Irreducible Complexity and the Orgin of God.

[Foreshadow]

How can you just be though? You would to come into being at some point in finite or non finite time.

 

[drich0150]

I actually do not acknowledge a different plane of existence, I was simply using it as a agrument point because the Majority of Christendom thinks God must be in a different plane of existence.

I beg to differ, whether you believe in the existence of another plane of another plane of existence or not you have acknowledged it. This was made evident in your post.

And as a matter of fact you can manufacture truths as the needs arise.

So because one "sect" or another of Christianity may do this or that, to you that means all christians are guilty of your list of items?

How can God just exist without a starting point? He would have to be created or be born or come into being at some point?

This question defines the limits of a finite mind.. All of our minds. Because we are with a beginning and an end, and because the universe revolves us, it is natural to want to make everything in our universe fit our understanding of it. Why can't there simply be something bigger than what a 13 year old mind can comprehend? Or a 34 year old mind or a 99 year old mind?

As complex as the universe truly is, how is it that we feel we have a complete understanding of all it, in the relative short time man has been around?

 

[Foreshadow]

Actually because of the christian religion during the Dark Ages of 400 ACE to around the late 1400s technology was skidded to a half. Our understanding of the universe among other things would be far more thorough if it weren't for all the christian sects.
I do no think all Christians are guilty of "my list of items" I think all sects are guilty though. As for your first little tidbit, I guess I can concede that I acknowledged it, but only to make a point. Also the universe would be consider infinite because it is constantly expanding. But there was still a start point, and a end point. They are just changing every second. What I am saying is no matter how vast and powerful possible God may be, he must have started somewhere, and he must have gotten his knowledge from somewhere as well. I got my knowledge of math from school, and my mathbook. I learned 1+1+1= 3 no matter what crazy subjective variable you might add to it because of common sense and deductive reasoning, as well as school

 

[Joveia]

My point is that even infinite has to have been finite at one point. What I mean is there must have been a point in time when everything was finite, for then from that finite point infinite would been created or evolved over time to the point of what it is today.

Maybe. It depends on what sort of 'infinite' we're talking about. People have historically talked about two different sorts of infinite. You're referring to an infinite that has finite parts - infinitely many finite parts. I think that a better sort of infinite is an infinite that has no finite parts, but which is a radically different kind of thing compared to a finite thing (number, or type of existence). The latter kind of infinite is based on a logic that contradicts finite logic (e.g. 1 + 1 = 2) but which makes sense within its own 'world'. So it's a development of an alternative logic that makes sense but which is not like finite logic. So while this criticism applies to the first sort of infinity, it may not apply to the second.

If God personifies this infinite world then He is something like a 'distinction-less unity' that encompasses everything, but somehow in a way that doesn't entail differences/distinctions within what He is encompassing. A person like this is 'everlasting to everlasting' because there are no 'distinctions' like 1, 2, A, B, cause, time, in God (or 'infinite reality') that would allow us to talk about a 'beginning' to Him.

 

[Foreshadow]

If God would be in a infinite plane though, isnt gender finite? So that would mean that God would be genderless.
Either way Infinitely still comes into being at one point, even if that point is not finite.

 

[aiki]

Logical Mind:

Why is it that God must fit into the finite, human experience? Why must He be confined or subject to the laws of the universe He has made? "It just doesn't make sense" is not a logical or reasonable answer. Such an answer assumes that everything must fundamentally operate under the limitations you do. What makes this a reasonable starting assumption?

Can a clay pot make another clay pot? No, it can't. A Potter must make a clay pot. And that Potter must be drastically different, drastically superior, to the pot in order to do so. Likewise, God must be vastly more than, must be distinctly different from, what He has made in order to have made it. He is like the Potter in this respect, but the "pot" He has made is the universe.

God is who you must find at the very Beginning of everything. If He is not there, then, one must explain the impossibility of something coming from nothing. If you say, "God is a finite, created being," then you haven't found God; for God will be what has created everything without Himself being created; He will be the necessary First Cause.

Peace.

 

[Foreshadow]

If God is infinite then there can not be a first cause, as first is a finite term. Why is it that you are assuming that there has to be a first cause?

 

[aiki]

If God is infinite then there can not be a first cause, as first is a finite term. Why is it that you are assuming that there has to be a first cause?

I don't think you understood my point. Let me see if I can come at it from a slightly different angle. It seems to me that when you are thinking of the term "first" you are thinking of it in the sense of the first person in a line of persons, or the first cookie you take out of a bag of cookies, or the first domino that sets all the others falling. The problem with this is that causing a thing to happen or be doesn't necessarily require being like what is caused. The Potter causes the pot to be a pot, but the Potter is not Himself the first of all the pots He has made. As I said before, the Potter must be more than the pots He makes in order to make them.

Why does a First Cause have to exist? Well, as I said before, if you try to say that everything came out of nothing, which is what you have to say if there is no First Cause, you find yourself talking nonsense. No matter how far back you want to go, at the beginning of everything there is that which caused it all. But, in order to be the First Cause this entity cannot itself be created; for then there would be something behind the First Cause that created it, which would make that something the First Cause.

Peace.

 

[Foreshadow]

I can not explain this well on my own, so here is a good answer I got from searching the web as well as a good link I found.
What is absolute nothingness.? - Yahoo! Answers
Arash's World: Nothing can come out of nothing - or can it?
The fact is something can in fact come from nothing. I am in fact not speaking nonsense. So if something can come from nothing, why does there need to be a first cause, for there can not be a first cause, for that cause would have to be caused as well. It is a infinite regress.

 

[kevlite2020]

I can not explain this well on my own, so here is a good answer I got from searching the web as well as a good link I found.
What is absolute nothingness.? - Yahoo! Answers
Arash's World: Nothing can come out of nothing - or can it?
The fact is something can in fact come from nothing. I am in fact not speaking nonsense. So if something can come from nothing, why does there need to be a first cause, for there can not be a first cause, for that cause would have to be caused as well. It is a infinite regress.

I'm sorry, but the first link was unqualified gibberish, and the second link wasn't answering anything, it was just posing a thought. You also put fact on a lot of things that aren't fact. You might want to be careful in drawing the lines between facts and opinions, as it'll make your argument very confusing.

 

[aiki]

The fact is something can in fact come from nothing. I am in fact not speaking nonsense.

Yes, actually, you are. The two links you gave provide nothing which overturns the statement "ex nihilo, nihilo fit." I agree with kevlite that the content of the first link is utter verbal rubbish. The second link comes to no concrete conclusions on the matter. Neither link provides any solid, reasonable evidence for believing that something can come out of nothing.

So if something can come from nothing, why does there need to be a first cause, for there can not be a first cause, for that cause would have to be caused as well. It is a infinite regress.

You are asking a question based on assumption. You must first solidly and reasonably establish your justification for your beginning assumption. The two links you gave don't come anywhere close to doing this for you.

If you want to play word games, I could argue that nothing is in fact something. True nothing would be something to which I could not make any reference. When I refer to nothing, however, I am referring to something identifiable - a thing. Empty space, completely devoid of anything, is still empty space, which is a thing I can identify as a referent.

Peace.

 

[Foreshadow]

LiberatedMind.com Can Something come from Nothing?

 

[kevlite2020]

They are correct in noting that “something cannot be created from nothing” within our known universe as far as we have been able to demonstrate through scientific inquiry.

Well, this time you've posted an article which actually supports theism... They are saying that something can't come from nothing within this universe but other universes may exist with different laws. So who/what created those potential universes? The bottom line is that article agrees that there must be something outside of this universe to have created it. If you believe it's God who is eternal, always is, was, and will be, the answer ends there, but if you believe it's other universes that brought about the creation of this one, you have to then be able to explain where these other universes are, how they made this one, and how those universes were created themselves. See how it goes into an endless cycle without ever answering a question?

 

[Foreshadow]

Something does not have to be a intelligent being. Natural forces can do everything God can.

 

[kevlite2020]

Something does not have to be a intelligent being. Natural forces can do everything God can.

Where did the natural forces come from? See the problem in your argument, there needs to be a beginning, and if God isn't the beginning, you have a huge hole to try and cover up.

Also, natural forces cannot do everything God can, and I'd argue they can't do anything God can. God must be outside of what He created to create it right? So that means if God created this world, He is outside of it and not bound by the laws of it, like time, space, matter. Can nature bend time, can nature defy space? How about poofing matter in and out of existance? It cannot happen without God.

 

[Foreshadow]

I do believe you have just proven my point. You said there needs to be a begining. That is what I have been saying throughout the thread. There must be a beginging, and that includes God two. And a black hole can bend matter and space. A black hole would be considered nature. As for time, a worm hole is also considered part of nature.

 

[drich0150]

I learned 1+1+1= 3 no matter what crazy subjective variable you might add to it because of common sense and deductive reasoning, as well as school

No doubt in school they taught you that just because 1+1+1=3, that is not the only problem that can equal three. 3+0, 2+1, 4-1, 5-2 (and on, and on) all equal three, and if your equating "3" to existence or how something arrives in this plain of existence, then you must recognize that there are other ways of coming to that total than the very first equation you encounter.

Which is my point, Just because you have an answer that doesn't fit your/our current ability to to explain it, doesn't mean we should force this answer to fit a known problem, especially if not all the variables are known.

 

[Foreshadow]

The same logic can apply to God as well. Just because you don't understand alternate theoys doesn't mean creationism and God is the way to go. By you I mean the general collective, not you personally.

 

[kevlite2020]

The same logic can apply to God as well. Just because you don't understand alternate theoys doesn't mean creationism and God is the way to go. By you I mean the general collective, not you personally.

You are right, but most of us put our faith and trust in God for many more reasons then just our belief that He created the world. I would also encourage you to look at other things to reinforce your idea that the world was created from nothing. If you plan on denying the existence of God just because you found another theory that may possibly work (which I wouldn't even say that, but just for sake of argument), you might want to look at other things too, like what makes right and wrong if there's no God, what hope/purpose there is in life, Who Jesus was if He wasn't God, ect. Having one potential answer to give one possible alternative to God doesn't disprove God or even make a very strong claim.

 

[Foreshadow]

Faith is the belief without evidence. God doesnt set a moral standard I am an atheist and I still know right from wrong. God does not create hope and purpose, unless you are talking about priests. I am a atheist and my purpose in life is living to my fullest and enjoying it. Jesus was a Jewish Leader who had angered other Jewish Leaders because of some slightly different belief, obviously he did not believe that he was the Messiah. The jewish Leaders wanted him dead, so he was crucified, because the Romans happened to agree. Having one potential answer to give one possible alternative to atheism doesnt prove God or even make a very strong Claim.