[Discussion] If a god created the universe

[Krauq]

If something seems illogical it just means it is not within our understanding. If in a scenario, humans had never discovered dinosaur fossils and some guy claimed that in the past their were lizards the size of skycrapers, you would deem it most likely as illogical. Why? Because it is not with in the scope of your knowledge. I usually don't like to create scenarios, but I hope you will get my point.

Well yes I do get your point. But in this case the idea of something coming from nothing is a contradiction in logic, and therefore cannot be true. However religious people will always say "But God is omnipotent! He is god! He can do anything!" Which isn't a logical argument at all.

 

[Hypemaster]

Can god create a stone so heavy that it can't lift it?

Part of being almighty would mean being more powerful than any of your creation.

 

[Aim64C]

Evolution doesn't have anything to do with nothing coming out of nothing.

This is only partially true.

Evolution represents something that should not happen according to our understanding of entropy.

Information is what we are talking about, here. Information is subject to entropy. The hard drive on your computer will eventually cease to have meaningful data on it. It may take fifty years. It may take a thousand. The point is that information in any system is subject to entropic forces that generally allow information to only decrease.

Life seems to take that concept of information entropy and shove it up the ass of Thermal Dynamics. That any system would be capable of -increasing- its net information content is interesting... as physics says it flat-out shouldn't happen. Life should have never developed error-correction systems within its reproductive systems. Mutations should have led to increasingly defunct organisms - not led to new and greater function (much less sentient life able to think upon its own origins).

According to the known laws of physics - Life, even if it did briefly exist, should have largely decayed and become defunct by now. Just as stars cool and fade to black - so, too, should life - just as all matter is doomed to iron, so, too, should life be doomed to sludge. Uranium decays into lead. Hydrogen erupts into helium.

Unless we are a decayed form of some other life. That would be an interesting origins story, for certain.

 

[Yusuke Urameshi]

Evolution doesn't have anything to do with nothing coming out of nothing.

I guess I should've clarified. The Big Bang theory is then broken.

 

[FreakensteinAG]

Part of being almighty would mean being more powerful than any of your creation.

This implies circular reasoning. He's powerful because he's powerful? Something so powerful that he cannot do it, while being powerful enough to do it. It's mind numbing!

Evolution represents something that should not happen according to our understanding of entropy.

Evolution nor Abiogenesis don't break your argument of what I assume to be the second law of Thermodynamics.

 

[Aim64C]

Can god create a stone so heavy that it can't lift it?

At such a point, wouldn't God become the rock?

 

[Krauq]

This is only partially true.

Evolution represents something that should not happen according to our understanding of entropy.

Information is what we are talking about, here. Information is subject to entropy. The hard drive on your computer will eventually cease to have meaningful data on it. It may take fifty years. It may take a thousand. The point is that information in any system is subject to entropic forces that generally allow information to only decrease.

Life seems to take that concept of information entropy and shove it up the ass of Thermal Dynamics. That any system would be capable of -increasing- its net information content is interesting... as physics says it flat-out shouldn't happen. Life should have never developed error-correction systems within its reproductive systems. Mutations should have led to increasingly defunct organisms - not led to new and greater function (much less sentient life able to think upon its own origins).

According to the known laws of physics - Life, even if it did briefly exist, should have largely decayed and become defunct by now. Just as stars cool and fade to black - so, too, should life - just as all matter is doomed to iron, so, too, should life be doomed to sludge. Uranium decays into lead. Hydrogen erupts into helium.

Unless we are a decayed form of some other life. That would be an interesting origins story, for certain.

Entropy increases always to a maximum for an isolated system. The earth is not an isolated system, it gets energy for the sun, so it makes sense that we have evolved because the earth's entropy is decreasing.

 

[Ninja Hidden in the Leafs]

Can god create a stone so heavy that it can't lift it?

You are being illogical. Just because you do not understand it does not mean it existed/exists. Let me break it down, back in the 1500 they did not know about cars, electricity, or traveling to the moon. They thought it couldn't be done/ not possible/ etc. Yet here we are living in the impossible. Quit trying to prove God doesn't exist if you cannot even disprove he doesn't. Instead of this getting out of hand, how about asking the mods to close this thread and not post back so that everyone can relax and chill. Everyone has their opinions of what is true and what is false. No need to start a war on a naruto website about religion. Thank you have a nice day.

 

[Krauq]

You are being illogical. Just because you do not understand it does not mean it existed/exists. Let me break it down, back in the 1500 they did not know about cars, electricity, or traveling to the moon. They thought it couldn't be done/ not possible/ etc. Yet here we are living in the impossible. Quit trying to prove God doesn't exist if you cannot even disprove he doesn't. Instead of this getting out of hand, how about asking the mods to close this thread and not post back so that everyone can relax and chill. Everyone has their opinions of what is true and what is false. No need to start a war on a naruto website about religion. Thank you have a nice day.

I'm amazed that you couldn't even answer this question. It shows that you didn't have the capacity to answer such a question thus showing your lack of brainpower. Thank you and have a nice day.

 

[FreakensteinAG]

You are being illogical. Just because you do not understand it does not mean it existed/exists. Let me break it down, back in the 1500 they did not know about cars, electricity, or traveling to the moon. They thought it couldn't be done/ not possible/ etc.

This is completely outside the argument. The future gave advancements to better the quality of life and simply matters for us that would have taken many men to do. The "God making a sandwich so big even he cannot eat it" is organizing a standard for impossibility.

 

[Romario Uchiha]

The real question is when 629 cums out, and if narito would get rennegan

 

[Ninja Hidden in the Leafs]

I'm amazed that you couldn't even answer this question. It shows that you didn't have the capacity to answer such a question thus showing your lack of brainpower. Thank you and have a nice day.

I didn't need to answer the question because the question itself is unanswerable. You assume that we as humans have the capacity to understand God's power. That is illogical. You are pretending to think you know more, yet you understand so little. One day, hopefully soon, you'll wake up before its too late. Anyway, to answer your question directly no he cannot. Because he created he can lift it therefore making it impossible for him not to be able to lift it.

@FreakensteinAG It is not outside the argument. It's using the same general idea. You believe there is no God just like they believed there was no light bulb. Seeing isn't believing, believing is seeing. You choose to see with only your eyes. Until you open up your ears and mind will you than begin to understand. Do not try to argue a pointless argument. (I'm talking to both of you here) No matter what you say, you and I will never be 100% sure until we die. Only than will we absolutely know the truth.

 

[Krauq]

I didn't need to answer the question because the question itself is unanswerable. You assume that we as humans have the capacity to understand God's power. That is illogical. You are pretending to think you know more, yet you understand so little. One day, hopefully soon, you'll wake up before its too late. Anyway, to answer your question directly no he cannot. Because he created he can lift it therefore making it impossible for him not to be able to lift it.

@FreakensteinAG It is not outside the argument. It's using the same general idea. You believe there is no God just like they believed there was no light bulb. Seeing isn't believing, believing is seeing. You choose to see with only your eyes. Until you open up your ears and mind will you than begin to understand. Do not try to argue a pointless argument. (I'm talking to both of you here) No matter what you say, you and I will never be 100% sure until we die. Only than will we absolutely know the truth.

Exactly. Therefore not making him omnipotent.

 

[CurseSealofEarth]

If "God" can't complete or create an unbeatable task, then I'm sorry to say that this "God" doesn't have absolute power over everything and anything.

If that's all it takes for you to not believe in something greater than yourself than you have a very lacking imagination.

 

[narutokage99]

if you read a lot richard dawkins or other atheists you will see that the obsolete cliche of philosophers in my opinion is "what created god?"We always hear that, and they think that it's a baseball bat against the "theists".

But it's a bat made of mousse because we already understood the absurdity of infinite regression.

It's like asking :
what caused the cause of the cause of the univers?
Let's continue...
what caused the cause of the cause of the cause of the univers?
Let's continue..
what caused the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the univers? etc...

I can give an other exemple .

Imagine you are a soldier ready to fire a gun, but before you shoot you have to ask permission for the soldier behind you, but he has to do the same, and it goes on for infinity. Will you ever shoot? No you wouldnft. This highlights, the absurdity of an infinite regress and this applies to events to. Therefore, there cannot be an infinite history of past events.

So asking continuously "who created god?"or "what is the cause that created the universe ?"it amounts to saying that we have no univers.

 

[Krauq]

if you read a lot richard dawkins or other atheists you will see that the obsolete cliche of philosophers in my opinion is "what created god?"We always hear that, and they think that it's a baseball bat against the "theists".

But it's a bat made of mousse because we already understood the absurdity of infinite regression.

It's like asking :
what caused the cause of the cause of the univers?
Let's continue...
what caused the cause of the cause of the cause of the univers?
Let's continue..
what caused the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the univers? etc...

I can give an other exemple .

Imagine you are a soldier ready to fire a gun, but before you shoot you have to ask permission for the soldier behind you, but he has to do the same, and it goes on for infinity. Will you ever shoot? No you wouldnft. This highlights, the absurdity of an infinite regress and this applies to events to. Therefore, there cannot be an infinite history of past events.

So asking continuously "who created god?"or "what is the cause that created the universe ?"it amounts to saying that we have no univers.

The argument "Who created God?" is a counter-argument against the "Oh the world is so complex something must've created it!" Argument.

 

[Aim64C]

Evolution nor Abiogenesis don't break your argument of what I assume to be the second law of Thermodynamics.

Then you don't truly understand the laws of thermodynamics.

Everything is subject to entropy. The information stored within genetic code is subject to entropy in the same manner, just as all information is.

What was the hair color of your G^15 Grandmother?

In all likelihood - that information has completely disappeared from existence. Not only is it unknown - it has become impossible to know. The information has been distributed by entropy in such a manner that it is no longer capable of being reconstructed.

The same is true for all information systems. Despite our best efforts and even the best error correction systems available with millions upon millions of mirrored storage systems... all information will be lost to time.

Just consider the photocopied hand-outs that have been successively copied since the 80s. You can hardly read the damned things, most of the time. This exact phenomena should have doomed live eons ago. The correction systems within modern photocopy machines are better - but they introduce some of their own errors. Eventually, making copies of successive generations of copies will begin to yield errors that reduce the information to null values.

That is precisely what -should- have happened to life.

There is an answer - but involves macroscopic applications of quantum mechanics to bring the observed in line with physics. The 'problem' with information being lost to entropy is, actually, the saving grace.

Remember your G^25 Grandmother's hair color? You can use known factors to reduce the possible hair colors to a range of possibilities. She could have had blonde or black hair (for example)... Red and Brown are eliminated because they conflict with currently known factors. It becomes functionally irrelevant whether she had blonde or black hair... and this allows things to work out as if she had both concurrently.

The only way for evolution to work within physics is if we adopt a quantum mechanical model where individuals within a species are allowed to behave as though the plausible mutations within the entire population are allowed to factor into speciation. This allows for very efficient use of 'energy' and -may- provide an avenue for net decrease in entropy rather than the expected increase in entropy encountered by classical physics.

But then we are forced into accepting the universe, itself, as a sort of Schrodinger's Cat... which begs the question: "So... did this all happen when I was born... or was it the people before me who led to the decoherence of the universe?"

 

[Aim64C]

Entropy increases always to a maximum for an isolated system. The earth is not an isolated system, it gets energy for the sun, so it makes sense that we have evolved because the earth's entropy is decreasing.

See my previous post, which discusses the concept of information entropy even more.

Regardless, if you accept the universe as finite - then you accept that the universe is subject to entropy.

If you accept it as infinite in both expanse and material existence... then the entire premise of your argument doesn't make sense - as an infinite existence has no beginning or end from which to start (even in the sense of it being 'created').

 

[Ninja Hidden in the Leafs]

Exactly. Therefore not making him omnipotent.

Children should wait until they grow before trying to talk like adults. Otherwise it just sounds like two 2 year olds bickering over a toy. In other words, quit wasting both mine and your time.

He is the most powerful being, the creator and king. You think so lightly of God, who I am not even sure if you believe in or not. I answered your question, but maybe you didn't understand. Whatever God creates is than made to be. Do you understand that. I'll dumb it down for you. He is omnipotent. Try using that brain, want do you any good, but at least try.

 

[Aim64C]

The argument "Who created God?" is a counter-argument against the "Oh the world is so complex something must've created it!" Argument.

And it is a logical fallacy.

I refuse to accept the existence of the Krauq until I know what created the Krauq.