posted
God can exist without being created because He is God. He is infinite, He always was, always is, and always will be. He is omniscient, all powerful and capable of doing everything. Like I’ve stated before, it is impossible to know in scientific detail how He is capable of existing from infinity, it is also impossible to comprehend in, scientific detail, how He can do anything. The only answer I can give you that is for certain is because He is God.
It is impossible to understand every possible detail of God and explain it in a logical, scientific, and finite manner. This is because God is an infinite being. Finite minds cannot comprehend the infinite. If a person discovered and understood the fullness of God and tried to write it in a scientific journal, it would take him forever and ever and he would never be able to finish it, even if the writer could live forever himself. That is how complex and great and powerful God is. He is simply beyond human comprehension.
This is why millions of people worship Him, because God is God. He is what He is, His existence does not depend on anything but Himself. He sustains Himself. These traits in themselves deserve worship and praise. That’s why it is important to accept with humility that we simply can’t understand Him and never will.
St Thomas Aquinas, after writing the five possible reasons for God’s existence informed his fellow brother to destroy all his writings and documents saying ’’It is straw’’. His proofs and writings could not possibly convey the love he had for God, and the infinite love that God had for everyone.
If someone told you to make a list of why you love your children, your wife, your friends, you would realize that a list on paper could not possibly convey the fullness of your intentions. It would be nothing, it is straw.
I could go on and on why God can do this and how He can do that, but in the end, it is all just straw.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why can't The Universe exist without being created because It is The Universe? Why can't The Universe's existence only depend on Itself? What if The Universe was, always is, and always will be?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
You have yet to explain why it would be impossible for the Universe to have always existed, and for the universe itself to be infinite. If we're going to claim that something -- God -- can do it, why can't we make the same claim about the universe with just as much justification?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, ID theory is not at all about this - these are purely philosophical/logical arguments for God's existence, and they revolve around the origin of the universe. ID theory only refers to the attempted use of scientific data to justify God's existence, and revolves around the complexity of life, not the question of the origin of the universe.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The universe cannot exist through its own will because, well, it doesn’t have a will. Please correct me if I’m wrong in making this assumption, but I believe you are suggesting that if one follows the string of cause and effect, it is possible that it leads to the whole universe’s own existence and that it had always existed. If this is the case, a cause could not be traced back to a single factor but an infinite amount of causes, considering there be an infinite amount of space in the universe with galaxies with their own solar systems, and solar systems having their own planets, and so on and so forth, leading to an infinite web of causality that cannot be traced back to a single cause at all.
We know through science that energy cannot be created or destroyed but we do know that matter can be destroyed. This was shown through the breaking of the atom. The atom is the smallest intact divisible form of matter before it just becomes energy.
Please note that I am now delving into assumptions and these following thoughts are in no way the thoughts of the Christian Church.
Now, we must assume that energy has always existed, due to the law of conservation of energy, it cannot be created or destroyed. This is where I believe ID comes in. The universe does not yet exist except as protons, eletrons and neutrons floating in space. Space, a measurable, physical quantity must have always existed as well in order to contain these particles. Then instantly all these particles begin arranging themselves into atoms, atoms into molecules, molecules to structures, structures to gas, liquid, or solid, all arranging themselves infintely into planets with orbits and solar systems and galaxies and finally we have the infinite universe. This would undoubtedbly have involved a span of time, so time must have existed for always as well.
I could simply state that this design of the universe could not possibly have arranged itself so perfectly and say that I’m done but I’ll try to continue to explain. Returning to when the universe was simply in a state of energy, this state could simply not exist since these energy particles would instantaneously begin to bond due to their charges would always have attracted, therefore there may have been a state before the particles even existed for that state of energy to even have been. The only explanation I can think of that could have possible have existed before this state is God, a being not composed of matter, a spirit.
So if we were to go back and break things down as far as we could, three things might have always existed, time, space, and energy. We know that time and space can be manipulated so it is not a concrete example. So all that’s left is energy. But energy cannot be simply in a state of energy because it must instantly become something. Therefore, I think there must have been something before the energy to be able to put it into a ’’dissociated’’ state and then begin the universe having designed energy, knowing that it would follow the rules of physics and chemistry and then biology.
I know that seems like a farfetched example but that all I can think of at the moment. I’ll try to give it more thought. So my answer for now is that if you reduced the universe to a state of energy there must be something before this state to have designed and set the energy into motion.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pericles, no one said that the universe had a "will," or existed because of its will. Who says that "will" is a prerequisite for existence? Rocks do not have will, yet they exist.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most Christians recognize God as an omniscient, omnipotent, and infinite being who exists through His own will. He didn’t come into existence through His will since this implies He must have existed before in order to do the willing in the first place. The only logical answer (albeit not scientifically sound) is that He always existed.
God does not have a creator Himself because that would be a direct paradox to His omniscience, omnipotence, and infinite being. He cannot be these things and rely on another being for existence because then those listed characteristics would not be true.
Ah...St. Anselm's "Most Perfect Island" theory.
Think of a [God/Island]. Think of a perfect [God/Island]. If that [God/Island] did not exist, then it would not be perfect. Therefore: This perfect [God/Island] MUST EXIST.
But how do you know that it is this particular infinite God that created the universe. What if he created a number of semi-infinite Gods, and each one of those created a universe? How could you know, or tell the difference?
quote:Another aspect of Christian God that people often forget is that He isn’t a biological nor physical being at all (except for Christ at one point), He is spirit. Since He is not composed of matter, His existence does not depend on laws and theories concerned with biology, physics or chemistry. He is infinite, therefore impossible to fully comprehend by finite minds. If people fully understood God’s nature, He wouldn’t be God since He must not be infinite, and therefore not God at all.
How convenient and anti-thought. If you try to know God, then you lose God. So stop trying to know God, and just...accept it.
But accept what? That something created the universe? And if I accept that (I'll accept "something," but I won't accept "God." Let's continue), then what about all the other attributes assigned to "God"? Are they necessary, or sufficient, for a universe-creator? Does the creator of a universe need to be omniscient? Does it need to be all-powerful? You know, if it didn't need to be "all powerful" that would get rid of a lot of silly paradoxes (large rocks, etc., come to mind). Does it need to be infinite? It could be semi-infinite--it could have no meaningful beginning, but could have died 2.87 billion years after creating the universe.
A universe-creator might just have to be "powerful enough," and "knowledgable enough." It wouldn't even have to love us, or care about us. We could be an interesting experiment. Or an oversight. Or a complete mistake. This universe-creator might have had a real keen interest on sponges and fungi, and we just sort of snuck in.
You really don't know all that much about this "God" thing, do you? You have one book, you have all these horribly documented "Miracles" (I researched "Fatima" on the NY Times archives--there is no record of any article, let alone a front-page article, across a +/- 5 year span around 1917, and the only useful article I could find dated from 1952, when the "Keepers of the Shrine" discredited the only known "photographs" of the "Miracle of the Sun" as fakes), and you have all these screwy, contradictory, and unrealistic claims. Yet you call it "Certain" knowledge, and I've heard many call God "The Ultimate Truth," as if calling it thus will somehow make it so.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ssyak, I’m not saying you should stop trying to know God, that is actually contrary to what Christians believe in. Realization that God can not be fully understood is basically knowing that people just don’t know everything. Accepting something is not always ignorance, it’s can also be humility.
I’m not quite sure which paradox you are referring to in terms of ’’large rocks’’ and the all-powerful. If you could clarify, that would be greatly appreciated.
In terms of a God being so great that He doesn’t need our praise and love, well, I frankly am very thankful that I exist. You would then probably argue that we’re not products of some untanglible being, but merely a union between a sperm and an egg, developing into a human being. I find it difficult that human beings just evolved a conscience, evolved emotions, and evolved a sense of reflective thought. Nomatter how far into the future we go, I doubt that chimpanzees will evolve into an intelligence that encompasses these traits.
I also reject the thought that humans are just animals who are slaves to their passions. I don’t believe that love is merely a byproduct for survival. We have a fundamental knowledge between right and wrong although it might vary between people. When a person you love romantically loves someone else, you are hurt, not because your chances of ’’mating’ with that person is lower, but because you wanted them to love you back.
You know that adultery is wrong because you have a conscience. You know killing is wrong because you have a conscience.
Getingt back to the topic, I want to clarify that God does not require our praise. Sincerely, God does not need us. But God does find joy through our seemingly futile attempts as a parent finds joy despite their children’s small attempts to love you. We love Him because He loves us. We know this since He humbled Himself to the state of humanity, became man to redeem us. (I could go on about the duality of Christ but it would take too long). This sacrifice would be infintely greater than a person to sacrifice his humanity to become a bacterium to save bacterium.
The idea of humanity being an oversite is doubtful if one takes into mind that He is omniscient. Everything is known to Him. He knows all the infinite possibilities of every single piece of His creation but does not manipulate our free will since that would be against His loving nature.
I find it hard to believe that the New York times would document anything occuring besides what was happening in WWI. Fatima is also an extremely small village so I doubt news would have reached America. I suggest you research newspapers of the country itself rather than relying on the all-knowing New York Times. A miracle you should look into is the one link I gave previously about the Eucharistic miracle. The link for scientific analysis about the miracle are also given.
If you don’t mind, if you could list off some of the contradictions of the New Testament, please allow me to clarify them for you.
You're clearly reading from texts that no one's posted here.
"Doesn't need our praise and love" ?? When did I say that?
"humans are just animals are slaves to their passions" Again: ?? I didn't say that, either.
And if you look up "Fatima", you will find that there are many references to atheists and NY Times reporters being there to witness the "predicted event" (of course, who could tell them apart?). And that it received front-page coverage on the NY Times. And, yeah, I'll trust a local Fatima paper over the NY Times. Maybe it'll show up right next to the report of a sighting of Batboy.
quote:..if one takes into mind that He is omniscient
He is not omniscient. "He" does not exist. Please show me how he is omniscient, and how you know that he experiences joy at....anything. You're making this up, or you're parroting something that you've read in one particular book, or books directly derived from that book, or people who get their statements from that book. You go and make all these unsupported claims, and then use these claims to prove that these claims are true. Yikes!
quote:No matter how far into the future we go, I doubt that chimpanzees will evolve into an intelligence that encompasses these traits.
You know, they said the same thing about Homo Erectus about 5 milion years ago...
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I’m sorry ssyak if you think that I am the only Christian that believes God is omniscient. But I’m prety sure all Christian books, cathechisms, and the Bible claim this. I’m also not ’parroting’ something I’ve read either. And I’m sorry if you feel inclined to purge the world of god, God, or a creator and people like me are standing in the way.
The statment that God does not need our praise and love was not a direct quoation but a seemingly obvious hidden premise in your statement.
’’A universe-creator might just have to be "powerful enough," and "knowledgable enough." It wouldn't even have to love us, or care about us.’’
Perhaps I was mistaken and apologize if I was wrong. The point about humans not being slaves to their passions was simply me trying to emphasize how not all things are scientifcally based.
About Fatima, I was wondering if you happened to find any quotes from the atheists themselves. I’m pretty sure these atheists claim to have seen the same thing as the religious, many of them having been converted.
I will gladly show you, ssyak, that God is omniscient if you can prove that a God cannot exist.
And this is me just being a bugger but, could you get me the name of the person who said that Homo Erectus quote, because if you could that’d be great!
Posts: 52 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pericles, I'm just wondering why you think a discussion of the (or really your) Christian idea of god is appropriate here. If the "scientific" theory of Intelligent Design can even hope to make it into schools, it has to be a theory outside of the Christian idea of god. You seem to draw the conclusion that IF "god" performed certian miracles (Eucharist, Fatima), THEN he must have created teh world because the Bible says that that is the way god is. But, guess what? I'm not Christian, the U.S.A. is NOT a Christian nation, and school is not a place to indoctrinate children in far-fetched understandings of the world, such as the unporoved and unsustained christian idea. Or Jewish or muslim, etc etc. Convince me that ID is valid without delving into any sort of religious explanation, and then I'd consider taking it seriously.
>>>About Fatima, I was wondering if you happened to find any quotes from the atheists themselves. I’m pretty sure these atheists claim to have seen the same thing as the religious, many of them having been converted.
I was wondering if YOU had any quotes from those former athiests. If I'd "seen the light" after doubting, I'd be shouting from the mountaintops to show others that my former disbeleif was wrong. *looks around* Hmm.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I have realized that the current conversations have little relation to the actual topic of this thread. I originally stated that the existence of God is not counterintuitive of evolution as some people believe, so I wished to clarify this point. I also realize that the majority of the people on this thread are agnostics and atheists, but if you can offer your point of view, why can’t I.
And honestly, I don’t think ID can be explained without involving a relgious or philosophical explanation, sorry.
Here are some quotes
1) One of the principal anti-clerical publications of the day was O Dia, a major Lisbon newspaper. On October 17th, O Dia reported the following:
At one o'clock in the afternoon, midday by the sun, the rain stopped. The sky, pearly gray in color, illuminated the vast arid landscape with a strange light. The sun had a transparent gauzy veil so that eyes could easily be fixed upon it. The gray mother-of-pearl tone turned into a sheet of silver which broke up as the clouds were torn apart and the silver sun, enveloped in the same gauzy gray light, was seen to whirl and turn in the circle of broken clouds. A cry went up from every mouth and people fell on their knees on the muddy ground. The light turned a beautiful blue as if it had come through the stained-glass windows of a cathedral and spread itself over the people who knelt with outstretched hands. The blue faded slowly and then the light seemed to pass through yellow glass. Yellow stains fell against white handkerchiefs, against the dark skirts of women. They were reported on the trees, on the stones and on the serra. People wept and prayed with uncovered heads in the presence of the miracle they had awaited.
2) Another observer who witnessed these events was Joseph Garrett, a natural sciences professor at Coimbra University. Dr. Garrett described the events in a similar manner:
This was not the sparkling of a heavenly body, for it spun round on itself in a mad whirl, when suddenly a clamor was heard from all the people. The sun, whirling, seemed to loosen itself from the firmamant and advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge fiery weight. The sensation during these moments was terrible.
3) The other major Lisbon newspaper, O Seculo, sent its editor, Avelino de Almeida to the scene. He had been quite dismissive of the entire story of Fatima and its predicted miracle in an article he wrote on the morning of the 13th. However, now as a witness to the events of Fatima, he noted the following:
From the road, where the vehicles were parked and where hundred of people who had not dared to brave the mud were congregated, one could see the immense multitude turn toward the sun, which appeared free from clouds and in its zenith. It looked like a plaque of dull silver and it was possible to look at it without the least discomfort. It might have been an eclipse which was taking place. But at that moment a great shout went up and one could hear the spectators nearest at hand shouting: " A miracle! A miracle!" Before the astonished eyes of the crowd, whose aspect was Biblical as they stood bareheaded, eagerly searching the sky, the sun trembled, made sudden incredible movements outside any cosmic laws - the sun "danced" according to the typical expression of the people.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: So if we were to go back and break things down as far as we could, three things might have always existed, time, space, and energy. We know that time and space can be manipulated so it is not a concrete example. So all that’s left is energy. But energy cannot be simply in a state of energy because it must instantly become something. Therefore, I think there must have been something before the energy.
One thing that you're not quite getting is that matter, energy, and time are all the same thing. One cannot really exist without the other, or the potential for the other. In other words, there could not have been any time before there was energy, because there would not have been Time without energy. Time started at the moment we got energy, whenever that was or however it happened. There's a reason that most "creation of the universe" theories postulate a multiverse, and this is it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Omniscience is a trait that I figure all Christians attribute to their "God." And not just Christians, either. I think that it's a trait attributed to all world-creating "entities." Why is it so attributed? Who knows; but it commonly is.
And unless you have direct evidence, or a method to determine this independently, then you're "parroting" something you've either heard or read. And you don't have direct evidence that your "God" is omniscient.
And the "God does not need our praise..." How did I imply that? I don't think that your God exists at all, not that he doesn't need this or that.
And how do I prove that an invisible, undetectable entity does not exist? You're the one making the odd claims, the burden of proof is on you. Proove existence fist, then try for omniscience. And don't go using the Bible--the Bible states the premise; it does not provide the proof.
BTW, glad to hear you say that ID = "God did it." We can therefore keep it completely out of public schools. So at least that's decided.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pericles, I suggest that you never try to argue physics with anyone who actually knows whereof he speaks. Which, interestingly enough, is a reasonably large minority on this board. You plainly haven't the least conception of what energy, time, or matter are; not only that, you can't even conceal your ignorance in math like the rest of us. Come back when you have equations - preferably consistent both with QM and GR, or you'd best have a damn good explanation why not - showing why there must have been something 'before the energy'.
Also, your assertions on what energy can and cannot do make no sense.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd be interested in seeing your openness to alternative theories, Pericles. If intelligent design is valid, then are you willing to accept different theories about the designer?
I assume you presume the single-creator theory already, but why not multiple creators? Given how many different types of species there are in the world -- and how many variations exist between "irreducibly complex" organs -- wouldn't it be equally, if not more valid to hypothesize multiple independent creators vying their designs against one another?
Or why not incompetent creators? A ridiculous number of species have died out, as proven by the fossil record, more by the day -- is whoever designed these species too incompetent to provide them with traits needed to survive in this world?
To assume a single, perfect (and what a subjective word that is) deity is to assume a great many things that don't make sense even relative to polytheistic theories, which are a fairly lunatic step as is. Are you as willing to insist on intelligent design if it means teaching children some rather heathen ideas like polytheism and divine incompetence?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
