What created God?

We all know you aren't going to convert to Christianity at the last second.
But yes, there is of course limitless potential for "abuse", if that's what you want to call it. It's God's system, not mine. I'm not going to argue with it.

 

It is superfluous to add God into the process, but is this to say that reality has no superfluous aspects? Also

Waaaaat

 

Rule: Everything must have a start.
Exception: God.
Logic: The matter of the big bang is not eternal. The only thing that is eternal is god. As everything must have a start, god is the only thing that could come before them, thus he created them.
My logic: Make something else (e.g. the original matter/antimatter) the exception, taking god out of the equation.

In a logical debate, if you are going to create an exception to the rule, there's no reason to make that exception god. Ergo, the beginning of the universe is NOT proof that god exists. That is all I am doing. Proving that the universe's creation is not proof of god's existance.

 

Why is it illogical to have chain of movement going infinitely back? Either way, we've got the existence of stuff going infinitely back (be it matter or a god) so why shouldn't it just be an infinite chain of motion?

Meaningful complexity? How so? Giant balls of rock move, giant balls of gas burn. There's the majority of the universe in a nutshell. I don't see that as 'meaningful complexity'.

My brain has connections to my arm, and there is movement of nerves inside my brain to transmit the signal of movement. Also, I expend energy by moving my arm. Energy gained from eating and drinking. Where does a god get this energy from?

If god is not the only one with the ability to move in the beginning or exist in the beginning, (as I have been arguing) the situation 'requiring' god is completely removed, and we can explain it away without a god. Hell, tell me why it can't be a magical exploding tea-cosy that created the world.

If I have a lukewarm object, it slowly heats my hand. If I have boiling water, it heats my hand very quickly, damaging it. If I drop an iron on my arm, it damages almost instantly. The sun is immensely hot, heating up everything in the solar system and sending light beyond. Thus we can see that the hotter something is, the more quickly the heat is transferred and the faster it damages stuff. So let's say if heat is X, the speed of transfer is .0005X and the damage dealt is .000005X. Very simple. Now stick an infinitely large number in X. If the heat is infinite, the speed of transfer is infinitely fast and the damage is infinite. Thus an infinitely hot object would destroy the universe. Not to mention that it defies the laws of energy.

I don't quite get your argument. To use a vulgar example, are you saying that if my penis is the biggest penis ever, my penis is the cause of all penises?

Natural Selection has no intelligence behind it what-so-ever. Things randomly mutate. If it helps them live, they live and reproduce, spreading their advantage. If it doesn't help them, they get eaten, so they don't reproduce. Not much room for intelligent design there.

 

That's called blind faith, which isn't very healthy. Pika has a point, there are a lot of loopholes and illogical points to this system that God supposedly has in play.

 

Oh please. Xak's competent, and blind faith is only really dangerous when it's followed by the idiots.

 

What created God? Was God born or was he always here?

The thing is we can not deal in definites. There are maybes and perhapses, the bit in the middle, but the extremes of yes or no can not be applied here.

If we want to find the origin of something, as we have done with platns and animals, we need a something. God is not here, not physically, there is nothing to study or observe, to analyse or find out. Pure specualtion on what a God is, and whee it come from would merely be a construction of what we believe a God is and what its origin woul be.

 

Perhaps it's my reading comprehension that's letting me down, but when I look up the word "maximum", nothing suggests that it's the first, only the best. Even in its roots, it only means 'great'.

So to counter both of the definitions in one, I direct towards the Final Fantasy series. The first game is considered vastly inferior to the others, not even remembered by nostalgia. Thus is it not the greatest FF game, but it is the cause.

People believe that FFVII is the best Final Fantasy, and Cloud swinging around a massive sword is the perfect example of Final Fantasy, yet it isn't the first.

I may be missing the point though.

 

People, there is almost no correlation between the first and the best. Both of your arguments are invalid.

 

B-b-but that's _my_ argument!

 

lol, this.
I was wondering how it even went there.

 

I think I get it; let me try.

Rule: Everything must have a start.
Exception: God.
Logic: The matter of the big bang is not eternal. The only thing that is eternal is god. As everything must have a start, god is the only thing that could come before them, thus he created them.
My logic: Make something else (e.g. an enormous block of cheese) the exception, taking god out of the equation.

There is scientific evidence (radiation) to support the Big Bang and the God Particle, but as to the cause of everything, I'd have to say that a giant block of cheese did it. Just because something has miniscule scientific support does not mean that you can use it to break the same scientific standards that you had just supported it with. Making the original matter/antimatter eternal is no better than what you say making God eternal is, and just because you substituted one answer for another slightly more scientific-sounding answer does not mean that you have gained any ground.

An enormous block of cheese started the Big Bang and we are all to repay His Dairyness in due season.

 

How did the block of cheese start the bang? The matter/antimatter does the matter/antimatter thing and blows up in my theory, and god creates the antimatter/matter (which subsequently blows up into the BB) in other theories. How does the cheese being eternal lead to the creation of the universe, even if it is eternal cheese that has been there for all of the past?

I have gained ground, because I am attempting to prove that the creation of the universe is not evidence of a god. I do this by shifting the trait that we give him (beginningless) to the matter/antimatter which he supposedly created (this is a theory, in the same way god is a theory). We have the same thing as the god theory, but without the god, thus proving that while it is still a possibility (as always) that god created the matter/antimatter, there's no compelling logical reason to add him into the chain.

 

What created God? Apparently the same thing that created the other deities that the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Muslim, all variants) declare as false or non-existent and imaginary. I don't even have to go into the 'science' of it but instead the history evidence itself from another perspective than has been approached here yet.

Yahweh is a Mesopotamian deity. There are many of them to include Asherah, Marduk, Nabu, El, Baal, etc. Yahweh was considered a child of El's, who also had 79 other children which were appointed to areas to monitor things. This is well documented via archeological records. The area did happen to actually keep some decent records though many were lost; particularly Babylon, but also in Assyria and other regions. The Jews who wrote the Old Testament and all that finished it in Babylon after their spot had been taken over. The area of the Mesopotamian region was considered at times to be rather hostile and at other times could be called the cradle of civilization. Many of the Mesopotamian deities are even mentioned in the Bible, although many were painted as demons instead. The name 'Baal' used to mean 'Lord' to the people of the region but instead later became recognized as some demon's name.

In other words, Yahweh never was a founding deity of anything and was appointed to his task. Somehow the Jews stole the name El, Elohim, which means Lord on High, and used it to equate it with Yahweh instead. Also, the story of the Tower of Babel is based on the Ziggurats which the Babylonians made to converse with their deities. If all of the Mesopotamian deities are to be considered false, even demonized in Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions, I don't see why Yahweh as well is to be believed as the 'one true god'. In other words, if people dreamed up those whole groups of gods, Yahweh as well was but a concept of the human mind. This truth gets hidden from people to keep things going but it -is- what is valid and shown in records of the very region in which Yahweh sprang from. I find it hard to doubt.

 

And what is it, pray tell, that makes your argument that the Higgs-Boson is eternal and apparently free of decay any more scientifically stable? I don't want to hear you throw Occam's Razor at me again; we have been over it and I'd really like to hear an argument that isn't "because it's simpler" out of you. If you really want to we can go back over it though.

 

It's not more stable scientifically, and I apologise if I accidentally stated that it was. That was not my intention. Personally, I thin we just need to bide our time and accept that there's stuff we don't know.

The purpose of the exercise is to prove that the statement "God is eternal, thus is the only one who could create the universe, so he exists" (such as the ones used in the five proofs of Thomas) isn't anywhere close to undeniable, and isn't the most logical conclusion to come to, because of Occam's Razor.

 

Hmm.

So could you lay out the maximum genus argument in steps? Because at the moment, I'm perfectly fine believing that heat has no limit, and is measured in steps away from 0 degrees (or absolute 0 if you prefer that). Why does there need to be something with infinite heat?

As for my personal beliefs, it depends what you class as 'faith'. Do I believe that there is no god, to the point where I will risk my soul? Yes. Will I continue to deny if I'm shown hard evidence? No, I'll be busy drop kicking nuns and repenting on my death bed.

 

I think people don't like to think there is a God because that means we aren't the greatest thing out there (and when I say greatest I mean intelligence wise), maybe there is no God and maybe I'm living a lie but it's real to me. I like to think there is a God that cares and will always be there when no one else is.

To me everything in this world just fits so perfectly together to deny God. It seems to clever and intricate to just have come about. Like how the planets are just the right distance from each other that the gravitational pull doesn't pull them all closer together or that we float away out of orbit. Science does explain a lot but I still see God in all of it, he created science and made it fit together so perfectly so we could live. I could be wrong, I can never be sure but I hope I'm not.

 

I am agnostic, but one of my favourite quotes is "Is it a good idea to prove the existence of God? What happens to faith if you have proof?" I have a firm belief that there is a higher being, a deity, or some kind of afterlife. I believe that many religions are just different interpretations of the same thing. While studying the different religions, I've found so many similarities that it's nearly impossible for me to not believe that they are related. Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and even more ancient religions like Taoism and Hinduism; numerous parts of their sacred texts have so many similarities.

 

Pefect heat? I still don't understand where you are coming from with this argument.

I knew that about Absolute Zero. I was referencing that it could be measured from Kelvin/-274 degrees if you wished.

I have the same level of 'faith' in god's unexistence as I do in the belief that there isn't a werewolf under my bed. (On a dark night, the former is often significantly stronger.)