God cannot explain the origin of life

[rossum]

BTW, generally speaking, do Buddhists believe in God or are many Buddhists agnostics?

Buddhists have many gods. Theravada suttas have them by the dozen; Mahayana sutras have them by the tens of thousands. They are not particularly important; their main function is to applaud in the right places when the Buddha is speaking.

It is possible to be an atheist Buddhist. Functionally, most western Buddhists are agnostic. Eastern Buddhists can follow gods, but only for small things. If you want to win the lottery then pray to a god; the Buddha isn’t interested in that kind of thing.

Who is God, according to Buddhist belief?

As to the Abrahamic God, He does make an appearance in the Brahmajala sutta. Here He is describing Himself:

“I am the Brahma, the great Brahma, the conqueror, the unconquered, the all-seeing, the subjector of all to his wishes, the omnipotent, the maker, the creator, the supreme, the controller, the one confirmed in the practice of jhana, and father to all that have been and shall be. I have created these other beings.”//indent]

You need to note that this passage comes from the part of the sutta that deals with errors.

rossum​

 

[Bahman]

Quantum fluctuation is possible only by divinity.

So you don’t believe in Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

 

[Bahman]

Yet, energy and momentum are conserved – in other words, it’s not that they pop out “from nothing” or go “to nothing”: there is energy before and after their appearance.

It’s a nice attempt, but this argument fails: ‘ex nihilo’ means “from nothing”, not “from pre-existing energy”. The challenge remains: no creation comes from nothing in natural systems. I don’t suppose you have a better example that stands up to scrutiny, do you?

Your are correct about virtual particle. But we know well that laws of physics break down at Big Bang point.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . we know well that laws of physics break down at Big Bang point.

I assume that by “Big Bang point”, you mean a point in time and not in space.
The Big Bang is a theory about the process by which the universe of time and space came into being.
The Big Bang describes the changes that occurred from the beginning until it resembled more what we see now.
The Big Bang happened everywhere because everywhere came into existence from that moment.
Everywhere is the centre of the universe.

We can think that all the laws of physics, all energy and the relationships that govern its transformation into the various forms of matter and time and space were contained in that first whatever-it-would-be, which in spatial terms would be a dimensionless point.
Alternatively, we can conceive that there was some basic structure to the first infinitesimally small moments that included time and space and light, and some sort of built in probability of forming matter-antimatter and such. Basically, by chance on this ground of basic undifferentiated physical being, the universe evolved to what it is now, with persons sitting here reading and thinking.
What has been revealed is found in Genesis and explains the creation of new forms of being, which are whole unto themselves but constituted of parts created earlier in time. Persons are whole beings who feel, perceive, think and act as one entity in relation to everything else, but are made up of parts which will decompose when life comes to an end. The other part, the spirit, eternal in nature through its relationship with God, remains.

The universe proceeded from its beginnings. Time goes in one direction. If we speak of the laws of physics breaking down at the earliest point (which is what you may be talking about), it does not reflect reality. They don’t break down; it’s that the relationships which govern the behaviour of matter could not exist, because matter as it is now did not exist. In other words, gradually ( if that word is appropriate to the time frames we are talking about) they either came into being or made themselves manifest or were created.

 

[Oreoracle]

My understanding is that the laws of physics don’t break down when you trace time backward to the Big Bang. They only appear to break down because our laws of physics are fundamentally wrong. We already know that any “correct” theory must reconcile relativity and quantum mechanics. Until we have such a theory, I would hold off on speculating about what the singularity means, because the singularity being there just indicates that we’re wrong in our basic assumptions. Nothing more.

 

[DCNBILL]

God is unable to move for different reasons. God is omnipresent, so He cannot move from A to B. He cannot leave A because He is always present at A. He cannot move to B because He is already at B and so can never arrive. He can never leave anywhere and He can never arrive anywhere. Movement is impossible for Him.

A lot of the properties assigned to God have this effect: each property prevents God doing something. Omniscience prevents Him ever learning something new for example.

$0.02

rossum

It would seem to me that it is absurd for a creature to say what their Creator is able or not able to do. You do understand that when we speak of God we have to use allegory and metaphorical language, don’t you?

And why would a God who knows everything need to learn anything that He already knows.

 

[BrunoMaria]

It is possible to be an atheist Buddhist

Pope Benedict said: “Buddhism is a form of atheism, as they have no God”.

It’s amazing that so many adrift people of the Western World seek a crutch in Buddhism - a “religion” which is so confuse, that not even Buddhists see through it all.

 

[Aloysium]

My understanding is that the laws of physics don’t break down when you trace time backward to the Big Bang. They only appear to break down because our laws of physics are fundamentally wrong. We already know that any “correct” theory must reconcile relativity and quantum mechanics. Until we have such a theory, I would hold off on speculating about what the singularity means, because the singularity being there just indicates that we’re wrong in our basic assumptions. Nothing more.

The laws of physics aren’t “wrong”, as you might agree having put quotation marks around the word correct.
The italics used for “our”, I suppose is to emphasize the difference between an understanding and the reality.

But anyway, good luck with your expection that someone will discover a way to bring the two theories (realities) together.

After that I suppose, how about reconciling the body and the mind, spirit and the material. In that regard, it is important to stop negating the obvious.

I would agree that modern science, or I should say, how it is understood by secular society, has got some basic assumptions pretty confused.

 

[Tomdstone]

The laws of physics aren’t “wrong”, as you might agree having put quotation marks around the word correct.
The italics used for “our”, I suppose is to emphasize the difference between an understanding and the reality.

But anyway, good luck with your expection that someone will discover a way to bring the two theories (realities) together.

After that I suppose, how about reconciling the body and the mind, spirit and the material. In that regard, it is important to stop negating the obvious.

I would agree that modern science, or I should say, how it is understood by secular society, has got some basic assumptions pretty confused.

One law of physics which is often quoted is that the speed of light is constant. However, that law is very possibly not true near a singular point such as the Big Bang. Further, it is difficult to explain the existence of dark matter, using the current understanding of physical phenomena and “laws”.

 

[Aloysium]

One law of physics which is often quoted is that the speed of light is constant. However, that law is very possibly not true near a singular point such as the Big Bang. Further, it is difficult to explain the existence of dark matter, using the current understanding of physical phenomena and “laws”.

Fascinating isn’t it? The way I understand it is that speed of light seems to be the maximum rate of change. It requires more and more energy to go faster, as if the mass of the object were increasing. Everything is in motion or change, so there is no standing still as long as you are in time. Change would have started at the beginning of time. Light would have been undifferentiated and not in the form of photons. It would be everywhere as everything before particles quarks and photons appeared. A dimensionless point would appear to constitute the start of all this. I believe that many consider it a singularity. I don’t think so, but what do I know? And ya, the universe we know constitutes only 6% of what is believe to be the actual universe, the rest being dark matter and energy as you state. The current physical laws are not wrong, just as it isn’t wrong to say that the sun rises in the east and travels across the sky. There may be simpler ways of understanding the cosmos. Or not, but we continue to do or fund research on faith. It would be silly not to bet on it.

 

[LethalMouse]

As you say, it has been mentioned before on this thread. I dealt with it in post #123. If God is not alive in the usual sense, then we need to use a different word instead, to avoid the error of equivocation. I proposed “doshef”. The thread title then becomes: “God cannot explain the origin of doshef”, and some verses of the Bible will need to be rewritten to read “doshef” instead of “living”.

Merely using a different word does not eliminate the logical problem: God cannot originate one of the properties He already possesses.

God cannot have created everything, since God did not create Himself. At most He can only have created everything except Himself. It also depends on what definition if “universe” we are using. In philosophical discussions I prefer to use “All That Exists” (ATE) as the definition of the universe. Obviously if an eternal God exists, then the ATE universe is also eternal and hence has no origin/creation.

A lot more than 30. We’ve had 500 more years to come up with strange sub-sects than Christians.

s/tennants/tenets.

rossum

Well, here is the thing, no matter what one describes of God or any other first cause you can swap out the word God in your OP and apply the “new first cause”.

I forget what post but somewhere the great and powerful Bahman even called the first cause of God AND science as impossible… so I mean at some point you guys either have to pick something or wait for the answer when you move on from this world.

See rossum, found it… but this is where the never ending “[first cause] can not be” gets you:

I argue that it is impossible to have a universe (with God or without God)!

 

[Tomdstone]

Well, here is the thing, no matter what one describes of God or any other first cause you can swap out the word God in your OP and apply the “new first cause”.

I forget what post but somewhere the great and powerful Bahman even called the first cause of God AND science as impossible… so I mean at some point you guys either have to pick something or wait for the answer when you move on from this world.

See rossum, found it… but this is where the never ending “[first cause] can not be” gets you:

Some people will argue that there was no first cause.

 

[LethalMouse]

Some people will argue that there was no first cause.

But their answer can have the same inseertion into the OP. There comes a point where you need to pick one and live with it I guess.

 

[inocente]

The laws of physics aren’t “wrong”, as you might agree having put quotation marks around the word correct.
The italics used for “our”, I suppose is to emphasize the difference between an understanding and the reality.

A law of physics states that a particular phenomenon is always seen to occur when certain conditions are present. It has no prescriptive power over nature, it just describes what we think always happens. The problem with a singularity (if such a contraption can exist) is there’s nothing we can observe to derive any laws. All we can say is that in the absence of space or time, none of our laws can give sensible predictions (they “break down”).

 

[Bahman]

I assume that by “Big Bang point”, you mean a point in time and not in space.
The Big Bang is a theory about the process by which the universe of time and space came into being.
The Big Bang describes the changes that occurred from the beginning until it resembled more what we see now.
The Big Bang happened everywhere because everywhere came into existence from that moment.
Everywhere is the centre of the universe.

We can think that all the laws of physics, all energy and the relationships that govern its transformation into the various forms of matter and time and space were contained in that first whatever-it-would-be, which in spatial terms would be a dimensionless point.
Alternatively, we can conceive that there was some basic structure to the first infinitesimally small moments that included time and space and light, and some sort of built in probability of forming matter-antimatter and such. Basically, by chance on this ground of basic undifferentiated physical being, the universe evolved to what it is now, with persons sitting here reading and thinking.
What has been revealed is found in Genesis and explains the creation of new forms of being, which are whole unto themselves but constituted of parts created earlier in time. Persons are whole beings who feel, perceive, think and act as one entity in relation to everything else, but are made up of parts which will decompose when life comes to an end. The other part, the spirit, eternal in nature through its relationship with God, remains.

The universe proceeded from its beginnings. Time goes in one direction. If we speak of the laws of physics breaking down at the earliest point (which is what you may be talking about), it does not reflect reality. They don’t break down; it’s that the relationships which govern the behaviour of matter could not exist, because matter as it is now did not exist. In other words, gradually ( if that word is appropriate to the time frames we are talking about) they either came into being or made themselves manifest or were created.

I recommend you to read this.

 

[Tomdstone]

I recommend you to read this.

I would disagree with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics which I think is dubious. Further, I think that a cyclical interpretation of the universe is possible.

 

[Bahman]

I would disagree with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics which I think is dubious. Further, I think that a cyclical interpretation of the universe is possible.

Cyclical interpretation of universe is problematic since it requires that universe has always existed which this means that we have to wait eternally from past to reach now.

 

[inocente]

we have to wait eternally from past to reach now.

Who are you who have to wait? You must be very bored having to wait all that time. But the rest of us never had to wait, so we’re fine with it.

 

[Gorgias]

The problem is that you are assuming that there was a creation.

Actually, it’s one of the logical conclusions of the problem presented.

If no natural process can create something from nothing, and the universe exists, then only one of two conclusions are possible: either the universe always existed, or the universe was created by virtue of a process that was not ‘natural’. Christians look to the Word of God that tells them that God created everything from nothing.

On what basis do you reach your conclusion that the universe is eternal?

 

[Gorgias]

A fluctuation in the zero energy state of the continuum:

The material universe is just a very complex arrangement of zero energy.

The sum total might be zero, but that doesn’t mean that there is nothing there!

Your argument would seem to be that a set of objects with non-zero cardinality but whose members’ sum is zero is equivalent to the null set! That is simply not so.

Think of it this way: suppose in one pocket you’ve got $50,000 and in the other you’ve got a bill for $50,000. Are your pockets empty? Of course not. Does the fact that your net worth is zero mean that the money and the bill didn’t come from somewhere and weren’t created by somebody? Again, of course not.

rossum:

God cannot have created everything, since God did not create Himself. At most He can only have created everything except Himself. It also depends on what definition if “universe” we are using. In philosophical discussions I prefer to use “All That Exists” (ATE) as the definition of the universe. Obviously if an eternal God exists, then the ATE universe is also eternal and hence has no origin/creation.

ATE seems an unhelpful concept. I would suggest, in its place, “All Created Entities” (ACE). ATE is unhelpful since it includes both “all that was created” and “all that is uncreated”. God, of course, is in the latter category. So, if you want to talk about creation, then God created ACE. Created things ‘exist’ by virtue of having been created (and by virtue of continuing to be sustained by their creator); uncreated things ‘exist’ by virtue of their own eternal presence.