God’s existence doesn't make sense to me

[Allen]

I hope that I don't make a bad first impression, but I don't think that I could ever be convinced that there is a God. Not one as we might think we know anyway. I would be willing to listen while anyone tried to change my mind though.

[dizzle]

Hey Allen, I am going to move this to the Religion 101 forum.

[ACFaith.Com]

03-04-2003 @ 03:25 AM
Allen:

I hope that I don't make a bad first impression, but I don't think that I could ever be convinced that there is a God. Not one as we might think we know anyway. I would be willing to listen while anyone tried to change my mind though.

What about God's existence? How do you understand God? I'll be more than happy to answer any questions that you have if I have the knowledge to :)

Vinine

[The Laughing Man]

Believe it or not, I once felt as you did, Allen. I was a typical atheist (and even partly an anti-theist!) for about a decade of my life and I didn't believe that I could be convinced that God existed, either. That's obviously changed. I am now a very strong-faithed, literal Bible-believing, Baptist, fundamentalist Christian. What's more, my life has unquestionably and undeniably benefitted from it. I have experienced personal (emotional and spiritual) change and growth and have received blessings in my life (a wife, children, reconciliation and deeper relationships with my family, a "permanent" home, a meaningful and fulfilling job, etc.). Could all those things have happened while I was an atheist? Possibly, but extremely unlikely. Also, they all definitely wouldn't have happened in the short period of time that they did.

But what convinced me that God exists? I honestly can't pick out one thing or point at one particular epiphanous moment. It was really a series of things that gradually brought me to the realization that God existed and was working in my life and the lives of others.

I can definitely say that no one "sat me down" (so to speak) and convinced me that God exists, though. I don't think that can happen. I firmly believe that no one can be argued into Heaven. (That is not to say that apologetics are useless, however.) The only person who can convince you that God exists is God Himself, but you have to be open to the message first. Certainly, others can help you find the way by sharing testimony and providing answers to some questions and concerns, but ultimately it is a personal decision based on personal experience.

I hope and pray you will honestly and openly seek God, Allen. It's the greatest experience in the world and you have nothing to lose but negative things. Contrary to conventional atheist "wisdom" (which is expounded by groups like the Freedom From Religion Foundation, American Atheists, Infidels.org, and the like), becoming and being a Christian doesn't make one stupid, ignorant, close-minded, arrogant, superior, cruel, or any other epithet they tend to use to describe Christians. In fact, see my signature for a quote from one person whom such atheists often quote to defend their beliefs or bash Christians' beliefs.

God bless you, Allen.

[Believer]

Hey Allen,
I would like to say I fully agree with Jinx. And I'd like you to know that I am a new believer, very new actually (only about five months), and I came from the exact same position as you. If you have a specific question you'd like to ask I'd be more then willing to answer it to the best of my ability. I may not be as learned as some people on this site, but I have empathy for you pal. I think I may also be able to stretch your mind a little bit :cool:
I hope you will come to the realization as I did, because He's waiting for you bud, there's no one in the world who loves you more.

[sandlewood]

For those who are curious what Jinx72 edited out of the Jefferson quote, here is the entire sentence:
The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind.
Jefferson's beef was more with the clergy. Like Jefferson, most atheists don’t have any problem co-existing with people of various religions as long as it does not get mixed up with government. Earlier in that same letter Jefferson writes:
The eastern States will be the last to come over, on account of the dominion of the clergy, who had got a smell of union between Church and State, and began to indulge reveries which can never be realised in the present state of science.

[The Laughing Man]

There is nothing wrong with what I editted. In fact, the quote could also be written this way:

"The Christian religion ... is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."

Yes, Jefferson rightly had problems with some of the clergy during those days, but his view of Christianity in and of itself was obviously very favorable.

[Jin-Roh]

I hope that I don't make a bad first impression, but I don't think that I could ever be convinced that there is a God. Not one as we might think we know anyway. I would be willing to listen while anyone tried to change my mind though.

No bad impressions here. Honest inquiry is appreicated.

Here's my humble statement.

One of the reasons why people have a problem believing in God is that its difficult to understand how God could be self-existant. Something just "always there" without ever having a begining is kind of confusing.

For the first objection I might say this. Do you believe that matter exists? Of course you do. Now the first law of thermodynamics says that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Even if matter could be created, then it could not have created itself.

So regarding the matter thing, matter must be self-existant, or have had super-natural cause. So people having problems with God just being "always there" might have to rule out the existance of matter and op for the Idea that everything is an illusion using the same agrument. Either a creator God is "always there" or matter is "always there."

The second problem people run into is that God is somehow beyond the natural. We can't place in box and study him like we could a rat or something. We can't measure his size like the elevations of a mountin and so on, so how can God exist if he is not discernable with our senses?

This line of thinking flows more from an anti-supernatural bias, and it operates on the assuption that if something is outside our five senses it can't exist. It's like a blind man saying "there is just now way there can be such a thing as 'color'" or a deaf man saying "but I just don't understand this thing called 'sound.'"

One shouldn't always be certain that there are no other senses out there that we don't posess. This was actually covered in Dune if you ever read it.
:yipee:

But ultimately, our reason really can't get us to God. God has to get a hold of us first.

[Jin-Roh]

Yes, Jefferson rightly had problems with some of the clergy during those days, but his view of Christianity in and of itself was obviously very favorable.

Yeah he really hated the Jesuits.

[sandlewood]

03-05-2003 @ 02:24 PM
Jinx72:
Yes, Jefferson rightly had problems with some of the clergy during those days, but his view of Christianity in and of itself was obviously very favorable.
Some? Why do you say that? He didn’t like any clergy at all as far as I know.

Actually, you should really take that quote in greater context:

If, indeed, they could have prevailed on us to view all advances in science as dangerous innovations, and to look back to the opinions and practices of our forefathers, instead of looking forward, for improvement, a promising groundwork would have been laid. But am in hopes their good sense will dictate to them, that since the mountain will not come to them, they had better go to the mountain: that they will find their interest in acquiescing in the liberty and science of their country, and that the Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of its benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind.
Jefferson is not saying what he thinks of the Christian religion. He is describing how he hopes the clergy will think of it. He thinks it would be in their best interest to embrace science and liberty.

There are plenty of quotes depicting Jefferson’s unfavorable view of Christianity, as I presume you know based on your post above. So I’ll spare them. Jefferson would never be elected as President in this day and age. You might want to find someone different to quote.

[wienerdog]

Ummm...guys? Could we quit with the Thomas Jefferson and move back to Allen?

I'm one more person who empathizes with you, Allen. The problem I had wasn't with God's existence so much as with Christianity. I had a couple of those "religious experiences" you hear about on Oprah, but--here's the weird thing--I refused to accept them. Since I though Christianity was so idiotic, it was like having a divine communicae that the earth is flat. I spent some time trying to refute conservative Christianity (I had no problem calling myself a "Christian" as long as I didn't have to believe some of the crazy stuff, like that Jesus rose from the dead), but ended up convincing myself of it. It wasn't an all of a sudden realization, but a fairly long process wherein, I'm convinced, God slowly changed my heart to the point where I could accept him. For me it was C. S. Lewis that did it. I'd just ask that you try to be open about it. I mean, teenagers don't think there's any chance that their parent could possibly know what they're talking about, but they usually change their minds when they have kids of their own.

[Kyle]

Hello to all, and particularly, Allen. This is my first post at this lovely forum. Up until now I've been reading a bit but I have kept silent. However, due in part to Dee Dee's repeated requests that such onlookers become involved, and in part to the fact that I am very interested in this subject, I have decided to add a few comments to the discussion.

Now, Allen, there is one large problem I find with your statement. In it, you claim that "I don't think I could ever be convinced that there is a God". I would understand if you said that you had not yet been given a good reason for believing God exists, and thus had not come to believe in His existence. However, stating that you doubt you could ever become convinced seems to be jumping the gun, because you have not even yet heard any sort of reason I or others may provide. However, I feel that you are being very reasonable by inquiring as to whether or not anyone could change your mind on the topic of the existence of God, so I am more than happy to discuss the issue with you.

In my mind, there are different reasons why an individual may come to believe in the existence of God. Intellectual reasons are a top possibility. Emotional reasons are another good one. For example, a person may decide to believe in God because they find comfort in His existence, need Him, etc. Personal experiences are another possiblity, but in my mind personal experiences are basically the same as intellectual reasons.

As it stands, I have few clues as to what sort of reasons for believing in God would be important to you. If you are on the lookout for intellectual reasons, then I personally love discussing what I believe are prime intellectual reasons for believing in God. If you are leaning more towards emotional reasons (meaning that you would perhaps believe in God if He filled a gap in your life or helped you get by), then I would love to write to you explaining why I think God adds a new level of meaning and value to every day.

Perhaps the real problem is that you have difficulty conceptualizing who or what God really is. Undoubtedly, God means different things to different people. As for me, I would define God as an eternally existing personal being, who is above and beyond the laws of the universe (Partly because He created the universe), and who has the ability to make rational decisions.

Indeed, the concept of God does seem bizarre. Every now and then, this causes me doubts as well. Whenever this occurs, I take time to think about how bizarre life, mere existence, is. Watch the actions of an animal and how they respond to their environment. Then I think about the trillions of cells working together to create that animal. Furthermore, think of the trillions of chemical reactions that occur to allow me to see that animal. It seems to me that existence itself, particularly of complex life, is bizarre to the max.

In fact, this leads directly into a very good intellectual reason for believing in God, which is that existence does not make sense unless a being outside the boundaries of our universe created the universe. Furthermore, the existence of highly complex life seems to point to a Creator. Obviously, this analysis is very brief, but I would be glad to get into it more deeply upon your request. In the end, it seems to me that one must believe in the existence of God based on intellect alone.

On top of this, God is a very important aspect of my life. He gives me a sense of moral accountability, inspires me to do good works, and gives me everlasting hope. I doubt that I would crumble into an emotional mess if I gave up my belief in God, but it is still very true, for me at least, that God helps me in many ways. Perhaps God could help you in the same ways, transforming you into an even better human being and giving you hope and confidence.

But let's face it, belief in God is no easy thing. I must give up many things due to my belief in God. For example, I must discard the idea that my personal sins go unchecked. I must surrender much of my pride and intellectual snobbery. I must deal with the difficulty of occasional doubt and insecurity.

Nobody should claim that accepting God is easy. Nevertheless, accepting God is tremendously important and will help you both intellectually and emotionally in the long run.

If you would like to delve any deeper into some of these issues, please ask. As it is, I am glad you are taking seriously the question of God's existence. At least you realize the importance of this question, which is something perhaps even some theists cannot claim.

[Blake Reas]

03-04-2003 @ 03:25 AM
Allen:

I hope that I don't make a bad first impression, but I don't think that I could ever be convinced that there is a God. Not one as we might think we know anyway. I would be willing to listen while anyone tried to change my mind though.

I hope you are ready to be challenged, but as was said in a earlier post no one will ever argue someone into the kingdom though God can use Apologetics to open your heart! God will ultimately convince you himself. I will come into the discussion where I feel equipped.

In Christ,
Blake
:brow:

[ollie]

You exist. You are something. Does something come from nothing?

God doesn't exist. He was. is. and will be! The I AM.

God created what exists. For anything to be in existence logic says something (God) always was, is, and will be. The Creator.

My wristwatch did not always exist until it's designer and maker put it into that realm. The watch could not put itself into existence.

That something that is not existent could put itself into existence is illogical and doesn't compute. A designer and maker logically is required.

[Allen]

03-07-2003 @ 07:43 PM
ollie:

You exist. You are something. Does something come from nothing?

God doesn't exist. He was. is. and will be! The I AM.

God created what exists. For anything to be in existence logic says something (God) always was, is, and will be. The Creator.

My wristwatch did not always exist until it's designer and maker put it into that realm. The watch could not put itself into existence.

That something that is not existent could put itself into existence is illogical and doesn't compute. A designer and maker logically is required.

What if the designer lost control of his experiment and it spun out of his/her/its power? I am not saying that is what has happened, but it is very possible.

What started this whole thing is far beyond anything that we could ever comprehend, yet we try to find ways- mostly through religion.

[Kyle]

I would have to respectfully disagree, Allen, I think that we ARE able to comprehend the cause for us being here. It seems evident to me that God is the only reasonable causal agent.

Since science and philosophy have determined that the universe is not infinitely old (For example, the problem of an actual infinite and the scientific problems with the oscillating, steady state, etc.- which are models that try to make this universe eternal), we must conclude that something caused it to come into being. But how could we determine the cause?

Simple, we need to look at the scenario and determine the attributes required of the causal mechanism. Here, I will defend three.

1. The causal agent must be eternally existing.
2. The causal agent must be above and beyond the laws of the universe.
3. The causal agent must be able to make decisions.

Now, if these three attributes are established, then the existence of God will be established, since an eternally existing personal entity that is above and beyond the laws of the universe is basically the definition of God. So, I will show that each of these is required for the creation of our universe:

1. The causal agent must be eternally existing.

It would have to be, otherwise the cause would require a cause, that cause would require a cause, ad infinitum. There would be an infinte regression of events, which is no answer at all and is illogical as well.

2. The causal agent must be above and beyond the laws of the universe.

This is also true, since the universe INCLUDES it's physical laws, the entity that created those laws must be seperate from the universe, otherwise the universe created itself! That is clearly absurd.

3. The causal agent must be able to make decisions.

An autonomous, natural cause does not make decisions. Rather, it responds to conditions. For example, water freezes at a certain temperature. When the conditions arise (cold temperature) that cause water to freeze, water freezes. However, a personal being has the ability to make decisions. God, if He is to be considered God at all, must have the ability to make decisions, such as creating the universe.

It just so happens that this is an essential attribute of the causal agent needed. This is because an eternally existing autonomous (natural) cause could not will something into existence at a certain time period. Because if the "conditions" arose in which the autonomous causal mechanism triggered the creation of the universe say, 10 billion years ago, we must ask why these conditions were not met earlier, if in fact there was an infinite amount of time for the conditions to come into place. Therefore, an automatic natural cause would have created the universe an infinity ago, which clearly contradicts scientific and philosophical knowledge.

However, an entity with the ability to make decisions can will the universe into existence a finite time ago in the past, thus causing this universe to come into being.


So, to me anyways, it appears that God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe, and this is one of the prime intellectual reasons for believing in God that I mentioned earlier.

[Allen]

Kind of like computer games to us right Kyle. :wink: But of course on a much larger scale. I don't think that it is impossible, but I doubt it would be compassionate and I highly doubt that it would want us to worship it. I wouldn’t want to have a god that played me as if I was a game.

[ryukyuk]

I hope this is not a centered board that wont let you voice your opinion just cuz it wont go with the flow. I believe in a life force that many call god some call chi and some call good and evil spirits but i dont think there is a man controlling it all in fact the BIBLE says that :hrm:

[ollie]

03-09-2003 @ 01:53 AM
Allen:



[quote]What if the designer lost control of his experiment and it spun out of his/her/its power?
The creation is not an experiment. It is not spun out of His power. He has a plan from the beginning to the end.

I am not saying that is what has happened, but it is very possible.
It is man in disobedience to God that is out of control. Everything that is wrong on earth is the result of man's actions.

What started this whole thing is far beyond anything that we could ever comprehend, yet we try to find ways- mostly through religion.
Religion is mostly of man and usually puts forth an adulteration of God's word.
God's word is revealed and is all sufficient for His way. Man's attempting to find a way through himself or religion leads man down the wrong path.
"Pure religion and undefiled before God is to visit the widows and the fatherless in their affliction and to keep oneself unspotted from the world."
James 1:27.
God has revealed to us through the Holy Spirit and written into words by the inspired authors of the Bible what He wants of man.

None of God's way is beyond comprehension. It was given to men to understand.

Find the way through God's word and just God's word, not man's religion and all his additions to it.

[Allen]

ollie, please don't take this the wrong way-

Sometimes when a fan of a team refuses to look at any other possibility that another team or player from another team is as good or better than their "Home" team, well those fans are considered Homers. All you did was argue your point in a one dimensional way. Although I respect your opinion, what you said has no weight.

[Kyle]

Well, Allen, allow me to offer my opinion on the matter. Firstly, I would like to address your comment here:

"Kind of like computer games to us right Kyle." and, subsequently: "I wouldn’t want to have a god that played me as if I was a game."

This was in response to my fairly technical attempt at proving that God is the only real explanation for the existence of the universe. Your comments seem to express displeasure with the idea that we should have to go to such extreme lengths to discover the existence of God. After all, if God existed, then why wouldn't it be an obvioius truth, for everyone to see? [If this is not an accurate portrayal of your thoughts, feel free to correct me]

First of all, God's existence is fairly obvious. The mere fact of existence and then on top of that the mere fact of intelligent life is evidence enough. The only reason I must go to such enormous lengths to "prove" that God is the Creator of the universe is because of the way atheists rationalize everything away. They throw every single silly objection they can think of at the arguments for God's existence, even if the arguments they use are not even consistent with their own worldview (For example, many atheists respond to my argument with "How do you know it was only one god? It could've been multiple gods!" To this, I respond- what does it matter to you? Whether there is 1 God or 100, atheism is still refuted). But, stripped of all motivations to deny it, Creation impies a Creator, and design implies a Designer.

Secondly, why should you expect God's existence to be so easy to find? Like I said earlier, nobody should claim that believing in God is easy. Perhaps you will have to do a bit of digging to discover the intellectual reasons for believing in God. So what? Personally, I would be slightly offended by a Creator that brushed my teeth and tucked me into bed at night!

Thirdly, your claim that God plays games with us is not true. God has provided plenty of intellectual reasons to believe. The two most indisputable facts- existence and life- point remarkably towards a Creator.

However, you still have not answered my question that I posed earlier, which was "What kind of evidence are you looking for?" Do you want intellectual or emotional reasons (or both) to believe in God? It seems to me that you want both, but the problem is that you want easy answers. Unfortunately, there are very few things in this area that have simple answers. If you ask for intellectual reasons to believe in God, and you further dictate that they must be simple and self-explanatory, then you are asking for something that is impossible to give. It is not my problem that atheists continually ratiionalize away the implications of existence and life. Of course, in my view, all of these rationalizations can be answered effectively. If you don't believe me, then raise the best intellectual objection you can to my reasoning in the previous post. I wouldn't mind getting into these issues more deeply.

Next, I will deal with your statement here:

"What if the designer lost control of his experiment and it spun out of his/her/its power? I am not saying that is what has happened, but it is very possible."

Well, I suppose it is possible, but you are kind of changing the subject here. You don't believe in God, and you were wondering if anybody could provide reasons for why you SHOULD believe. But, you're question assumes the existence of God. First, you should determine whether or not God exists, and then you should worry about what He is like or whether or not He has control of the universe.

Sincerely,

Kyle.

[ollie]

03-09-2003 @ 01:21 PM
Allen:

ollie, please don't take this the wrong way-

Sometimes when a fan of a team refuses to look at any other possibility that another team or player from another team is as good or better than their "Home" team, well those fans are considered Homers. All you did was argue your point in a one dimensional way. Although I respect your opinion, what you said has no weight.

It is ok. I am not taking it the wrong way. Many non believers are of this opinion and then some of them find God and discover:

Yes, believing in God and His Christ is very one dimensional:

One God. Jehovah.
One way. God's.
One revelation. The Bible.
One Lord, the son of God, Jesus Christ through whom we obtain redemption and eternal life.
One faith.
One baptism.

The way's of God are not the ways of man. God's way is above comparing with man's way.

Take care,
Ollie

[Nowhere357]

Are we talking about the xian god? In that case it's not a matter of believe or not believe. I understand that there may be gods, or maybe not. I don't know. The xian god says then I must go to hell. Shouldn't I then reject that notion? It does not make sense. How can I believe something that doesn't make sense? How do you do it?

[lordsnooty]

03-09-2003 @ 07:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Kyle:First of all, God's existence is fairly obvious. The mere fact of existence and then on top of that the mere fact of intelligent life is evidence enough.

It used to be, until we discovered the theory of evolution, which clearly shows how we came to exist, and explains how our intelligence came about.

(For example, many atheists respond to my argument with "How do you know it was only one god? It could've been multiple gods!" To this, I respond- what does it matter to you? Whether there is 1 God or 100, atheism is still refuted).

When someone says that, they are not attempting to defend atheism, but to refute Christianity.

But, stripped of all motivations to deny it, Creation impies a Creator, and design implies a Designer.

Creation might, but we weren't created. Design might, but we weren't designed.

Thirdly, your claim that God plays games with us is not true. God has provided plenty of intellectual reasons to believe. The two most indisputable facts- existence and life- point remarkably towards a Creator.

Only if you force yourself to ignore the fundamental truths of biological evolution.

The idea of a creator is illogical. There is a problem with the idea of the universe coming into existence from nothing, but to shift that problem onto the existence of God is not helpful.

Paul

[ollie]

Today @ 05:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Nowhere357:

Are we talking about the xian god? In that case it's not a matter of believe or not believe. I understand that there may be gods, or maybe not. I don't know. The xian god says then I must go to hell. Shouldn't I then reject that notion? It does not make sense. How can I believe something that doesn't make sense? How do you do it?
Say what?
Oh, x as in xmas. Don't keep Christ in Christian, but go "xian".By the way God does not say "you must go to hell". There is a better way. Study learn and find it. It is not through "x" but Christ.


:huh: :huh:

[ollie]

Today @ 06:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
lordsnooty:

[quote]It used to be, until we discovered the theory of evolution, which clearly shows how we came to exist, and explains how our intelligence came about.
"we discovered the theory of evolution"?? It is just that, "a theory", and of man, from which there is no conclusive evidence of how life came to be.



When someone says that, they are not attempting to defend atheism, but to refute Christianity.
Defend atheism, refute Christianity. Either way what would it matter to the atheist? Unless the sword of the Spirit began to prick the atheist's heart.



Creation might, but we weren't created. Design might, but we weren't designed.
Proof please?



Only if you force yourself to ignore the fundamental truths of biological evolution.
Please explain with proof the fundamental truth of the origin of life?

The idea of a creator is illogical.
Not when you logically realize that there has to be something to make something.
There is a problem with the idea of the universe coming into existence from nothing,
Now this is illogical, "something from nothing".
but to shift that problem onto the existence of God is not helpful.
Paul
God does not exist. His creation exists. God was, is, and will be I AM.

[Kyle]

loordsnooty, you seem to think that my reasons for believing in God are undermined by the theory of evolution. However, I don't think that's so.

First of all, you must assume that evolution is a true theory. This I will gladly grant for the sake of argument. Next, you are going to have to assume that COMPLETE evolution is true (unlike, for example, Behe who thinks certain structures could not evolve). This assumption could also be granted. However, you still have not completely undermined the argument from design, because the question of why life began in the first place still must be answered. For this to hold up under atheism, we are probably going to have to assume that abiogenesis has taken place. I could even grant you that assumption, and you would still not have avoided the design argument. Many theists argue that the mere fact that this universe has the unique qualities to ALLOW for life to exist is grounds for suspecting God's action. So, I hardly think evolution is the end-all of the debate on whether or not the argument from design is valid.

Furthermore, evolution does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to answer the question of why existence exists at all. Your only response to this was, effectively: "well, yeah, but that doesn't mean we should believe in god!". Actually, you are quite incorrect. Based on my definition of God, I have determined that the situation under which the creation of the universe would have to occur is one in which the attributes of God would be needed. Therefore, the answer to the question of "how does the universe exist?" is "God created it". I don't see a problem with this method.

Sincerely,

Kyle.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 07:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Kyle:
Many theists argue that the mere fact that this universe has the unique qualities to ALLOW for life to exist is grounds for suspecting God's action.

That's a pretty baseless argument. It's certainly not compelling evidence.

Furthermore, evolution does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to answer the question of why existence exists at all.

If I just change a couple of words in the above phrase:

'Furthermore, Christianity does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to answer the question of why God exists at all.'

It's just making appeals to the unknown, which any old buffoon can do. Even me.

Based on my definition of God, I have determined that the situation under which the creation of the universe would have to occur is one in which the attributes of God would be needed.

How? We don't even know how the universe was created, let alone what would be necessary for this 'creation' to occur.

Therefore, the answer to the question of "how does the universe exist?" is "God created it". I don't see a problem with this method.

It's one answer, but it's not a very good one. Because the question must be 'how does God exist?'.

There's no point in assuming supernaturalism every time science can't provide a complete answer to a question. If everyone did that, we'd never learn anything.

Paul

[WinAce]

The argument from design in a nutshell:

1. Stuff is really complex.
2. Complex things require a designer.
3. God is even more complex.
4. Even more complex things don't require a designer.
5. Therefore, God exists (and I have a bridge for sale).

http://users.adelphia.net/~ybechor/sig_occam.gif

[Kyle]

lordsnooty, I'm sure that you think the argument from design is a "pretty baseless argument", but actual reasons for your disapproval would be real nifty.

"If I just change a couple of words in the above phrase:

'Furthermore, Christianity does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to answer the question of why God exists at all.'"

Christianity is a religion based on the proposition that God exists. What exactly is your point?

"How? We don't even know how the universe was created, let alone what would be necessary for this 'creation' to occur."

Didn't you see my previous message where I had 3 attributes that I defended as necessary for the creation of the universe?

"It's one answer, but it's not a very good one. Because the question must be 'how does God exist?'."

Which is a question we can try to answer since we have established that God does exist.

"There's no point in assuming supernaturalism every time science can't provide a complete answer to a question. If everyone did that, we'd never learn anything."

Nothing has been assumed, it has been demonstrated. Besides, since when have you developed this apparent paranoia complex? Just because we decide that God is the best explanation for the beginning of the universe does not mean that we must be dogmatic about this. Just like with any other scientific paridigm, it is a tentative analysis that is subject to change.

[ollie]

Today @ 02:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
WinAce:

The argument from design in a nutshell:

1. Stuff is really complex.
2. Complex things require a designer.
3. God is even more complex.
4. Even more complex things don't require a designer.
5. Therefore, God exists (and I have a bridge for sale).

http://users.adelphia.net/~ybechor/sig_occam.gif
God does not exist. He created existence which is the physical realm. God is eternal and of the spiritual realm. He is spirit.
He was, is, and will be I AM!

God is not proven to be, but God is believed to be. It is called FAITH

Life requires origin. Can any man give us the origin of life with proof?

The sword Of the Spirit pricks the heart!

[WinAce]

All that's missing from your post, ollie, is a few more Bible verses and Pascal's wager! :smile:

[ollie]

Yesterday @ 11:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
WinAce:

All that's missing from your post, ollie, is a few more Bible verses and Pascal's wager! :smile:
"A few more Bible verses"?? Bible verses were not used in the post. Perhaps that is what you are implying. ?????

I am ignorant of "Pascal's wager". Perhaps you could enlighten me. ?????

[Nowhere357]

04-04-2003 @ 06:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=53489#post53489)
ollie:
Oh, x as in xmas. Don't keep Christ in Christian, but go ;xian;.By the way God does not say; you must go to hell. There is a better way. Study learn and find it. It is not through ;x; but Christ.

Just shorthand. No offense intended.

I have studied, hence my comment. I think the bible says the only way to heaven is to accept christ as savior. I think the bible also says those who don't accept christ, go to hell.

Is this incorrect?

[WinAce]

Today @ 08:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65980#post65980)
Nowhere357:

I think the bible says the only way to heaven is to accept christ as savior. I think the bible also says those who don't accept christ, go to hell.

Except when they're third-world tribesmen! Then you get all sorts of whacky rationalizations...

[ollie]

Today @ 08:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65980#post65980)
Nowhere357:


[quote]Just shorthand. No offense intended.
Not offended, just seemed worldly to substitute Christ with an X.

I have studied, hence my comment. I think the bible says the only way to heaven is to accept christ as savior.
True. and as the Son of God, as Lord, etc., etc..

I think the bible also says those who don't accept christ, go to hell.

Is this incorrect?

Those not found in the book of life will be thrown
in the lake of fire along with hades.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

What might be the relationship between existence and sense, whether one posits God or not? What are our expectations of the sensical?

[Nowhere357]

Yesterday @ 10:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=66719#post66719)
ollie:
Not offended, just seemed worldly to substitute Christ with an X.

Maybe you should visit the secularweb. It's very interesting.

I had said: "I think the bible also says those who don't accept christ, go to hell. Is this incorrect?"
Those not found in the book of life will be thrown
in the lake of fire along with hades.

This doesn't answer my question. :smile:

[ollie]

Today @ 01:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=67152#post67152)
Nowhere357:


Maybe you should visit the secularweb. It's very interesting.

I had said: "I think the bible also says those who don't accept christ, go to hell. Is this incorrect?"

This doesn't answer my question. :smile:
Sorry, I must have misunderstood.
Hell is used to translate two different words in the bible.
Hades and gehenna. Hades is grave or place of departed souls.
Gehenna is a place of everlasting punishment. Hades as far as I can conclude is made up of different planes or realms. One plane for God's people, one plane for those not of God and a very dark deep, deep, abyss known as tartarus reserved for disobedient angels. When one dies one goes to one or the other depending on whether they lived the physical life in accordance with God or not. One might say that all go to hell when they die if you use the word as Hades or the "grave". However the ungodly go to that part of hell (hades) that is known as hell (gehenna}

So to answer your question. Yes those who don't accept Christ go to hell (gehenna) in hell (hades). Those who are in Christ go to hell (hades) to that plane of paradise.

When Christ returns and the dead are resurrected (both ungodly and godly) Judgement will take place and the Godly (those in the book of life) both the resurrected and those who are physically alive at the time will join Christ in the air and forever be with Him.
The ungodly (those not in the book of life) will be thrown in the lake of fire along with death, hell (hades), the false prophet, and the beast.

[garthoverman]

Ollie,

My apologies but your post that I've cited here is exemplary of some of the most wide-spread yet fallacious Christian reasoning I've encountered on the web. That said, let me try to help you understand why your reasoning doesn't hold water:

03-08-2003 @ 12:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=29698#post29698)
ollie:

You exist. You are something. Does something come from nothing?
No, but nowhere in our universe has an event of "something from nothing" ever happened, nor is there any observable point in the universe where "nothing" exists. One thing modern physics has shown us is that there is no such thing as "nothing."

God doesn't exist. He was. is. and will be! The I AM.
Your statements are contradictory. You first say "God doesn't exist" and then immediately follow it with existential assertions. Which is it? Does God exist or not?

God created what exists. For anything to be in existence logic says something (God) always was, is, and will be. The Creator.
There is no reason to believe that the universe hasn't always existed. There is no observable point of creation (or "something from nothing" as Christians are wont to say), and thus no need for a creator.

My wristwatch did not always exist until it's designer and maker put it into that realm. The watch could not put itself into existence.
The substance that composes your watch already existed. That intelligent beings shaped that substance into a meaningful form does not make the intelligent beings creators of the substance, nor does it imply that the universe is analagous to your watch.

[That something that is not existent could put itself into existence is illogical and doesn't compute. A designer and maker logically is required.
Perhaps. Lucky for us there never was a point when the universe was non-existent.

Yours,
Garth

[ollie]

Today @ 07:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=68272#post68272)
garthoverman:

[quote]Ollie,

My apologies but your post that I've cited here is exemplary of some of the most wide-spread yet fallacious Christian reasoning I've encountered on the web. That said, let me try to help you understand why your reasoning doesn't hold water:


No, but nowhere in our universe has an event of "something from nothing" ever happened, nor is there any observable point in the universe where "nothing" exists.
Right on. Nor do Christians claim something from nothing.

One thing modern physics has shown us is that there is no such thing as "nothing."
How does physics prove there isn't any such thing as nothing?


Your statements are contradictory. You first say "God doesn't exist" and then immediately follow it with existential assertions. Which is it? Does God exist or not?
God is spirit. He always was, is, and will be. The physical creation exists within time and is temporary. The spiritual is eternal.
God does not exist in the physical creation because He is not physical but spiritual and He created the physical.


There is no reason to believe that the universe hasn't always existed. There is no observable point of creation
Genesis in the Bible says different.

(or "something from nothing" as Christians are wont to say),
Christians do not say this except to quote science and the quantum theory. Christians know that there has always been God. There was a point where the physical was nothing and did not exist. God is spirit and is I AM.

and thus no need for a creator.
Only because of God has all been created. Now because of His Son Jesus Christ, there is a new creation.


The substance that composes your watch already existed.
Thanks be to God.

That intelligent beings shaped that substance into a meaningful form does not make the intelligent beings creators of the substance,
No, they are mere men and reshaping and designing things from God's created substances.

nor does it imply that the universe is analagous to your watch.
It implies God spoke and made the physical with His word.
Man took created substances and made a watch with their intelligence.
Either way it didn't just happen, but had a being responsible for the making.


Perhaps. Lucky for us there never was a point when the universe was non-existent.

Yours,
Garth
Why :huh:

[Kyle]

Garth, it seems as though you are resting your entire foundation of "rational atheism" on the proposition that the universe has always existed in some form.

However, I am a bit confused as to how "some form" of the universe could have existed eternally into the past, yet the particular state the universe is in right now did not come about till, about 15 billion years, according to you? (Correct me if you don't believe that the Big Bang is the true Cosmological Model).

Now, an interesting conundrum occurs. Why is it that this "other form" of the universe took so long to become like the universe we see today? Since the "other form" would have existed for an infinite amount of time, what "prompted" it, if you will, to cause the Big Bang? Surely, if the universe was infinitely old, the situation to allow for such a change would have come up billions of years before!

Sincerely,

Kyle.

[garthoverman]

Today @ 02:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=68533#post68533)
ollie:

Right on. Nor do Christians claim something from nothing.
Sure they do. Unless you want to call liars all the Christians I've encountered that said precisely that.


How does physics prove there isn't any such thing as nothing?

Because reality withstands subdivision below the smallest meaningful space-time metric.


God is spirit. He always was, is, and will be. The physical creation exists within time and is temporary. The spiritual is eternal.
God does not exist in the physical creation because He is not physical but spiritual and He created the physical.
Yes, I understand that you believe this. My point is that the evidence we have does not point to that conclusion at all.


Genesis in the Bible says different.
And the Baghavad Gita, the Qu'ran, the Elder Edda, all say differently still. Sorry but I'm not all that anxious to give YOUR particular religious myth any more credibility than these others.


Christians do not say this except to quote science and the quantum theory. Christians know that there has always been God.
Correction: misquote "science and quantum theory." Also, that Christians "know" there has always been God does not necessitate that this claimed "knowledge" is any more accurate than everybody that used to "know" that the world was flat.


There was a point where the physical was nothing and did not exist. God is spirit and is I AM.
You are incorrect that there was a point "when the physical was nothing". At the Big Bang, space-time emerged over the event horizon that existed surrounding the singularity. Our physical observations temporally commence at that moment, however that does not let us conclude that something observable didn't exist until our observations commence.


Only because of God has all been created. Now because of His Son Jesus Christ, there is a new creation.
I understand that these are your beliefs. Please do not confuse them with objectively establshed facts.

Yours,
Garth

[garthoverman]

Today @ 04:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=68736#post68736)
Kyle:

Garth, it seems as though you are resting your entire foundation of "rational atheism" on the proposition that the universe has always existed in some form.
If it seems that way, I've misled you. The "entire foundation" does not rest on this issue.


However, I am a bit confused as to how "some form" of the universe could have existed eternally into the past, yet the particular state the universe is in right now did not come about till, about 15 billion years, according to you? (Correct me if you don't believe that the Big Bang is the true Cosmological Model).

Come again? Are you trying to have a "why are things THIS way and not another way" argument with me? If so I ask you, why not?


Now, an interesting conundrum occurs. Why is it that this "other form" of the universe took so long to become like the universe we see today? Since the "other form" would have existed for an infinite amount of time, what "prompted" it, if you will, to cause the Big Bang? Surely, if the universe was infinitely old, the situation to allow for such a change would have come up billions of years before!

Ohhhhhh.... you ARE having a "why are things this way and not another way" argument with me. Listen, unless you can come up with a reasonable argument why the universe SHOULD NOT be exactly how we encounter it, your question is meaningless. Realize that such an argument would necessitate a non-arbitrary method of measuring relative probabilities of mutually exclusive universes and then comparing them. When you pony up that method and derive some of them figures come talk to me. Otherwise all you have is an argument from incredulity (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/astonishment.html).

Yours,
Garth

[Nowhere357]

Yesterday @ 11:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=68210#post68210)
ollie:

So to answer your question. Yes those who don't accept Christ go to hell (gehenna) in hell (hades). When Christ returns and the dead are resurrected (both ungodly and godly) Judgement will take place and the Godly (those in the book of life) both the resurrected and those who are physically alive at the time will join Christ in the air and forever be with Him.
The ungodly (those not in the book of life) will be thrown in the lake of fire along with death, hell (hades), the false prophet, and the beast.

What determines whether a person is "godly" or "ungodly"?

Peace

[Kyle]

"If it seems that way, I've misled you. The "entire foundation" does not rest on this issue."

Yeah, but if atheists can't even answer the question as to why or how the universe exists, I would say it is skating on pretty thin ice.

"Listen, unless you can come up with a reasonable argument why the universe SHOULD NOT be exactly how we encounter it, your question is meaningless."

Wrong. I merely pointed out that it is impossible for "something" to exist forever and then spontaneously cause a big bang. There's really no logical way for that to occur. So, you're scenario is logically impossible and thus should be disregarded in favor of theism. :thumb:

Sincerely,

Kyle.

[garthoverman]

Today @ 04:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70367#post70367)
Kyle:
Yeah, but if atheists can't even answer the question as to why or how the universe exists, I would say it is skating on pretty thin ice.
Why? Why WOULDN'T it exist? :huh:

"Listen, unless you can come up with a reasonable argument why the universe SHOULD NOT be exactly how we encounter it, your question is meaningless."

Wrong. I merely pointed out that it is impossible for "something" to exist forever and then spontaneously cause a big bang. There's really no logical way for that to occur. So, you're scenario is logically impossible and thus should be disregarded in favor of theism.
Please re-read your statements very carefully. You make the statement that "it is impossible for something to exist forever and then spontaneously cause the big bang," yet in your last sentence you attempt to conclude that it is your God which is doing exactly what you just asserted was impossible! This is your argument:

It is impossible for something to exist forever and cause the big bang

Therefore God existed forever and caused the big bang.

So either you want to concede that your God is NOT "something" (the only alternative to which is "nothing"), or you want to argue that the Big Bang didn't happen at all. If the latter, you'll need to pony up some serious evidence because the evidence indicating its reality is stacking up pretty high and higher by the minute. Perhaps you should read again - this time more carefully - my previous post where I described the method for constructing a meaningful argument WHY the universe SHOULDN'T be exactly as we encounter it.

If you don't disagree that the big bang happened, you'll need to revise your statements because as they stand that are in direct contradiction to one another.

Yours,
Garth

[Jezz]

Hi all. I've got some points to add to this thread. Sorry that this post is so long.

My first point relates to the inadequacy of human language to describe much of what is being discussed here.

I think a lot of the problem in debates of this type, where the beginning of the universe is concerned, is that our languages and our experience are poorly equipped for dealing with such issues. As finite human beings, all of our existance, observations and experiences are within the universe, and within the flow of time. Thus our understanding and language reflects this.

The problem is, in both the Christian and atheistic/scientific point of view, time began with the beginning of the universe (note that Genesis starts with "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."). We have to be careful with our word choice, since most of the words we try and use reflect our temporal experience.

Here are some examples of phrases that I have seen arising in this thread, which reflect the above observation:

"God existed before the universe." The word "before" implies a flow of time - one event cannot have happened before another unless there is a flow of time to separate the events. Because time began at the beginning of the universe, to talk of X existing "before" the universe is a contradiction - by definition, there was nothing "before" the universe.

"The universe always existed." Again, "always" is a word which is a measure of time. In this context, it means "for all time thus far". Thus, it is actually a tautology to claim that universe always existed - time began with the beginning of the universe, so of course the universe has existed for all time thus far.

"There was never a point when the universe was non existent". Again, the word "when" is a temporal word. To talk about "when the universe did not exist" implies a time when the universe did not exist. And because time began when the universe began, to speak of a time when the universe did not exist is an oxymoron - which makes this statement which I have quoted vacuously true.

Regarding the issue of cause and effect - note that, by definition, causes always happen before their effects. There's that word again - "before" - implying a flow of time. Again, because the flow of time began with the universe, to speak of what caused the universe can become a confusing issue.

So, as we see, our language is simply inadequte to fully describe what happened "in the beginning", and this is something that we temporal being could never hope to comprehend (or to find the words to explain it even if we could).

My second point relates to resolving an apparent conflict between the Christians and atheists in this thread on the issue of first cause. The basic disagreement, as I see it, is:

Christians: The universe must have had a cause, as nothing can come into existance without a cause.
Atheist: Substitute "universe" for "God" in the above argument. If God could exist without a cause, then why not the universe?

And that's about the state of this argument in this thread thus far. Given my arguments above about the lack of strength of the cause/effect argument when applied to the beginning of the universe, I'd have to side with the atheists on this one. The Christians have not made their case as to why I should prefer God as the first cause to the universe as existing.

But let's look at this a bit more closely. Is it true that everything that exists needs a cause? I don't think so. I can think of one thing that we all assume exists (at least, those capable of rational argument) - that is, absolute truth. Is it fair to say that absolute truth is caused? Does the question "what caused the theory of numbers" make sense? I don't think so. We discover truth (or at least, we try to :brow:) - we don't create it. Thus, things exist that are not caused.

So is it fair to conclude from that that anything may exist? Again, I don't think so. So what is it that separates something that needs a cause from something that doesn't? I'm going to propose a criteria by which we should separate such things: immaterial vs material. Material things are those which are subject to physical laws. Immaterial (or abstract) things are everything else. Immaterial things don't need a cause, and they don't need time in which to exist - they simply exist. Material things only exist in time, in the universe. Note that the immaterial can affect the physical (in fact, the physical laws are themselves immaterial), but not the other way around.

It follows, from this observation, that the universe (being a material thing) cannot have simply existed. It must have had an immaterial abstract cause. It is fair to claim that God is immaterial, and hence simply exists, and created the material universe. Thus, I would have to hand the trophy back to the Christians on this issue.

Or do I? I have shown that the atheist stance "the universe simply exists" does not really hold. Is it possible to modify it slightly, to preserve atheism? Well, I can think of one way - in mathematics and physics, we have the concept of a "boundary condition". The boundary condition is what defines what is going to happen on the "inside" of that boundary. The universe can be defined by such a boundary condition, which would be equivalent to the universe as it was "in the beginning". Also, note that a boundard condition is an immaterial thing - therefore, it simply exists. In fact, when Garth said "the universe always existed", I think this is essentially what he meant. This universal boundary condition (henceforth, the UBC) could fairly be said to cause, or create, the universe. And so, the pendulum swings back to the side of the atheists - if it fair for Christians to claim that God simply existed, it is equally fair for atheists to claim that the UBC simply existed, and the existance of God has not been proved.

In one of Kyle's posts, he posed the following three criteria that the abstract first cause must have in order to be the cause of the universe:

1. The causal agent must be eternally existing.
2. The causal agent must be above and beyond the laws of the universe.
3. The causal agent must be able to make decisions.

How does the UBC stack up against these criteria? I've already argued that the UBC is abstract, and hence simply exists, which would satisfy 1. And because the UBC defines the universe, it is fair to think of this boundary condition as being "above and beyond the laws of the universe" (thereby satisfying point 2). Can the UBC make decisions? Well, yes - in fact, the UBC in effect decides everything, making it the decision maker! So this boundary condition satisfies condition 3 as well.

So have I proved that the UBC could have been the first cause, even by Kyle's criteria.

Have I proved that God was unnecessary? Well, I've already swung back-and-forth a couple of times in this post, I guess it wouldn't surprise anyone if I swung back again. :) I am going to stop swinging eventually, but rather than give away the answer to this final question, I think I'd like to let others here comment on the above first. :smile:

[Kyle]

Jezz, sorry for taking so long to reply, but I wanted to take some time to chew on your objections.

Firstly, you are under the impression that I (or "the Christians") believe that God simply exists, and there is nothing more to it. However, this is untrue. There is a very important reason why it is valid for me to claim that God just exists compared to saying that the universe just exists.

God, as reckoned by me and all theists throughout time, has existed eternally. Obviously, if God has existed for an eternity, then He would require no cause. Of course, the common objection comes up: "If God has existed forever, why couldn't the universe exist forever?" That is a good question, and there is a good answer.

Specifically, there is a VAST amount of evidence that the universe IS NOT eternal, therefore we are not justified in claiming that the universe has existed forever.

Now, despite reading your post about four times, I cannot really comprehend by what you mean with this "boundary condition". I think what I have gathered is that a "boundary condition" basically describes what happens within that boundary. Therefore, the UBC would define what happens inside the universe (Such as physical laws and supernova explosions, for example). Would I be correct in that analysis?

If I am right about this, then it seems to me that you are talking nonsense when you claim that the UBC could create the universe. The universe was created by the immaterial concept which is only formed as the result of the way the universe is? The UBC seems to be a consequence of the universe, not the other way around.

However, I thank you for acknowledging my criteria and trying to analyze the UBC in that regard.

"I've already argued that the UBC is abstract, and hence simply exists, which would satisfy 1."

I think the problem is that immaterial things only exist as a CONSEQUENCE of physical realities. So, the UBC can't "simply exist" unless the physical universe first "simply exists", and we are back to postulating theism.

"Well, yes - in fact, the UBC in effect decides everything, making it the decision maker!"

Perhaps, but the UBC does not "decide" anything in terms of making a conscious decision amongst other possibilities. The UBC is merely a law in and of itself.

Sincerely,

Kyle.

[Jezz]

Kyle:
Jezz, sorry for taking so long to reply, but I wanted to take some time to chew on your objections.

That's quite alright - I'm not surprised that you had to take some time to chew on my objections. It was meant to be a thought-provoking post - if anyone could have replied sensibly in a short time, I'd have taken it as a personal affront. :wink:

Specifically, there is a VAST amount of evidence that the universe IS NOT eternal, therefore we are not justified in claiming that the universe has existed forever.
This is where you start running into the "language barrier" that I was trying to get at in the first part of my post.

The words "eternal" and "forever" are typically understood as meaning "for all time". And as I said in my last post, both modern physics and the Bible (Genesis 1:1, John 1:1) tell us that time began with the beginning of the universe. Hence, the universe has been around forever (ie is eternal) by definition. To speak of anything being around longer than the universe implies time that existed before the universe, which contradicts both the Bible and modern physics. Thus to speak of an "eternal universe" is a tautology, and to speak of a universe that is not eternal is an oxymoron.

The only things that exist independently of time (and hence are truly timeless) are abstract things. I think perhaps "timeless" is the word you should be using - clearly God is timeless (by common understanding), but the universe (or any material thing) is not. However, the UBC is timeless, which is why I modified the atheist's "the universe is eternal" counter-argument.

Now, despite reading your post about four times, I cannot really comprehend by what you mean with this "boundary condition".
Sorry about that - it's a fairly technical term used in higher-level maths and finds great use in the mathematical sciences (especially physics). I used the term mainly for the benefit of a person like Garth, who seemed to know a little about physics. But you seem to have got a fairly good, basic grasp of the concept.

I think what I have gathered is that a "boundary condition" basically describes what happens within that boundary. Therefore, the UBC would define what happens inside the universe (Such as physical laws and supernova explosions, for example). Would I be correct in that analysis?
That's close enough. :thumb:

If I am right about this, then it seems to me that you are talking nonsense when you claim that the UBC could create the universe. The universe was created by the immaterial concept which is only formed as the result of the way the universe is? The UBC seems to be a consequence of the universe, not the other way around.
I disagree - I'm pretty sure I've got it the right way around. The universe could not have existed without the existence of the boundary condition to define it. However, the UBC (being an abstract thing) could have existed without the universe. I'll explain this in a bit more detail below.

However, I thank you for acknowledging my criteria and trying to analyze the UBC in that regard.
You're welcome. I think they are good criteria.

I think the problem is that immaterial things only exist as a CONSEQUENCE of physical realities. So, the UBC can't "simply exist" unless the physical universe first "simply exists", and we are back to postulating theism.
As above, I disagree with your first sentence (and hence the conclusions that follow).

Immaterial things don't exist as a consequence of physical realities. They are concepts, abstract - they exist independently of physical realities which they describe. In trying to explain this, I'm going to try and use an example with which you are probably familiar - the cardinal numbers. These are the numbers that you use to count with (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc). Now tell me - does the number "2" exist only because the physical world exists? Does it only exist because there are two material things to count? Or would the number 2 exist even if there was nothing to count? I maintain the latter. The concept of numbers, being a purely abstract thing, would exist even if the universe didn't. To really put this in perspective - according to physics, the number of particles in the universe is finite. Let "x" be the number of particles in the universe. Does the number "x+1" exist? Mathematicians would argue that it does. But if so, how could we ever hope to write it down in its entireity? The answer: we can't. We could never gather "x+1" different things in the universe to give a concrete example of the number "x+1", because there are only x particles in the universe. So this number exists in an abstract sense, even though we can't give a physical example of it.

Moving gradually into an example more analogous to the UBC case: the plans for a building. Plans are abstract. You can put them into a concrete form (eg onto a computer screen, or on a piece of paper, or scratched in the dirt, etc), or someone might hold it in their mind. But it is still the same plan, and it exists no matter which concrete form it is put into. In fact, it exists even if it hasn't been put into a concrete form - it's "there", waiting for someone to "discover" it and put it into a concrete form (which may actually never happen).

An important thing to note is that a plan for a house can exist even if the house is never physically built. However, the reverse is not true - you can't have the house without the plan (in the abstract sense) for that house existing.

Boundary conditions are essentially mathematical "building plans" for physical systems. Thus they can exist without the physical system existing, but the reverse is not true. So to say that the UBC only exists because the universe exists is false - the UBC could exist as an abstract concept regardless of the existence of the universe, but the universe can only exist by virtue of the existence of the UBC.

"Well, yes - in fact, the UBC in effect decides everything, making it the decision maker!"

Perhaps, but the UBC does not "decide" anything in terms of making a conscious decision amongst other possibilities. The UBC is merely a law in and of itself.
Well, now you're moving the goalposts. :smile: The "conscious" qualification was not part of your original criteria. You simply wrote
"The causal agent must be able to make decisions."

However, for the sake of argument I will take this new qualification under advisement and see how it affects the UBC proposition. Well, the first thing I'm going to do is complain that the word "conscious" is not very well defined as you have used it. But I'll let this one slide for now. Let's look at the UBC - remember, this defines everything in the universe. The universe includes conscious beings (us). Therefore, the UBC includes a definition of consciousness. And now I use one of the theist's most popular arguments - "no effect is greater than its cause"... well, if the UBC contains a definition of consciousness, then wouldn't the UBC have to be greater than the concept of consciousness itself? "Hyperconscious" might perhaps be a good term for it...

Ok, I think this last paragraph has given away enough additional clues to stimulate thought a little further (if anyone's still reading!)... I'm going to be quiet again for a bit and let you guys mull it over some more.

Cheers,

-Jezz

[Jezz]

Ok, I've left this for a few days and noone's taken the bait, so I'm going to finish what I started.

In my last couple of posts, I set about trying to establish that the UBC could fulfill all of Kyle's requirements for a causal agent that started the universe. I then asked the question: "Does this mean that I have proved that God didn't have to exist to create the universe?"

My answer to this question is a resounding no! But what then about the UBC - didn't fulfill all of those criteria? Well yes! But isn't that a contradiction? No!

The key to understanding this lies in what Kyle wrote after he specified his criteria:
Now, if these three attributes are established, then the existence of God will be established, since an eternally existing personal entity that is above and beyond the laws of the universe is basically the definition of God.
The fact that the UBC fits all of the necessary criteria does not prove that God's existence isn't necessary. What it actually proves is that the UBC is God, defined in a mathematical/logical sense. The whole UBC thing didn't do away with the need for a God - rather, it gave an alternative means for describing the same thing. More importantly, we know that according to the laws of physics and mathematics, the universe and all that we see could not exist if the UBC didn't first exist - ie, if God did not exist.

The more one examines this UBC thing, the more it fits with what we'd expect from the Christian God. Some examples:

-A boundary condition doesn't have to be specified at the "start" of the physical system. The UBC can be equally well specified by taking the state of the universe at the end of time, or at any time in-between the beginning and the end. Compare this with the following Bible verses:

"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." Rev 1:8

"...I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end..." Rev 21:6

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." Rev 22:13

Clearly, the Bible teaches that God is the beginning, the end, and everything in-between. Curiously similar to the above points I noted about the UBC - ie that it may be equivalently defined at any point in time in the universe's history or future.

Incidentally, all this UBC stuff I have been talking about is actually derived from the work of a modern physicist by the name of Frank Tipler. He actually coined the name "Omega Point" for the UBC, and the name was inspired by these Bible passages (although Tipler isn't a Christian).

-I noted in my last two posts that people typically make mistakes in their usage of language when referring to the cause of the universe. An example of such a problem is to try and talk about what existed "before" the universe, which is a logical contradiction because time began at the instant the universe began, so there simply is no "before". One thing I find curious about the Bible's treatment of this philosophically difficult topic is that it doesn't make such blunders. It doesn't say "God was around before the universe was created." (which would be an example of such a contradiction) - it simply says "In the beginning, God was." (paraphrasing of verses like Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1). This theme is held consistently throughout the Bible, despite the human tendency to make mistakes when talking about this issue (as we have seen in this very thread).

-Elsewhere in this thread it was noted that there are other creation stories in different cultures - some of which are quite similar to the Genesis account. The aim of this being mentioned was to try and However, there is one area in which the Genesis account is very special (apart from the point in the - its opening words are "In the beginning...". AFAIK, this makes it unique among all creation myths - none of the other ancient creation myths talk about the the universe having a beginning (if anyone can give me a counter-example here, I'd be happy to hear about it). Mostly, the other creation stories start with things like "In the time when...", implying that time continued before the creation account. In fact, the idea of the universe having a beginning was one that even science rejected until 1960 - up until then, the majority of scientists believed that the universe had an infinite age (and even in this day and age, there are a minority of scientists who still support such a hypothesis and reject the Big Bang theory). Genesis was written AFAIK between 3000-4000 years ago, and on the question of whether or not the universe had a beginning it stood firm for all this time - even in the face of all the other creation myths (including the science) got this point wrong. Again, this I find curious.

Some points worth considering. Comments?

[cloaked_dagger]

I've read this whole thing and am very interested in what you are saying. When you said that the UBC is God, did you mean that when Frank Tiper and yourself were describing the attributes of UBC you were actually describing the attributes of God? Or that throughout time people have labelled this phenomenon as God in a kind of primitive mistake?
Also, if you don't mind, I would appreciate it if you could tell me exactly what a UBC is? You said that Kyle had come close with his description but I'm still a little in the dark...


Thanks

[Jezz]

cloaked_dagger:
I've read this whole thing and am very interested in what you are saying. When you said that the UBC is God, did you mean that when Frank Tiper...
That's "Tipler", not "Tiper". I'm not normally picky on spelling mistakes or typos, but this was a person's name. :smile:

While I'm on the topic of the man from whom I got these ideas, I think I will now revert to calling the UBC the name he gave it - "Omega Point", perhaps OP for short. I used UBC thus far as a simple description of what it is, to introduce the concept gradually. Now that it is close to fully developed, I think it's fair to start using that name.

...and yourself were describing the attributes of UBC you were actually describing the attributes of God? Or that throughout time people have labelled this phenomenon as God in a kind of primitive mistake?
Short answer: the former, not the latter.

Consider the difference in approach that a scientist (of the physical sciences variety) and a layman would take regarding a human being. A scientist looks at a human and sees a biological machine - a collection of organic molecules arranged in an intricate pattern, with physical and chemical reactions taking place both within the machine and between the machine and its environment. This approach is not incorrect - it can be useful, and is of academic interest. However, this approach is sterile, and one can often miss the forest for the trees.

On the other hand, a layman looks at a human being holistically. Instead of looking up close and seeing lots of trees, they see a forest - ie, they see another person, not a biological machine. Someone who (like them) can think, feel, and act. This, too, is an accurate way to treat a human being. It would not be right to call it a "primitive mistake" to think about humans this way, just because it is different to the way that a scientist would approach it. In fact, we would probably consider this the "human" way to treat a human being.

The scientific approach is mainly of academic interest. But in terms of dealing with human beings in everyday life, we generally avoid the sterile scientific approach and treat a human being as a person.

As I see it, the difference between the Omega Point and God is the same. The Omega Point is God as a scientist would see him - this is of academic interest, but if we always approached God in this way, we'd be missing the forest for the trees. In everyday life, it is better (IMO) to think about God holistically - the infinite creator of the universe and everything in it, with a personality.

Also, if you don't mind, I would appreciate it if you could tell me exactly what a UBC is? You said that Kyle had come close with his description but I'm still a little in the dark...
Sure, no problem.

In physics, most laws are written as differential equations of some form. The thing is, these equations in themselves are not enough to completely describe what happens in a system. This is perhaps best explained by an example. Consider Newton's laws of motion (which anyone with basic high-school understanding of physics should be able to understand at least a little :wink:) as applied to the flight of a baseball. Knowing the laws is in itself not enough to specify where the ball is going to go - you also have to know its initial speed and direction (ie its initial velocity) and its initial position, as well as any external forces that might be acting on it. These are known as the "initial conditions" or "boundary conditions". And that's basically what a boundary condition is.

Note that because the laws work the same going backwards as they do forwards, you could also specify the flight of the baseball by specifying its final velocity and position, and working backwards. Or, you can do both - specify the velocity and position at any point of time, and work backwards from that point to the start, and forwards to the end. These are different ways of specifying the boundary condition. In any of these cases, you'll still end up with the same answer, so the boundary conditions are equivalent to each other.

The universe is governed by physical laws too, but as with the example above these also do not completely specify the universe. Just as with the baseball example, we still need to specify the state of the universe at some point - at the beginning of time, at the end, or perhaps some point in between. In other words, we need to specify the boundary condition of the universe - ie the "universal boundary condition" (UBC). That's basically what the UBC (or Omega Point, to use Tipler's phrase) is.

Is that clearer?

Anyway, here's some more points to note about the Omega Point (the first three are Kyle's criteria for God, which are repeated here for completeness):

1. It pervades all of time - ie it is eternal.
2. Its existence is independent of the existence of the universe - thus it is above and beyond the laws of the universe.
3. It decides everything in the universe, hence it is able to make decisions.
4. In a very real sense, it creates everything in the universe.
5. Intelligence, consciousness and personality exist within our universe. Thus the definitions of these concepts exist within the Omega Point - in other words, the Omega Point has intelligence, consciousness and has a personality. Moreover, because it defines all the intelligence, consciousness and personality that ever existed or will exist, it must have intelligence, consciousness and personality to surpass anything in this universe.
6. It is infinite.
7. It pervades all of space (cf omnipresence).
8. Anything that is logically possible, it can make happen in the universe (cf omnipotence).
9. Because it describes the universe, it also describes all the knowledge contained in the universe, making it all-knowing.
10. If there is objective morality in the universe, then the Omega Point is also the author of that.

The list could probably go on, but you get the picture. The Omega Point is an infinite, eternal, omnipresent, all-knowing, omnipotent, super-intelligent, hyper-conscious entity that has a personality. It created the universe, and is the ultimate author of the objective morality within it by which we try and live our lives. This is essentially the same God that was described in the Bible thousands of years before the relevant maths and physics was discovered (calculus was discovered in the 1700s). Without the benefit of these modern tools, how did the ancients stumble across this knowledge?

Allen, I hope this helps you in understanding how God's existence makes sense.

[Kyle]

Jezz, ironically, I was just about to respond to your post and point out that the "UBC" sounded a lot like God.

I'm not quite sure if I agree with you yet, but I think you make a good point. Anyways, how did Tipler come to the same conclusion yet not acknowledge the UBC as God?

[cloaked_dagger]

That's "Tipler", not "Tiper". I'm not normally picky on spelling mistakes or typos, but this was a person's name. :smile:
LOL sorry about that, I was going from memory because I was too lazy to check back for the name again.

(which anyone with basic high-school understanding of physics should be able to understand at least a little :wink:)
It's funny you should say that, I'm actually only in my first year of high school, but I do have a basic understanding because I studied physics last year for a science project of mine.

The universe is governed by physical laws too, but as with the example above these also do not completely specify the universe. Just as with the baseball example, we still need to specify the state of the universe at some point - at the beginning of time, at the end, or perhaps some point in between. In other words, we need to specify the boundary condition of the universe - ie the "universal boundary condition" (UBC). That's basically what the UBC (or Omega Point, to use Tipler's phrase) is. Is that clearer?

Very clear. I appreciate it.

[garthoverman]

Jezz,

In reading your last post I noticed something that I think I should contest in the interest in preserving the integrity of your conclusions:
2. Its existence is independent of the existence of the universe - thus it is above and beyond the laws of the universe.
In that the universe is "all that is" be definition, I can't see how postulating something existing "independant of the universe" could ever be meaningful.

You might find this an interesting read:

Introduction to th CTMU (http://www.ctmu.org/CTMU/Articles/IntroCTMU.html)

In the early paragraphs the author addresses containment, which should elucidate the point I made to you above.

Yours,
Garth

[Jezz]

Kyle:
Jezz, ironically, I was just about to respond to your post and point out that the "UBC" sounded a lot like God.
:yipee: That's the conclusion I was trying to steer you towards - I knew I should have waited a bit longer before spilling the beans. :teeth:

I'm not quite sure if I agree with you yet, but I think you make a good point.
See if my last post clarifies this a little more for you.

Anyways, how did Tipler come to the same conclusion yet not acknowledge the UBC as God?
Interesting point, actually. Ironically I included an explanation in a draft of the last post, but deleted it when I thought it was getting a little off-topic, and the post was already long. So here it is again. :)

Tipler did actually acknowledge the Omega Point as a god - just not necessarily as YHWH. Although he acknowledged that the Omega Point and YHWH had many things in common, he was more an "Omega Point" theist than a Jew, Muslim or Christian.

He actually devotes a chapter in his book explaining why he is not a Christian, where he basically reiterates the Humean argument of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and uses it to dismiss the historicity of the resurrection.

I must say that I find his position interesting, given that he actually describes a means by which the resurrection could occur (ie, that the Omega Point ordained it). That in combination with the obvious parallels between OP and YHWH as described in the Bible - if the OP theory is correct, IMO these similarities could only be explained by divine revelation, as the ancients almost certainly didn't have access to the knowledge of maths and physics that Tipler is privy to.

I just realised I haven't actually given a reference for any of Tipler's material, so here it is: the book that most of this stuff came from is called "The Physics of Immortality", Frank J. Tipler, 1994. ISBN: 0 330 34672 5

[Jezz]

garthoverman:
In reading your last post I noticed something that I think I should contest in the interest in preserving the integrity of your conclusions...In that the universe is "all that is" be definition, I can't see how postulating something existing "independant of the universe" could ever be meaningful.

You might find this an interesting read:

Introduction to th CTMU (http://www.ctmu.org/CTMU/Articles/IntroCTMU.html)

In the early paragraphs the author addresses containment, which should elucidate the point I made to you above.

Thanks Garth.

I've briefly read the link you gave me - it looks interesting, and I'll have to read it a bit more carefully and contemplate it for a bit before I can come to any solid opinions on it. I've had a few years to think about Tipler's theory. :smile:

But as for your objection: I think what this boils down to is a different definition of what the "universe" is. The definition I have been using is the everyday definition, and it is also the definition typically used by physicists - ie that the universe is all the material objects. However, the definition you seem to be using (which I gather comes from the CTMU theory) is the mathematical definition of universe - which is "the set of everything (both material and immaterial)".

Once we get past this difference in understanding, I think your objection vanishes. Clearly, if I was using your definition of "universe", then it would be a contradiction to talk of anything "above and beyond" the universe. However, as I went to great lengths trying to explain in an earlier post, the immaterial world exists independently of the material world, and hence there is no contradiction if one uses the physical definition of the universe. The fact that we use maths to describe the material universe is an indication that the immaterial is "above and beyond" the material universe.

Think of it this way: If I define the universe as everything (including the immaterial), and Omega Point is immaterial, then yes - the Omega Point does not exist "above and beyond" this universe. But changing this definition doesn't actually change what the Omega Point is. It is the fact that the Omega Point is above and beyond the material universe (among other things) that gives it its God-like properties.

I also have a comment to make about the CTMU theory. For the sake of argument, I'll assume it's valid. I'll make the simple observation that the SCSPL (like the Omega Point) would also fulfill all of points 1-10 that I made in my post-before-last (remembering, of course, that by "universe" I mean the material universe, not the mathematical "set of everything"). And thus, if the CTMU theory is correct, we're still back at where we started - the CTMU theory requires the existence of something (SCSPL) that has all the attributes of God. In other words, CTMU theory requires that God exists.

And so we see another example of Jezz's theory :wink: - any theory of reality requires the existence of an ultimate "something", and at the end of the day this ultimate "something" actually boils down to being another way of describing God.

Comments?

[garthoverman]

Today @ 03:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79072#post79072)
Jezz:


Thanks Garth.

I've briefly read the link you gave me - it looks interesting, and I'll have to read it a bit more carefully and contemplate it for a bit before I can come to any solid opinions on it. I've had a few years to think about Tipler's theory. :smile:

But as for your objection: I think what this boils down to is a different definition of what the "universe" is. The definition I have been using is the everyday definition, and it is also the definition typically used by physicists - ie that the universe is all the material objects.
That's not quite right. The universe as viewed by physicists and philosopher's alike is defined as all that exists. Period. Your distinction between material and immaterial is a red herring, therefore.



I went to great lengths trying to explain in an earlier post, the immaterial world exists independently of the material world, and hence there is no contradiction if one uses the physical definition of the universe.
I'd like to see you support the assertion that the "immaterial world exists independantly of the material world." Personally, I think its impossible to seperate the two.

[quote]The fact that we use maths to describe the material universe is an indication that the immaterial is "above and beyond" the material universe.
"Above and beyond" does not equal "exists independantly of."

Think of it this way: If I define the universe as everything (including the immaterial), and Omega Point is immaterial, then yes - the Omega Point does not exist "above and beyond" this universe. But changing this definition doesn't actually change what the Omega Point is. It is the fact that the Omega Point is above and beyond the material universe (among other things) that gives it its God-like properties.
But I don't think that your "above and beyond" relation is at all an accurate description of any relationship that exists in reality. I think that the distinction between "material universe" and "immaterial universe" is a false one. Its all simply contained in the universe. Yes there are aspects of the universe that are material, and there's other aspects that are immaterial, just as there are aspects that are green, and aspects that are blue, and aspects that are loud, and asepcts that are quiet. Its all in the universe. Obviously the immaterial world and material world affect eachother -- see human creativity and learning -- so its ridiculous to postulate one independant of the other.

I also have a comment to make about the CTMU theory. For the sake of argument, I'll assume it's valid. I'll make the simple observation that the SCSPL (like the Omega Point) would also fulfill all of points 1-10 that I made in my post-before-last (remembering, of course, that by "universe" I mean the material universe, not the mathematical "set of everything"). And thus, if the CTMU theory is correct, we're still back at where we started - the CTMU theory requires the existence of something (SCSPL) that has all the attributes of God. In other words, CTMU theory requires that God exists.
Not all the attributes. My objection to number two is still valid. The SCSPL is reality itself and doesn't exist "independant" of anything.

Yours,
Garth

[ollie]

04-16-2003 @ 03:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=68990#post68990)
Nowhere357:



[quote]What determines whether a person is "godly" or "ungodly"?

Peace
The grace of God through His Son Jesus Christ.

[Jezz]

garthoverman:
That's not quite right. The universe as viewed by physicists and philosopher's alike is defined as all that exists. Period. Your distinction between material and immaterial is a red herring, therefore.
The assertion that physicists hold that the universe is defined as "all that exists" still doesn't clear things up properly. The term "existence" can have different meanings depending on the context - it can mean material existence, immaterial existence, or maybe both.

The distinction between two different types of existing is a bit hard for us native English speakers to understand, because our language does not explicitly differentiate between the two. In Spanish, for example, there are two different types of verb for "be", to reflect two different kinds of being. In Spanish, I might translate ollie's statement something like "Dios no esta. Dios es." - which when translated word-for-word into English would look something like "God is not. God is." Doesn't make sense in English, though it would make some sense in Spanish (I've only got very basic Spanish skills, so I couldn't translate it very well).

Incidentally, I think this is the distiction ollie was trying to get at earlier in this thread when he said "God does not exist - he created existence". He was trying to distinguish between two different types of existence - the distinction was that "existence" that God created was the physical realm (ie the material universe), and God exists in the spiritual realm (ie the immaterial universe).

"Above and beyond" does not equal "exists independantly of."...But I don't think that your "above and beyond" relation is at all an accurate description of any relationship that exists in reality. I think that the distinction between "material universe" and "immaterial universe" is a false one. Its all simply contained in the universe.
What this boils down to is an issue of semantics. You define the universe as all the material + all the immaterial, whereas I have been defining it as all the material. Suppose that I call the latter the "bloomiverse" instead of the universe. The universe contains the bloomiverse and the Omega Point, but the Omega Point exists independently of the bloomiverse.

Yes there are aspects of the universe that are material, and there's other aspects that are immaterial, just as there are aspects that are green, and aspects that are blue, and aspects that are loud, and asepcts that are quiet. Its all in the universe. Obviously the immaterial world and material world affect eachother -- see human creativity and learning -- so its ridiculous to postulate one independant of the other.
I don't think it's ridiculous to say that one exists independent of the other. According to your CTMU theory (from the basic skimming that I have given it), the universe U is essentially the set containing all things that exists. Suppose I take out of this set all the material things to form a new set U' containing all immaterial things. Clearly, this set exists and is non-empty. And by definition it exists without requiring the existence of any material thing. Thus if the CTMU theory is true, immaterial things exist without the need for material things to exist. The reverse does not apply because the set of all material things is itself an immaterial thing (sets are not material things).

Another question: how can the evolution of the universe adhere to physical laws that only exist by virtue of the fact that the universe exists? Isn't that circular? I think the only way out of this viscious circle is to accept that the physical laws must exist independently of the universe they describe.

The problem is that if you don't make the distinction between the two, you are stuck back at the "first cause" argument where we started: All material things must have a cause, whereas immaterial things don't (they simply exist). So there must have existed something immaterial in the beginning which created the first material thing (ie the universe).

Not all the attributes. My objection to number two is still valid. The SCSPL is reality itself and doesn't exist "independant" of anything.
The above disagreement notwithstanding, I do agree that it is a bit of a side-issue to talk about the distinction between immaterial and material universes regarding this point.

In fact, if I go back to Kyle's original point, instead of my above distortion of it:
2. The causal agent must be above and beyond the laws of the universe.
There is no mention of the causal agent needing to exist independently of the universe - this is something I accidentally added later. The causal agent only needs to be above and beyond the universe that it creates. I think both the Omega Point and the SCSPL are above and beyond the universe they describe in the sense that they are greater than anything in it - thereby satsifying Kyle's point 2.

Taking this fact further, I think there is actually a good theological argument as to why God could not exist independently of the universe. One could easily posit that because it was God's sovereign will to create the universe, God could not exist independently of the universe (for if he did his sovereign will would be violated). Of course, God is still "above and beyond" the universe, and thus satisfies Kyle's original criterion.

[garthoverman]

Yesterday @ 03:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80859#post80859)
Jezz:


The assertion that physicists hold that the universe is defined as "all that exists" still doesn't clear things up properly. The term "existence" can have different meanings depending on the context - it can mean material existence, immaterial existence, or maybe both.
Your distinction between material and immaterial is a red herring. Existence has a singluar meaning that is further modified by "material" or "immaterial." The universe is all that exists, period.


The distinction between two different types of existing is a bit hard for us native English speakers to understand, because our language does not explicitly differentiate between the two. In Spanish, for example, there are two different types of verb for "be", to reflect two different kinds of being. In Spanish, I might translate ollie's statement something like "Dios no esta. Dios es." - which when translated word-for-word into English would look something like "God is not. God is." Doesn't make sense in English, though it would make some sense in Spanish (I've only got very basic Spanish skills, so I couldn't translate it very well).
I speak Spanish somewhat fluently. AFAIK, the distinction between "Ser" and "Estar" is really one of permanence, not materialism.

<snip>


What this boils down to is an issue of semantics. You define the universe as all the material + all the immaterial, whereas I have been defining it as all the material. Suppose that I call the latter the &quot;bloomiverse&quot; instead of the universe. The universe contains the bloomiverse and the Omega Point, but the Omega Point exists independently of the bloomiverse.
Its not my fault that you wish to use an uncommon definition of "universe." Upon what observations do you base this new definition of "universe"? We don't observe two seperately existing and independant universes in reality.


I don't think it's ridiculous to say that one exists independent of the other. According to your CTMU theory (from the basic skimming that I have given it), the universe U is essentially the set containing all things that exists. Suppose I take out of this set all the material things to form a new set U' containing all immaterial things.
If you "take out" the set of immaterial things, then the original set is no longer the set of all sets. The set of all sets contains the "immaterial set" by definition. IOW, the set of all sets is dependant upon the inclusion of the immaterial and material sets.


Clearly, this set exists and is non-empty. And by definition it exists without requiring the existence of any material thing.
The existence of the set of all sets requires the inclusion of both the material and immaterial. You keep trying to seperate the two, but its a red herring. If you want to deal with the universe, you must deal with all of it. Any comprehensive theory of reality MUST be at once monistic and holistic -- a principle which you are violating by trying to divide the universe.

Thus if the CTMU theory is true, immaterial things exist without the need for material things to exist. The reverse does not apply because the set of all material things is itself an immaterial thing (sets are not material things).
None of this makes any difference since the "boundary" you postulate is not universal if something exists outside it.

Another question: how can the evolution of the universe adhere to physical laws that only exist by virtue of the fact that the universe exists? Isn't that circular? I think the only way out of this viscious circle is to accept that the physical laws must exist independently of the universe they describe.
Physical laws exist in the minds of humans. To answer your question: Physical laws only exist by virtue of the fact that HUMANS exist. Only the physical aspect of the universe abides by the physical laws. However, the physical aspect is NOT the entirety of the universe. It is likely that the physical laws exist immaterially, however this does not make them independant of the universe.

The problem is that if you don't make the distinction between the two, you are stuck back at the &quot;first cause&quot; argument where we started: All material things must have a cause, whereas immaterial things don't (they simply exist). So there must have existed something immaterial in the beginning which created the first material thing (ie the universe).
First, not all material things must have a cause as modern quantum mechanics have shown us. Second, according to our observational data it doesn't appear that the universe "began to exist," it just is. First Cause arguments such as the one you put forth are flawed in this regard. You might consider an analogy: "Before the universe" is as meaningless as "150 degrees North Latitude."

<snip?

There is no mention of the causal agent needing to exist independently of the universe - this is something I accidentally added later. The causal agent only needs to be above and beyond the universe that it creates. I think both the Omega Point and the SCSPL are above and beyond the universe they describe in the sense that they are greater than anything in it - thereby satsifying Kyle's point 2.
The SCSPL is reality itself, and it does not exist "above and beyond the universe". As I said above, "above and beyond the universe" is as meaningless as "outside the universe," as "before the universe," and as "150 degrees North Lattitude."

Yours,
Garth

[Jezz]

Garth:

While I don't think that you've convinced me that the material and immaterial are inseparable, you have convinced me that it is a red herring with respect to the original point I was trying to make. So for the purposes of this thread I will not discuss it further (though I think it is an interesting topic to discuss).

Before I leave it for goot, though, one point I would like to clarify:
garthoverman:
I speak Spanish somewhat fluently. AFAIK, the distinction between &quot;Ser&quot; and &quot;Estar&quot; is really one of permanence, not materialism.
That's true; what I was trying to point out was that there are different concepts of "existence" or "being". I wasn't trying to imply there was a one-to-one correspondence between the two concepts in Spanish and the concepts of immaterial and material as I was discussing them.

Having said that, I think one could make a case for saying that immaterial things are more permanent than material things and so the two Spanish concepts could be bent to fit. But anyway, as I admitted this was a red herring I won't go into it any further. On to the important stuff (in the context of this thread):

Regarding point 2: would you be satisfied if it were modified to look something like this:

2. The causal agent must be above and beyond everything else that exists.

I think a theist would still be happy with this criteria describing God. Moreover, I think the SCSPL satisfies this modified definition even with your more stringent definitions, as well as still fulfilling all of the other criteria typically ascribed to a monotheistic-creator-god. I therefore maintain that it is valid to consider that the SCSPL is a mathematical description of God - and therefore God necessarily exists if CTMU theory is correct.