T
- Status
A
Abbadon
Guest
Well i would say diest, doesn’t thiest imply a theology?
And your second line is wrong, we create accidents all the time, accidents that tend to be very profitable…
Okay i guess now were moving onto the next step. How do we figure out what the creator is?
Is it a species? Is it a single entity? etc…
R
reggieM
Guest
The argument in favor of a single entity is based on the concepts of perfection (and the things that contribute to it – simplicity, unity, infinity, unchangeableness).
Perfection – because all human beings possess the idea of perfection without ever fully having experienced it.
H
Henning
Guest
I would ask:
why do you contend that IS, is not
rather than that IS is
then:
He IS…who is?..the I AM is
the I AM is a person
why do you contend that IS, is not
rather than that IS is
then:
He IS…who is?..the I AM is
the I AM is a person
A
Abbadon
Guest
But that assumes that the being that created the universe is perfect. How do you come to such an assumption?
We are already assuming that you need a will to create a reality although examples throughout our universe suggest otherwise…
Why the next assumption of single entity, perfect entity…
Considering the universe created is very chaotic, unless chaos is perfection…
A
Abbadon
Guest
T
Thing
Guest
I said Theist to contrast with your former atheist belief.
You are now a Theist.
And, if you like, you now have this theology so far.
You believe in a creator with a will who created everything from nothing.
You also believe this creator is eternal since he existed before time existed.
Being eternal and the designer and originator and creator of everything that exists this carries other necessary implied qualities; the creator is immanent in the world, yet transcends it, he is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.
The creator cannot create an accident. That would be a contradiction. If he creates it then it is not an accident.
We, however, can crash our cars into it, like idiots, but he will know that, being transcendant and eternal, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, he foresees your crash into his creation in the future and knows prescisly everything there is to know about it - from the electron spin to the quarks and gluons, to your state of mind years afterwards.
Being by necessity eternal the creator’s will would be at peace with its-self and would be homogenous, if you can say that about a will. As to create something you cannot have an equally eternal and equally omnipotent will trying to do the opposite.
So the creator has a single will.
It cannot be said to be a species because it existed before time existed so there is no ‘before’ or ‘after’ the creator. The creator always is, he is outside the power of time. Since we use the term ‘species’ to describe a derivative of something else which contains elements of its ‘parents’.
And considering that the creator is eternal, he is in the future what he is at the same time in the past, he cannot be a derivative or species.
He is unique and eternal and all.
R
reggieM
Guest
As I said – why does everyone know what perfection is although no one has ever seen it?
The knowledge and desire for perfection is contained within every human being. Where did this knowledge and desire come from? Why does every human being know this concept of perfection?
— By criticizing anything we are saying that it is imperfect – this implies that we know what perfection would be. The most perfect thing we have experienced is not perfect – because it ends. Therefore, we desire endless perfection.
This desire for endless perfection (as something perfect must be endless) points to a fulfillment.
The only way perfection can be fulfilled is if there is perfection somewhere as a standard. That perfection is God.
God therefore must be singular (simplex), because to be multiple is to be divided – and therefore imperfect.
There’s another argument also that deals with the hierarchy of values. I have to read more about it – but basically, there is a hierarchy of being (or perfections in being). As long as one being is dependent on another it cannot be perfect (because it is incomplete without the other).
Eventually, the chain of dependencies goes back with each being more superior than the previous one (and more perfect since it is the source for the other). The chain ends with the superior and perfect being which is not dependent on another – that is God.
So the whole chain of being is dependent on the first being – who is not dependent on any other for existence.
A
Abbadon
Guest
I’m remaining agnostic on the issue, as i have always been, i simply don’t know… But pretending for a moment that there was something with a will that created the universe.
A creator with a will who created everthing WE OBSERVE, from nothing. We do not know about other things that exist outside of our observation like said creator, perhaps it has its own dimensional rehlm, with other biengs made up just like it.
Time is relative, if it existed and it had a thought process or any sort of process at all, it would have had its own sense of time, relative to its self.
No no it doesn’t, your assuming it designed this universe, when if you observe the universe you see everything but design, a chip chop universe, brutal and deadly, where the most successfully surviving things are black holes. All the said creator did was initiate the initial big bang and sat back and observed as everything else formed its self and proceeded naturally, as it naturally does.
No those other qualities are not necessary at all. what makes you think they are necessary?
When i was talking about accidents i meant acidents like we make discoveries in science through accidents. You experiment on something and you discover by accident something else. So while looking for a new dimension it’s species accidentally created our universe. Your already assuming that the process that created this universe was initaited by a will and now your assuming huge new things. Okay speculating that the source of this universe is eternal and has a will, okay i get that but every other assumption where from, you say it naturally follows but i disagree i see no conection as to why it must.
Your assuming it is omniscient, transcendant, omnipotent and omnipresent. For all we know the original creator of the universe died 6 billion earth cycles ago at the age of 50 billion earth cycles. Had a single simple minded thought, create universes to feed… was only in one time space dimension at one time… my assumptions are equally valid…
Again i don’t understand this necessity of yours to make the hypotheitcal universe creating process, now given a will, eternal. i can barely fathom a creation process with a will, and your assuming all these new properties…
No thats just what you said, and since we understand that time is relative, if it had a though process and if it had any process at all, it had its own relative time. If one can exist so can many, kind of like the q continuum from star trek.
You simply assert that he is unique and enternal, i can assert the opposite equally and validly.
My candy state principle is also equally valid since we both have no evidence to the contrary. Or my multi creator with will angle, lots of entities with a will and without energy or matter that created our universe accidentally in an experiment to find a new source of power. All entities have always been, and in eternity they seek a way to find oblivion, to find rest. maybe thats it, never bieng able to stop thinking to stop existing, after so much time they just wanted to reach oblivion, and in trying to do so they created many a universe…
But since both our proposals are currently untestable and without evidence, they can be equally dismmised untested.
T
Thing
Guest
I’ll just home in on this for a minute as it seems to be causing some trouble.
There are about three ways of approaching the question of origin.
-The first is to say there is no scientific evidence available before a certain point in time. So we must stop thinking about it. This is, ultimately, unsatisfactory.
-The second is to imagine everything you can imagine, unfettered. On this route you get things like mythological creation stories about the world being flat and being carried through space on the back of a giant turtle, or you get stories from star treck when they’ve reached the end of their budget. But these stories were designed primarily for entertainment, and again are unsatisfactory as an answer to our question.
-The third approach is to use what you have, to think honestly with yourself, not to be afraid of some bogeyman answer you might meet in a dark corner of the universe. You will never have full information, but I don’t see why that would stop anybody thinking, and I see no sense in knowingly flying off on flights of fancy, either.
Use what you do know Abbadon. Follow a thought through, use assumptions if they are safe enough and have some logical foundation at least. Theres no law against thinking.
In the bit of your post above they are all fine ideas, but you have no reason to thnk of any of them except that the multiplicity of them serve to help avoid other ideas you like less.
There is a logic at least to the universe having a beginning. And a logic to matter not existing before it is created. And a logic to thinking that the very, very least requirement for something to be created from nothing is a will to bring that something into existance. And there is a logic to time being a quality or function of matter, and before matter existed there was no time because there was no matter. And there is a logic to thinking that the will that created from nothing pre-existed what it created, it pre-existed time, which it created. And there is a logic in that thought that something outside of time is time-less, or eternal. And so on and so on.
A
Abbadon
Guest
And there in is the problem I have, at the end of the day all were doing is making up stories. I actually really like the idea that there are multiple planes of existance, chaotic zones of infinite possiblity and they ripple around like waves. And sometimes the waves touch each other, if nothing already exists in these planes of existance a big bang occurs, but if something does exist then black holes occur…
I think the most likely scenario is a simple, yet amazingly cool, natural process. That would fit in with what we currently observe in our own universe. The very least requirement for something to be made from nothing is that it occurred naturally and simply. We would use words that we do not have to describe things that have yet to have meaning. But i can imagine it will be very cool when we do figure it out.
I don’t study quantum mechanics so i can’t comment very assuradly on time, but i’m sure anything that has a process, any process at all would have its own sense of relative time. I’m standing strong by that one, it’s the most logical conclusion.
I can understand the assumption that something could be eternal, i always thought energy was eternal, but apparently not…
Maybe Smollen is right, maybe there is a universe inside every black hole, all different, and maybe were inside a black hole, and this process just goes on forever and ever…
There is nothing wrong with your logical progress, just I don’t like to many assumptions even in my story telling, in my opinion it is more likely to be a simple natural process…
That said it would be pretty hot if the Norse got it right… Go Hell… WHOOT…
T
Thing
Guest
I hate to point out that there is nothng natural in nothing. There is nothing in nothing. The natural does not exist before it exists. All that can possibly exist before the natural is created is the Super-Natural.
A
Abbadon
Guest
The supernatural is simply what we yet do not understand. Once we understand it, it stops bieng supernatural and becomes natural.
Well nothing is nothing, and nothing is a very natural concept, what do you think outer space mostly consists of?
well no, something without time matter or energy is still a natural phenomenon, we just do not understand what it is or how it works…
A
Abbadon
Guest
yet
T
Thing
Guest
Super-Natural has a particular meaning. The natural is a created thing.
Super-Nature is something outside of created nature, a different type of thing, not something of created nature not yet understood.
A
Abbadon
Guest
and once we understand it it becomes a natural phenomenon… there really is no supernatural, just a word we use to call things we don’t understand… like magic…
V
VociMike
Guest
I haven’t been following this thread, but what you state is definitely not true. While people may be sloppy and use the term “supernatural” to encompass anything not understood, that is most certainly not the true or correct definition.
The term is “supernatural”, not “superunderstood”.
And how can you possibly demonstrate that there is no supernatural? Is that not just an axiom of your worldview?
V
VociMike
Guest
Time, space, energy - all of these are very far from nothing.
Is this demonstrable or just an axiom of your worldview? Are you simply defining “natural” as anything and everything that exists? And is that the common definition of the word?
- Status