atheists. For them the meaning is clear. If not so to you, perhaps you might invent another term to describe yourself.

I believe that we live in a created universe, because the evidence of brilliant engineering and beautiful design is obvious to me. But then, I’ve studied some sciences which further my sense of appreciation. I’ve also performed my own rough calculations on the highest possible (i.e. most favorable) odds against one million insect species coming into existence according to Darwinian principles. The odds are 1 in 10 to the power of 6,000,000. (That is not the same as 1 in 6,000,000, which is just a number for poor lottery odds.) Those who do not live in comfortably padded public housing translate this tiny probability into, “Can’t happen.”

Accepting the idea that we live in a created universe does require the existence of a creator, or of creators. My God-concept is inappropriate for description on the CAF because it requires some background (physics) which most people do not have, which is why I’m writing a book describing it.

It should be enough to note that while my God’s description does not match that of Christianity or any other religion, it is precisely and logically expressible in terms of properties and actions. This qualifies me as a theist.

Your analogy is rather poor, IMO.

Atheists are those who do not believe in a created universe. That is pretty clear to me. If not clear to you, this conversation ends here on the grounds that do not waste overmuch time conversing with individuals who have trouble making distinctions. (That is not an insult to you; It is an invitation.)

Here is an exercise for the beginning student: Get a nice T-shirt made up (or sweatshirt in wintertime) which says, FOOTBALL SUCKS, then put it on and try to get a job in Green Bay. While standing in the welfare line, write a paper revisiting your opinion that calling someone a non-football fan has no descriptive value.

Don’t worry my friend i have a full understanding of the method, and am educated beyond degree level in science. So you can just present “the evidence of brilliant engineering and beautiful design”. Then we can go from there.

Also if you are a scientist would should understand why i defined my position, if you do not understand then you are clearly not a scientist.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

You and I are finite and exceptionally small.

God is INFINITE.

So, how can such a puny organism such as you or I attain ANY appreciation at all of the INFINITE nature of God?

It would be like an earthworm in a garden wriggling across the ground trying to contemplate a human being digging around in the flower bed or an elephant taking a dump.

Except that you and I, in comparison, are much smaller and simpler than an earthworm.

More like a single celled amoeba.

OR, maybe you and I are the each a dot of printing ink in the daily newspaper. And there are billions of dots. Some are flamboyant, in the Sunday color section. Some are entertaining, like in the comics. Some are in the sports page or in the business section.

God, the Infinite, is the editor. And writer. And publisher. And paper mill. And ink factory. And printing press. And delivery truck fleet. And retail store. And, alas, the recycling center.

So, fellow dot, how would you explain the writing function?

Once you get an appreciation of the relative scale of us versus God, then we can proceed to the next step. Actually, I’m not sure even, how to complete the first step.

But being extremely finite and God being INFINITE, I would have NO IDEA what the next step might be.

God is not like us, because He is THE CREATOR and you and I are merely His creations. We have been made; He is THE MAKER.

Because He is the Creator/Maker, we are somewhat like Him.

You and I started out as a one celled being [or two celled]. So, we are a little like our parents.

Someday, maybe, He will let you in on His secrets. He COULD do that … impart just a fragment of an insight. Like, how does human logic differ from Divine Infinite Logic? What happened before the Big Bang? Assuming the Big Bang, itself, isn’t merely a fallacy of human physics, being instead just an illusion which is itself merely another creation. He could make all our instruments read as if there WAS really a Big Bang, without there actually having been an actual Big Bang.

There was a cartoon about the planet Mars. The little rover from Earth is moving so slowly and the television camera is taking pictures. However, two Martians are holding up a canvas on which is painted a bleak landscape. All the camera shows is the image of a bleak landscape. Behind the Martians is a thriving metropolis looking a little like Las Vegas on the 4th of July. But the only image we get is of a plain landscape.

But God COULD give us an insight …

Like He did with St. Thomas Aquinas, who immediately became distressed and tried to burn his writings because “they are like straw”.

 

[Nan_S]

Your original statement (paragraph 2, Post #42) seemed pretty clear, and this revised version bears no resemblance to the original. Wouldn’t it have been simpler to admit that you were wrong?

Simpler, yes, but I’m going to dodge this one by saying there was just a failure to communicate. What I was thinking when I wrote that line, and what you were thinking when you read it, were two different things. Hopefully we got over that through your query and my clarification. I will admit to making a spelling error, though.

You have lots of ideas about the nature and properties of God which are not necessarily true. There is no logical reason why God cannot create a universe greater than Himself. If the Laws of Thermodynamics hold generally, God did not create the stuff from which He made the universe.

It’s true that my little brain’s post-graduate education was in a field other than physics. But that doesn’t mean it couldn’t have gone that way if my life circumstances had been different, nor does it mean I’m incapable of understanding physics.

One of the characteristics of God is that He is greater than everything. That’s a theological definition and an absolute statement, obviously; there’s no getting around that. It seems science hates absolute statements, but infinite regression is an unsatisfactory answer to the old question, “Where did it all come from in the first place?”

The follow-on to that absolute is that if God is greater than everything, it is nonsensical to hypothesize that God could make something greater than Himself. I do not follow your logical reasoning on this. What you’re suggesting is akin to the old crazy-maker question: “If God can do anything, can He make a rock that is too heavy for Him to lift?”

As to your statement regarding the Laws of Thermodynamics implying that God did not create the matter He used to form the universe, my counter to that is state that when God created the universe He also created both the Laws of Thermodynamics and the matter needed to create the universe.

Theologically, to state that God did not create the stuff from which the universe was made, that He only used pre-existent matter to create the universe, we would be elevating matter (however inert) to a position equal or superior to God. We would be stating that there is something which God is not greater than; we would in fact be elevating matter to a god-status in its own right.

Consider, for example, that men can create and control things which are greater than themselves in many respects, such as moon rockets and stealth bombers, which men cannot actually fly.

Are you saying men can’t fly using the skin they are born in, or men can’t pilot moon rockets and stealth bombers? Because if it’s the latter, I’ll disagree. I’ve logged more than enough flying hours over a couple of decades to feel qualified making that statement.

Moving on, what men have done in creating moon rockets and stealth bombers is simply find new ways to organize pre-existent matter into useful objects. Nothing extraordinary in that. What makes God extraordinary (theology again) is that God did not need nor use pre-existent matter.

There’s an old joke told where man claims he is a good a creator as God and challenges God to a contest making stuff out of dirt. God accepts the challenge, and when the man reaches down to grab his first handful God stops him by saying “Whoa! First make your own dirt!”

Perhaps you felt insulted by my turnip truck analogy in the previous post. If so, kindly note that, by implication, I’m already behind it pushing.

Now, with luck, you and I can dispense with the pleasantries and get down to serious arguments.

I think I’m going to enjoy this. You push, I’ll turn the wheel, and together we’ll get the truck back on the road.

 

[HelenaMT]

I define an atheist as anyone that does not hold a theistic believe. In other words, if asked if you believe in god and you say anything other than yes, including i don’t know, you are an atheist.

I don’t not like to class myself as an atheist, for it is an utterly meaningless word. It has no descriptive value. It is like literally like calling someone a non-football fan…

You may be right about atheism’s dictionary definition, but people who are non-football fans are usually not going out and trying to convince fans that they are simpletons for liking the sport. If they were, we’d have a loaded identifier for them as well. There aren’t hundreds of anti-football-fan websites out there.

A question for you, though: Does being an atheist also mean you cannot even explore the *possibility *of a designed universe, scientifically and without any religious bias? Or is it just that you cannot turn to supernatural explanations?

 

[Nan_S]

I find it interesting that you are quick to point out the historic errors in physics. How quick are you when it comes to pointing out the errors in Biblical interpretation? Or do you still believe in literal genesis and a universe created in 4004 BC?

For the record, I hold the “day is an age” viewpoint of Genesis. The entire six “days” of creation as described by Genesis fairly closely follows the evolution of the earth if you were looking at it from the surface of the earth. For instance, we now know that the stars existed before the planets were formed, even though Genesis says the opposite, but if you had been standing on the surface of the earth when primordial volcanic clouds dissipated it would look like the stars came later.

Are you truly comfortable with an absolute dogmatic acceptance of a God-concept invented in the dark ages by guys who knew less physics than a cat, and who believed that the earth was flat?

There are many things so-called dark ages people accomplished with their stone knives and bearskins that would still be beyond us if we didn’t have our marvelous modern machines and cutting-edge scientific knowledge. How may pyramids have you built lately? Could you re-create stonehenge perfectly aligned with the stars and sun using only crude ancient measuring devices?

Furthermore, it does not follow that lack of modern scientific knowledge implies people also lacked wisdom or discernment in other areas. You’re engaging in another logical fallacy here, connecting two things which are actually unrelated.

Consider this scenario. God set things up so that our brains would believe any schlock that they were programmed with. He also programmed us with a modicum of curiosity, so that we could wonder about how we and the world came to be. So, men wondered and invented a variety of primitive God-concepts. From tribes who worshiped monkeys, God would have sought those who at least had the wit to refuse worship. Back in the days when men worshiped Zeus, Apollo, and the other Greco-Roman gods, the real God would have been looking for men who refused to worship those soap-opera refugees.

That’s where the idea of Revealed Truth comes into play. It started with Abram/Abraham and his kin when God revealed Himself. There are things we can not figure out on our own, but we can grasp enough to understand them at least in part if they are revealed to us.

I’ve heard the Deluded Crowds hypothesis before from a literal-minded fundamentalist. He went a little further, though. He said that God made the earth look 4.5 billion years old, and then gave us His word saying the earth was actually 6,000 years old, to test us because He knew that only a few would be willing to trust God’s word over the evidence of human senses.

The problem with the Deluded Crowds theory - those gullible soap-opera refugee worshippers - is that (theology again) God is All Truth, Completely Consistent, and Completely Trustworthy. That’s another basic characteristic of God. A God who is Truth personified does not deal in lies and use deception to trip us up and test our mettle. If we believed that God was a liar in some ways, such as creating an earth with the appearance of extremely ancient origin when it was really only 6,000 years old, how could we trust Him to be true in anything else? We couldn’t.

No, I disagree that God is looking for a few non-conformists willing to turn their backs on either conventional religious thought (as you suggest) or scientific evidence (as the fundamentalist suggested). But God is looking for non-conformists; He’s looking for people willing to Love as He Loves us, who set aside their personal self-interest and work for the betterment of the human community.

When I am standing up to account for myself at the end of my tenure here in this life, I want to be able to say I did the best I could embracing that ideal.

 

[AlbertBall]

You may be right about atheism’s dictionary definition, but people who are non-football fans are usually not going out and trying to convince fans that they are simpletons for liking the sport. If they were, we’d have a loaded identifier for them as well. There aren’t hundreds of anti-football-fan websites out there.

A question for you, though: Does being an atheist also mean you cannot even explore the *possibility *of a designed universe, scientifically and without any religious bias? Or is it just that you cannot turn to supernatural explanations?

The only thing it means is i don’t have a theistic belief. Nothing more. That is what i mean, when i don’t like it because is not very descriptive.

You also have to look at the flip side of the coin with your non-football fans. The reason they are not speaking out against football is because football fans don’t tell them that if they don’t like football they are going to burn for eternity, and they are not trying to get evolution taken out of school and replace with the theory of intelligent football. So we must both admit it a two way street.

As for design in the universe. I am open to all ideas, however i will not accept something until it has verifiable evidence to support it. Until that point i simply withhold my belief.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Hi MOM … you say what do I think of this thread…Well first of all…I think God can create exactly what he wishes from nothing and we will never understand this as we are not God…we really don’t need to understand it to believe it… I think God created us lot from nothing and without God we are nothing

Out of nothing comes nothing. While i believe that God creates out of nothing, I do not believe that God is an irrational being, because i believe that God is fundementally rational; and neither am i scared of the logical implications that impinge on my faith. I see it as a logical and moral responsibility to think reasonably about God, while at the same time respecting the fact that God is ultimatly a mystery that cannot be solved. However, we can know somethings about Gods actions and Gods existence, and we can know what God is not. Gods perfection by definition precludes the idea that God is irrational and can do irrational things. We know this by the logic of being and reality. Thus we cannot think of God in an irrational fashion. Therefore, when we say that God creates out of nothing, we cannot possibly mean that God does the logically impossible, that God does that which is unreal/unreality.

Creation out of nothing can only mean that God does not create out of preexistent “parts” or “physics”.