Which you can't prove, and thus can't expect me to accept as part of this debate.
I assume you mean god as in "a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions"
Not quite. I can prove the existence of a supernatural being that created the universe, but that's about it. As I say, the nature of this deity is up for debate.
See, the deal is that the law of increasing entropy requires that there be a beginning to the universe. The law of mass-energy conservation does not allow for such a beginning. The laws of physics contradict each other. The only explaination is a supernatural being that created the universe.
Gurgeh:
I said the OT no longer applies. That means that I'm not a party to the contract. How does that have anything to do with historical references?
BTW Omega, when you say God created the world in 7 days, a few thousand years ago, do you believe that the whole universe was created then, or just Earth?
The stars were included in the creation, so I'd have to say the entire universe.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
posted
The laws governing entropy prove that there can't be a supernatural being affecting the universe, I think. If there were, it would have to introduce energy into the universe in order to perform an action, which the known laws say cannot happen. It goes both ways, I think.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, we're already postulating the existence of a supernatural being to deal with the contradiction of the universe's existence. This being is REQUIRED to be able to defy the laws of physics. Of course, you can also get into the nature of God, asking whether He has effected the universe at all since its creation, but that's beside the point.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Why does God (the creator of the universe) have to be a being, though? You mean being like something that is aware of itself and what it is doing (sentient)?
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
"See, the deal is that the law of increasing entropy requires that there be a beginning to the universe. The law of mass-energy conservation does not allow for such a beginning. The laws of physics contradict each other. The only explaination is a supernatural being that created the universe."
The laws of Omega contradict the laws of me. The only explanation is that Omega is a dumbfuck.
How about, before inventing stories, we postulate that maybe the laws of physics on which you're basing your theory simply aren't complete. After all, Newton's "laws" regarding gravity caused a few contradictions. If this were the eighteenth or nineteenth century, you would have said that that was proof of a god. But, wait... What was the real explanation? Newton was wrong. His theories were incomplete.
The same could easily end up being true of any physiacl "laws" you think you can use to prove your god-theory right now.
posted
There's at least one working theory that the Universe may be perfectly capable of 'creating itself.' (I read about it in 'Popular Science.) We should certainly look into this before blindly accepting supernatural juju.
Perhaps part of the Universe we know, or perhaps, a Universe we DON'T know, that happens to have different physical laws, just spawns entropy-laden universes like ours as cosmic burps.
I'd like to believe in the idea of a Creator, I really would, but until He sits me down and asks me what I thought of the coelecanth, I'm not going to be able to leave the doubt behind.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
quote:We should certainly look into this before blindly accepting supernatural juju.
Well, then, Omega's got some explaining to do.
While debating the creation of the universe, using the same arguement he's making here, on ICQ 8/8/01, 2:15am EST he said, "Even ROB agrees with me on this one, Jeff."
He also said, at 2:16am, in reference to Rob again: "He's not an athiest, he's agnostic. He knows that a god exists. He hates him/her/it."
Explain, Omega, because Rob clearly doesn't agree with you ...
a) He doesn't agree with your concept of the creation of the universe.
b) He just said (the previous post) that he doesn't believe in a "Creator."
Not that Omega's ever going to respond to this thread ... (which is what usually happens)
I have no idea whether there is or is not any sort of Creative Being responsible for the universe. However, I doubt it, mostly because the Universe is far too disorderly and wasteful to have been designed intelligently. However, IF such a being exists, I suspect it to be distant and uninvolved, and not remotely like a 'Father Figure' God. (Except for those of us who had absentee fathers.) If it is at all interested in us, it is for the potential we possess to evolve into a form capable of communicating with/understanding it. (Or, to put it another way, I suspect that the answer to the question "Why are we here?" is "God was lonely, bored, and friendless.")
2. I do not 'hate' any Creative Being.
However, I find that any being passing itself off as the God of the Old and New Testaments has a LOT to answer for, and many many reasons for me to dislike it. Most of these I have discussed at length.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
posted
Why does God (the creator of the universe) have to be a being, though? You mean being like something that is aware of itself and what it is doing (sentient)?
Gut instinct on this one. I suppose it's POSSIBLE that we're not, but it seems far more likely that we're dealing with an intelligent being.
Morality most certainly is relative. Why is it okay to kill someone under one set of circumstances but not another?
Because it's murder, which is wrong, under certain circumstances, but not under others.
How about, before inventing stories, we postulate that maybe the laws of physics on which you're basing your theory simply aren't complete.
OK, so you're proposing that there are circumstances under which the amount of entropy in the universe can decrease, or under which matter can be created is mass quantities? OK, fair enough. Perhaps I should have said that physics AS WE UNDERSTAND IT requires a god.
After all, Newton's "laws" regarding gravity caused a few contradictions.
Contradiction with observation, not contradiction with other universal law.
Perhaps part of the Universe we know, or perhaps, a Universe we DON'T know, that happens to have different physical laws, just spawns entropy-laden universes like ours as cosmic burps.
Proposing existence outside our universe doesn't solve the problem. Where'd THAT universe come from?
I do not 'hate' any Creative Being.
I stand corrected. Sorry for the confusion.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
quote:Because it's murder, which is wrong, under certain circumstances, but not under others.
Thou shall not kill.
According to your own book of fairytales, killing is wrong under ANY circumstance.
You claim that you can prove the existance of God. So, what are you standing around for? Go ahead and prove it to the rest of the world! Show us the error of our ways! Enlighten us with your wisdom!
[ August 11, 2001: Message edited by: My Publically Displayed Name ]
-------------------- ".mirrorS arE morE fuN thaN televisioN" - TEH PNIK FLAMIGNO
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic