Creationists, i'm confused.

Creationists, and those who believe that since everything is so complex, God must have created it, I think its called "intelligent design" right?

I am confused...if the fact that the universe is so complex it must have had a designer is true, then what of the designer and its own complexity?

For you to submit to me that the universe must have a creator, I must submit to you that such a complex creator must in itself have a creator by the same logic.

I would like someone to clarify this issue for me.

Debate welcome, I will flame you if you start insulting people though (aside from insulting those who are insulting others)

Why do you think he has to be so complex?...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremysr

Why do you think he has to be so complex?...

---

Lol really?

Because he is supposed to be God, a perfect being beyond anything fathomable by mankind...I would assume something that is so beyond comprehension due to its complexity would have be considered complex.

I don't think he's beyond comprehension because he's so complex, but because he's outside the whole physical Universe and outside of time. We can't really imagine things outside of space and time.

So somethig not complex...was able to create rules and laws that are complex? The fact that he is said to be capable of doing an inumerable amount of things (like for example keep track of all human kinds every activity such that he is able to see their sins) which require a massive amount of complex thought does not mean that he is complex?

It would take a lot of complex thought for us to do that, but God is different and he "thinks" differently than us. I don't even know how you could "think" outside of time.

I'm afraid that just because he "thinks differently" doesn't mean he wouldn't have to be pretty complex to create the rules and laws that govern the universe. I'm sorry but your response is not a very good case. you are essentially saying, God is not complex, because he thinks different then people.
That I am afraid makes no sense, even if he doesn't think like a human, the laws themselves are complex, therefore the thought behind them has to be complex as well.

Either way this isn't exactly what i'm looking for, if it is required for God to exist, simply because there is a design, then God himself also has a design that he follows, which must have been designed. That is the logic i'm asking for someone to debate.

If in order for something to exist, it must have been created, then God must either not exist, or he must have been created.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

I am confused...if the fact that the universe is so complex it must have had a designer is true, then what of the designer and its own complexity?

---

That is exactly the issue that influenced me stop believing in God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremysr

It would take a lot of complex thought for us to do that, but God is different and he "thinks" differently than us. I don't even know how you could "think" outside of time.

---

A mind that can conceptualize the entire universe at once and create the complex system of scientific laws is of course a complex mind. It takes a complex mind to conceptualize the full spectrum of the specifics of anything complex, especially the universe. But even if not, wouldn't something so great that it could create a universe be something that would need a creator, according to the intelligent design argument? How could something with any level of complexity just be an accident, according to the argument?

I would like to raise the question why the universe is so infinitely big. Most Christians believe there are no other lifeforms out there.

There are as many stars as grains of sand on all the beaches of Earth. Why the excess?

I dont believe in god,

but i think you are all basing these assumptions on what you have experienced within the universe, which, in fairness is minutely small.

If say there was a god, who existed outside and inside the universe at once and is beyond time-I think that it by no means would have to conform to the rules of our universe ie. something must be complex to build something complex.

that only applies in our experience in our universe, If there is a god it is most likely so far above anything our minds can comprehend we are being very arrogant and ignorant thinking it has to conform to our rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

I dont believe in god,

but i think you are all basing these assumptions on what you have experienced within the universe, which, in fairness is minutely small.

If say there was a god, who existed outside and inside the universe at once and is beyond time-I think that it by no means would have to conform to the rules of our universe ie. something must be complex to build something complex.

that only applies in our experience in our universe, If there is a god it is most likely so far above anything our minds can comprehend we are being very arrogant and ignorant thinking it has to conform to our rules.

---

".. you are ALL..."? Some of us are just taking Christian points and showing how they defeat themselves. We are not saying we agree that something complex must have a creator. We are showing the limitations of that argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

I dont believe in god,

but i think you are all basing these assumptions on what you have experienced within the universe, which, in fairness is minutely small.

If say there was a god, who existed outside and inside the universe at once and is beyond time-I think that it by no means would have to conform to the rules of our universe ie. something must be complex to build something complex.

that only applies in our experience in our universe, If there is a god it is most likely so far above anything our minds can comprehend we are being very arrogant and ignorant thinking it has to conform to our rules.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

".. you are ALL..."? Some of us are just taking Christian points and showing how they defeat themselves. We are not saying we agree that something complex must have a creator. We are showing the limitations of that argument.

---

Exactly, Universal gets it, infact the whole point of this is that something advanced "can" occur without a creator.

My bad.

Infinite complexity can come from, by comparison, infinite simplicity.

Example: Mandelbrot set.

Not that I'm a raving creationist or anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Infinite complexity can come from, by comparison, infinite simplicity.

Example: Mandelbrot set.

Not that I'm a raving creationist or anything.

---

I don't think any creationist believes God is infinitely simple. Jeremysr is the first one I have ever come across who claims that God is simple at all. The major point is that any level of complexity, or even any level of existence, is said by the intelligent design philosophy to have to have a creator. Ray Comfort uses a coke can as an example. Intelligent design basically says, "You can't get something from nothing." So that leads to the big question... Who created God?

The answer to that question is almost always, "He has always been. He is beyond our universe and time and doesn't need a creator." As soon as they use that argument, they have said that the intelligent design principle is not universal. It has at least one exception. The discussion always leads me to asking why something that is beyond the universe and time and is timeless and has no beginning has to be a god. Why can't it just be laws of science that are not conscious and do not have human style emotions and desires? The vast majority of creationists call off the conversation at that point or before it, but one person answered the question for me. That person was Jeremysr, and he said it has to be God because one time he prayed for some lemonade when he was mowing a yard and his mother brought him some.

Yeah, I completely I agree. I was just refuting the assertion that something complex can only come from something as or more complex, 'cos it aint so.

Quote:

---

Infinite complexity can come from, by comparison, infinite simplicity.

Example: Mandelbrot set

---

This is wrong.

Firstly the equation can be said to be simple, however it not basic highschool mathematics. Secondly the picture of a mandelbrot set and the equation our the same thing, it not like the pictures comes from the equation as that would be like saying I come from myself. Their the same thing like a equation can describe a line and a line can describe a equation. The equation could be describe as simple however it not because it involves complex numbers and infinity, we can only see the mandelbrot set to a certain degree.

Now is complex number simple, or summing infinty. NO!

You could say it has beauty, however simplicity I think not. Also, being able to express a equation with a few symbols doesn't make it simple.

The very fact that the universe is so complex points to an intelligent Designer. But to say that it's logical that the Designer must have a designer, is a fallacy. God is the starting point, not just the next level up.

To put it another (and more widely known) way: Everything that has a beginning has a cause. The universe has a beginning, so something caused the universe to come into existence. But God has no beginning, and thus no cause is necessary for His existence. That's why He calls Himself "I Am."

So, just because you contest that it's logical that a complex God must have a more complex creator before Him, doesn't make it so. It's flawed logic. It replaces the theistic definition of God with a simplified concept of your own design.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SilverZero

The very fact that the universe is so complex points to an intelligent Designer. But to say that it's logical that the Designer must have a designer, is a fallacy. God is the starting point, not just the next level up.

To put it another (and more widely known) way: Everything that has a beginning has a cause. The universe has a beginning, so something caused the universe to come into existence. But God has no beginning, and thus no cause is necessary for His existence. That's why He calls Himself "I Am."

So, just because you contest that it's logical that a complex God must have a more complex creator before Him, doesn't make it so. It's flawed logic. It replaces the theistic definition of God with a simplified concept of your own design.

---

Well the only response to that that I can make is the one that i've already heard. If God can be infinite why can't the universe be? Why does the universe need a "beggining" if God doesn't?

Any, we aren't saying that a God would need a creator, the "intelligent design" followers are. By their OWN logic, if something serves a purpose, or is complex, then SOMETHING must have created it. The arguement invalidates itself. I am not saying a God needs a creator, I'm saying if you use the intelligent design theory, then God needs a creator. Since I don't believe in God...I can't be saying God "needs" a creator. I can only say that by your own logic he does, if you would like to abandon your own logic be my guest (those who believe in intelligent design) that is not my problem.

Another question...What incentive does a christian have for bothering to try to convert an Atheist? Appearantly NO MATTER WHAT we are going to hell. Even if we accept God, and ask for forgiveness for our transgressions, we will still be cast into Hell...Btw, lol I guess Kirk Cameran is going to hell no matter what he does too...Hahaha.

Quote:

---

That person was Jeremysr, and he said it has to be God because one time he prayed for some lemonade when he was mowing a yard and his mother brought him some.

---

That's hardly really my main reason for believing in God, but I guess it must have been the only thing I said that was actual evidence to you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SilverZero

The very fact that the universe is so complex points to an intelligent Designer. But to say that it's logical that the Designer must have a designer, is a fallacy. God is the starting point, not just the next level up.

To put it another (and more widely known) way: Everything that has a beginning has a cause. The universe has a beginning, so something caused the universe to come into existence. But God has no beginning, and thus no cause is necessary for His existence. That's why He calls Himself "I Am."

So, just because you contest that it's logical that a complex God must have a more complex creator before Him, doesn't make it so. It's flawed logic. It replaces the theistic definition of God with a simplified concept of your own design.

---

You apparently didn't read what I said about that. See below for a summary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremysr

That's hardly really my main reason for believing in God, but I guess it must have been the only thing I said that was actual evidence to you?

---

You are the only person I have ever in my life gotten this far in the argument. It always hits a deadend, as it just did with Silverzero. He stopped a step short of the point I reached in the discussion. So please do your absolute best this time.

To summarize: The intelligent design argument makes an exception with God, and I don't see why it can't make the same exception with a thoughtless scientific principle. This partiular universe reportedly does have a beginning, but that does not mean that existence itself does. I agree that something transcendent to the time and matter of our universe exists. What I am asking is why you conclude that it automatically must be a god. Why does it have to be something with consciousness that involves emotions, desires, and hangups? Why do you conclude that it could not possibly be a scientific principle or set of principles that do not involve a thinking and feeling mind? I don't get that. Please explain it to me.

Quote:

---

But God has no beginning, and thus no cause is necessary for His existence.

---

This is where your whole argument falls to pieces. Looks like a fallacy of assertion to me.

The question you pose in your argument is, 'what needs no cause'. Your answer is God. You define God as being an entity which needs no cause. Hence your answer to the question, 'what needs no cause', is, 'an entity that needs no cause'.

Wow, I'd never have known.

But besides, why cannot a scientific event also have no cause, just as UM said? Why does a causeless event require conciousness? Please explain, because it makes absolutely no sense at all at the moment.

Creationists don't Want to accept that 'the laws of the universe' need as much a start or a creator as a god. Actually, a lot of people, including Einstein, used 'god' as a metaphor for 'laws of the universe'.

Yeah, true. Einstein saw that the universe is beautiful enough as it is without a conscious creator, which he saw as being completely pointless. It answers no questions at all, but rather begs the initial one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Yeah, true. Einstein saw that the universe is beautiful enough as it is without a conscious creator, which he saw as being completely pointless. It answers no questions at all, but rather begs the initial one.

---

Neat I didn't know that one =).

Now that we have cleared up our view on how the source of the universe does not seem to have to be a conscious being, I really hope this discussion progresses to the next level. Like I said, the only time I have ever seen it go past this point was when Jeremysr talked about getting lemonade. That didn't tell me anything about the reasoning involved in the intelligent design argument. It only told me why he thinks God exists. I want to know more about the argument about the need for a designer for there to be a design, and the lemonade point did not address that logic puzzle. I want to know the depths of Ray Comfort's coke can argument. I very much want to understand the theist perspective beyond the current level of the discussion, but I have seen too many threads die once we get here.

Theists, please don't let this thread die. Your responses to our last few posts would be very, very educational and interesting. I am an atheist right now because I don't know what the theist side can say next without ignoring what has already been said. I really want to understand how far the levels of this discussion can go.

Quote:

---

Like I said, the only time I have ever seen it go past this point was when Jeremysr talked about getting lemonade. That didn't tell me anything about the reasoning involved in the intelligent design argument. It only told me why he thinks God exists.

---

That's hardly really my main reason for believing in God, but I guess it must have been the only thing I said that was actual evidence to you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremysr

That's hardly really my main reason for believing in God, but I guess it must have been the only thing I said that was actual evidence to you?

---

Jeremy, you already said that, and you are furthering my point that this discussion goes almost nowhere past your lemonade point. Your lemonade point in fact was your answer to my question of what the next level of the theist side in this discussion is. I had to ask you repeatedly, like I am doing now, and you finally addressed it by saying your mother brought you lemonade after you prayed for it. I said in my last post that I did not see it as evidence. You said it was evidence. I didn't.

Why is your point that the lemonade is not your main reason for believing all you have to say about what I said in my last post? I keep asking for what the next level of the theist side of the argument is, and that is the most important thing I keep mentioning. Instead of answering that, you throw out just a footnote point. Stop playing dodgeball. Talk to me.

It looks like the argument really does stop there. Or does it? If it does, then the intelligent design argument loses the debate. I want to see what the theists can do because I would love the thrill of seeing that the theists are not really in checkmate. I really want to know what move can be made. It would probably be the most educating point I have ever come across in this forum.

:bump:

Well, this world is physical. If there was no God how can something concrete just come out of nowhere? How can the matter just suddenly appear and what are the chances of everything in the earth and universe forming so perfectly exact to contain life? If the sun was just the most slightest bit away from the earth we would freeze to death, if it was the slightest bit closer, we would burn to death. There are many other examples that show how carefully put in place our planet is.
God is spiritual and is not bound by time, which we cant comprehend since we cant comprehend the begginning of time. Some things our limited minds can't concieve.

Why is everything so intricately made, all with design if there was no designer?

Why is there so many laws such as the law of gravity if there was no lawgiver?

How can so much beauty and pleasure come from something impersonal? We didnt need to be made with the ability to taste pleasurable foods, the ability to see stunning colors, the ability to dream and exercise our free will.

If God didnt create everything, why have people since the begginning of time had this need for worship as if a 'god gene' is built into them?
Why are we the only species who seem to have built in us the desire to keep living? Why do we have a set of moral codes built into us---our conscience?

Why are humans so profoundly distressed by death? Why do we dream of living forever? And why do we constantly search for a meaning to life, a purpose?

Lonewolf, you asked a ton of questions, all of which have legitimate scientific answers that have been covered in this forum. Even if they didn't, they could be explained by a spirit or a superman or something that did not create the universe itself but did manipulate a few parts of it. You did not take the discussion to the next level. Did you read the rest of the thread? We arrived at the level where it was expressed that that which is at the root of the matter and time in this universe could be a scientific law or set of scientific laws. I am asking why that principle has to be God if that God does not need a designer. What argument can be made in regard to that specifically?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lonewolf

Well, this world is physical. If there was no God how can something concrete just come out of nowhere?

---

Your answer to this question is God. Why must the answer be a conscious being with limitless powers? Conscious beings are no more capable of creating something from nothing than unconscious beings.

Quote:

---

what are the chances of everything in the earth and universe forming so perfectly exact to contain life? If the sun was just the most slightest bit away from the earth we would freeze to death, if it was the slightest bit closer, we would burn to death. There are many other examples that show how carefully put in place our planet is.

---

Earth was adapted to suit life?

I think you'll find the much more reasonable explanation is that life adapted to suit Earth.

Quote:

---

God is spiritual and is not bound by time, which we cant comprehend since we cant comprehend the begginning of time. Some things our limited minds can't concieve.

---

True, there are some things we cannot comprehend. Perhaps you cannot comprehend a timeless cause which is not, for some hitherto unstated reason, conscious?

Quote:

---

Why is everything so intricately made, all with design if there was no designer?

---

I don't expect anybody but an atheist to be able to comprehend why the universe is beautiful enough as it is without a conscious causer.

Quote:

---

Why is there so many laws such as the law of gravity if there was no lawgiver?

---

This doesn't seem like a proper question to me. I wasn't aware that laws required conscious creators of those laws.

Quote:

---

How can so much beauty and pleasure come from something impersonal? We didnt need to be made with the ability to taste pleasurable foods, the ability to see stunning colors, the ability to dream and exercise our free will.

---

It certainly had evolutionary advantages. But it is a beautiful reality, no doubt. But since when is a conscious creator a prerequisite for beauty?

Quote:

---

If God didnt create everything, why have people since the begginning of time had this need for worship as if a 'god gene' is built into them?
Why are we the only species who seem to have built in us the desire to keep living? Why do we have a set of moral codes built into us---our conscience?

Why are humans so profoundly distressed by death? Why do we dream of living forever? And why do we constantly search for a meaning to life, a purpose?

---

All of this answers itself really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lonewolf

If the sun was just the most slightest bit away from the earth we would freeze to death, if it was the slightest bit closer, we would burn to death. There are many other examples that show how carefully put in place our planet is.

---

Since someone else took care of the other points of your arguement, I suppose I will take this one.

Do you know how many millions of planets DON'T have life? Lol. The odds were pretty DAMN good that atleast one of them would have life on it eventually =). You can not say that our planet is special because it has life silly, because there are SO MANY that don't.

I know that there are theories out there. I ask the questions as do many humans who are always seeking for an answer, they are very different from animals who don't wonder about the meaning of life. And yes, I know you may in turn say that creation is a theory. It's just that, for me, I cannot put my trust in science. That is not to say I don't believe in science, of course not. My belief in creation and science do not contradict one another. But science have been proven wrong in the past with several of their theories. I believe in creation for several reasons:

1. My family has personally experienced miracles that couldn't possible be continuous coincidence.

2. I believe in the bible because prophecies have been proven true and history and archeology have supported it.

3. the creation of the human mind and awareness and feeling to me is too amazing to be created by a mindless object

Albert Einstein, the smartest man in the world felt compelled to believe in some kind of God. To quote him:

The Encyclopedia Britannica said that: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists."

Another quote from him is: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."
When the solution is simple, God is answering.
--Albert Einstein

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
--Albert Einstein

I have also read countless quotes of scientists who expressed doubt toward evolution and even those who agree with evolution do too, which just causes me to wonder.

There is also the question of things science can't explain such as paranormal things and "spirits" that people claim to see.

And if everything was just created out of unconscious material that would mean we really have no purpose in life and everything is basically meaningless in the end. But I believe the world and existence is very rich in meaning.

Evolution and Creation both require faith. But again on the prophecy thing, that is one thing I find hard to ignore. I choose to believe 'God' rather than 'man'. I know that you don't believe in God and therefore will probably see that reasoning as invalid, but again it is something that you have to experience.
I prefer studying science, the bible and history to just musing over possible theories or trusting everything science says. They are compatible with each other if you really study them.

Lonewolf, this thread is about the intelligent design argument. Please talk head on about this specifically since no other theist will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Lonewolf, you asked a ton of questions, all of which have legitimate scientific answers that have been covered in this forum. Even if they didn't, they could be explained by a spirit or a superman or something that did not create the universe itself but did manipulate a few parts of it. You did not take the discussion to the next level. Did you read the rest of the thread? We arrived at the level where it was expressed that that which is at the root of the matter and time in this universe could be a scientific law or set of scientific laws. I am asking why that principle has to be God if that God does not need a designer. What argument can be made in regard to that specifically?

---

Anything within the field of paranormal can be easily explained by the fact that those who experience it are either
A, fools who don't understand what is really happening.
B, insane, there are plenty of people who have hallucinations, infact there is a specific desease that causes problems to have "visions" that result in imagery smell, and other senses.
C, Liars, lots of people want attention =)


Anyway, this quote is where we are in the discussion at the moment. (basically the main point of Universals self quote)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by universal mind

We arrived at the level where it was expressed that that which is at the root of the matter and time in this universe could be a scientific law or set of scientific laws. I am asking why that principle has to be God if that God does not need a designer

---

1. Please ignore slight spelling errors as I usually type like a maniac.

2. Recognize I am coming into this conversation late so I might backtrack a little.

The problem with Creationism VS. Astro-Physics and Biological evolution is quite simple. Creationism already has an answer. The creationists argument is that "according to the bible God created the heavens and the earth and in seven days created everything that was on earth." The root of this logic is flawed because they can't read their bible metaphorically, and they don't even understand the history of Genesis. These thoughts of a literal six day creation come from literal reading of the texts. However even the word "day" is a mistranslation, something along the lines of "age" would be more correct. My point being they simple read it and believe it, therefore they already have an answer. Now they look at science and the world around them and hear about how complex everything is and say "Boy isn't it wonderful how God simply created all this? It is so complex!" But they have absolutely no perception of time, ecosystems, and they simply ignore all the evidence that is around for creation. In addressing Lonewolfs statement that "if we were just a little closer to the sun we would fry and a little farther away we would freeze, look how perfect it is!" Well truth be told the earth did used to fry and the earth has frozen. In fact it is likely that our moon is the result of a sub-planet smashing into the face of our planet. The world hasn't been created as some husbandry for life, life has fought for it's place for hundreds of millions of years. The creationists, since they believe in a literal six day creation, and through genealogies believe the earth is just six thousand years old (most of them anyways). So therefore evolution can't happen. The fact that most animals on land have vertebrae doesn't even strike them as odd, or the fact that we have so many different species and cross-species (duck billed platypus) Of course years of scientific study both of the living and the fossils is refuted with "It shows a common creator." Because remember, they already have the answer for everything.

The next flaw in the creationists argument is that they refute years of scientific study and research, collective knowledge and PROOF with what the bible loosely says in Genesis. But then they begin to pick and choose what is true about science. Because many of them try to use science to prove somehow that the Genesis story is true. This is where you get all the bullshit (excuse my language) You get them practically making stuff up to support a young earth. They have to bend over backwards to come up with this stuff it is hilarious.

So I think I make my point with that, creationists are hard to argue with because they have the answer already, from a book, a really old mis-understood book. And then they try to use science to support their answer. It is sort of the opposite of what science does. Science is looking for the answer, they make theories yes, but these theories are based on observation. Creationists find the answer then scrap together what they can to prove it, it's all backwards. They think it is amazing that nasa can land a probe onto Titan, the moon of saturn which is MILLIONS of miles away. But when they observe a solar system and say how it was made, or how old it is they are wrong. Why are they wrong? Only because the bible says how old the earth is (it doesn't say how old the earth is FYI.

Now that I have said all that, I get to attack the atheists :) (in all fun of course, I love discussion, don't make this hostile)

You limit yourselves. You limit yourselves by letting naive ignorant bigots represent the ideas of spirituality. For one, I can tell that nobody in this thread TRULY understands what Christianity is about. Before I get marked as a know it all, I can only say I have scratched the surface. Christians tend to get caught up in the ideas such as creationism, the rapture, proving Christ existed (seriously, just go to godtube.com and see what the most viewed stuff is) and in this respect they miss completely what Christ was about. And atheists, I don't blame you for blaming Christianity, it is a joke today. I say all that to say what I am about to which is my opinion, an opinion that I have formulated by letting down all walls, my doubts and my beliefs.

To me, Christianity explains the why of creation. It explains this in very deep ways, and not literal ones. Science, all the amazing things we have found through letting go of ridiculous superstition and just letting ourselves learn is amazing! It is through this I find the how. I believe there is a how to God. If Science keeps advancing and exploring and breaking new ground I think we could eventually "put God under a microscope" so to say and explain, logically what is going on. This is because I find what science is finding out as part of God. All that exists is God and is of God. Do I believe that God is some bearded white man in the sky that is zapping people with his finger and watching them sin? No not really. I think the concepts of God that Christianity paints are very literal for the simple use of symbolism. It is much easier to picture God as a literally being rather than an abstract force behind all that is. I think that elements of God can be found in any religion and in many parts of life. I don't see the concept of God as something far off on a different plane, I see it as what IS. I could agree with lonewolf with the "I am" statement, but not in a lot of other things stated. I can agree with you guys on your disposition to the idea of creationism. I personally think creationism in the traditional sense is a bunch of BS. But the universes ability to bring order amongst all the chaos I find fascinating. The fact that we are matter that spawned from the beginning of time and has travelled through billions of years of existence has the ability to sit and ponder itself blows my mind. Science can tell me the how all day long, how we got here. And I look to spirituality and higher understanding to tell me the why. I do hold many Christian beliefs and yes, I do believe a man named Christ walked the earth and was indeed the Son of God. I think Christianity still has much to learn about the origins of this man and the events that surrounded it and what He really had to say (I do too), but it involves throwing away most of the Christian religion in the cultural context along with much of the doctrine. Christianity still pisses me off like no other, but I can get into more why I still believe Christianity, but first I look forward to hearing any thoughts on this.

Remember keep it kind, I attacked both sides, but attacked the ideology behind it not the people. I think everyone has something to contribute and I love conversations such as this.

Jasuum, you made some interesting points, but I am not sure of how much of this thread you read. It is not about the mere debate between Christianity and atheism. It is about a very specific flaw the intelligent design argument. I would love to know what you think is exactly the next step on the theism side of the debate we have been having. The atheists here are not "limiting" ourselves. We are making a major effort to get to the bottom of the theist side of the argument. What is it? Is it that the principle transcendent to our universe and at the root of our universe is not a conscious being and is an inanimate entity you call God? If you think God has intelligence, please explain it in terms of where we think there is a flaw in the intelligent design arugment. Thanks.

There were points that were raised that I felt the need to address.

I wasn't trying to convince anyone that Christianity was true atheism is false, just making some points (I am somewhat of a Universalist so I don't really evangelize in the traditional sense)

Do I believe that the universe was created by an intelligent "God"? Yes. I did address this to an extent when I started talking about the ability to put God under a microscope,because I believe we have been studying God since the dawn of civilization.

This is how I view God. These ideas may seem fundamental but bear with me. God is all powerful, all knowing. He has known everything that ever was and everything there ever will be. He is everywhere at once and is in complete control. Now Christians tend to visualize this as a literal God being with some sort of "super computer" brian. They visualize that God was zipping around the universe literally speaking things into existence. "Zap" there is a goat ect. This isn't how I view "intelligent design". I use these quotes a lot to separate myself from the terms, I use them loosely.

If asked if the universe and all that is in it has a purpose my answer is yes. I think the means that this God used when He did it Christianity doesn't understand, thus they are opposed to science. If the universe truly was created by God then I think he very well did it through the process of evolution. Big Bang? Sure. M-Theory? Yup. I think God does everything through perfectly explainable processes.

When I say you limit yourself it is because you aren't giving yourself the liberty to look deeper. It's like asking a nascar fan holding a beer why nascar is the best sport to watch and they just say "Yahoo! Fast cars!" If you really wanted to understand creationism (or Christianity) in comparison to nascar you need to go ask a coach or an engine mechanic, or least do some of your own research.

I have read this thread and is the debate that "If intelligent design exists then what intelligently designed God?" That is a stupid question. You are putting yourselves into a loop hole. If you want an answer there is no way to give one. Say there is a creator to God, well it isn't what created this reality. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't that the debate at hand about creationism, what created this?

If you are looking for a nuts and bolts answer then the only thing I can find that created the Christian God was to look into Gnosticism. But Gnosticism is nothing but symbolism. However it claims Sophia (wisdom, knowledge, femine) created "God Jehovah" of Christianity. Though you can't read this literally because then you just have another God-form creating. Well actually according gnostic texts "God the father" created himself out of the nothingness that Sophia created, that just because Sophia existed "God the Father" created himself. You are just going to get into the same loops as you do with any Christian doctrine and no Christian even holds these beliefs.

To take a step back your concept of Creation I think isn't that far away from how Christians view it, they just view it with a lot more "zap! here is this" than you do. Most people believe the big bang theory, which is basically proven by M-theory. That is still a "zap! here it is" there is just the concept of a few billion years in the mix. So it has to come down to the concept that does this "creation" or start of our concept of existence have purpose? Or chaos? This will come down to a personal decision.

To explain what I believe might take a bit so I am just going to jump right to the point. I think the universe has purpose, I think it has had a plan since matter birthed into what we see. I think the force that set that plan into motion had a plan from the beginning. I think that religion, spirituality, our own concept of existence are all parts of that initial plan and all our own ways of understanding it. Where I really begin to stray from traditional doctrine is where I blend the concepts of free will and predestination into one. I think they are the same thing. Everything in the universe is a result of cause and effect. The same is true with our lives. If we think we have control of our choices then we are mistaken, and if we think we don't make choices then we are mistaken. Evolution had no choice but what it is, you had no choice of who you are. Did you choose your parents? Some think so but that is just a fleeting belief. So you didn't choose your parents, but did you then choose how they raised you? No. Then, once you developed an ability for abstract thought, is any thought you have something of your own or something from outside influence, I think the latter. We eventually choose what we influence ourselves with, but then those choices are only reflections of our experience.

Everyday you are having stimulus from outside influences that shape and mold you and it always leads back to something that wasn't your choice. If there was a God creator (whatever it is) I think that the universe and our lives have been going in this perfect pattern, and it is a necessary one. To jump back to Christian ideals (which is where I derive most of my theology from) Believe entirely in Free Will. They believe this doctrine because they think that God created mankind out of his own loneliness (pathetic). They think that God wanted to create mankind and He gave them the ability to make choices (partly true) because He want us to CHOOSE to love him. Now if Christianity believe that God is who He says He is then this brings some very interesting things to the table. Because we all know what Christians think of people who don't choose God. However, the believe that people who go to you know where are only there because they have a choice, and they choose that. Which is complete bullshit, because who would choose to be eternally tortured. This also brings an interesting idea to the table, because if God went through the trouble of creating mankind because He loves them and He wants them to love him (by their own will) then God is a complete failure. Because a very small percentage of mankind will ever experience what they were created for (fellowship with God) the rest will eternally burn in hell. If Christians believe this concept of Satan, then satan has won, because He gets way more souls that God does.

This simply cannot be.

If God is the all powerful creator of the universe he had a plan from the beginning, call it the big bang if you must but it happened exactly how He wanted. I do think God's concept of time is different than our own, but I think it apparent ability to see the future isn't a literal time-travel one, I think it is one of knowing what is going to happen because he planned it from the start. I see creation in the sense of the big bang as the farthest back we can see in His plan, and God set the big bang in motion knowing it would create us here. I think God does everything through these carnal means. He didn't "poof" create earth, He created it the same way all solar systems are made. Perhaps there is other life out there, but I don't concern myself with it. By "create" I mean "planned" I believe every start in the universe, wether it has life or not is placed in it's position for a reason. I don't understand everything, I never will. I just know it has a plan because of my beliefs, and those beliefs are a result of my experiences. I have experienced some very profound things that make be believe there is a plan and a force that put those plans into motion. To say I am a Christian, sure, but not like many Christians you meet. I use the bible as a guide from others experiences to tell me a little bit more than I know about God, but I continually try to understand the roots of it, and the roots of other religions and philosophies. Sometimes I think religion is nothing more than our problem solving minds attempt to solve the problem of existing. If it is all in my head I find a lot more clarity for all that is through my beliefs. However, outside of my head I think everything was planned. I don't think God created something out of nothing, I think He created everything out of what IS, Himself. In Christianity the belief is that God came as Christ, put himself in the form of His creation so that we can relate to Him on our own perception, and have an insight to the reasons why there IS. Heaven? Hell? I think there is only heaven. I think salvation is understand what God wants us to. Christ speaks that message, but Christianity falsely represents it. Some get closer than others, some religions are closer than Christianity even. But do I think something Created God? No because to say God created the universe as in "Here is a blank canvas LET THERE BE UNIVERSE!" but that it is of himself. That all matter is never created and matter never leaves, it all is of the same thing. I think God did create us out of love, love to fellowship, but I think that he will eventually fellowship with each and everyone, just as the ideals of Christianity hold. But I think EVERYONE comes to that point, because God isn't a failure. Hell? Our concept of hell is only the continuation of this life or this thought process. Literal fire and brimstone isn't even a biblical concept, it is a western mis-translation. I think God subjects us to pain, confusion ect because we are learning, because he didn't create robots, he created creatures with wills and desires, but all our wills and desires are leading to the same point. This life, hell, everything that is are all perceptions and tools to understand it.

That is what I believe. I don't think your question is a simple one. It is simple to me, but it takes a lot of explaining. I find your question sort of the same as ones I hear on fox news. "Is Iraq better without Saddam Hussein? Yes or no?" The answer isn't yes or no, it's complicated. You won't find a simple answer, so you best start doing some more in depth thinking about it.

again, sorry for typos, I pumped that all out in under fifteen minuets, there might be some correctly spelled misplaced words in there (spell check) just let me know if a part didn't make sense. I try to type as fast as I think so....

=( well thats all very good and all. You made some nice points, but they didn't really address the question that is here (there are many areas of the forums you can copy and paste those explainations into, just not this one...). The question is not explain how God works, or even explain him in a more flattering mannor than most. The question is,

if God can come into existence without the help of a creator, why is it that existence itself can not come into being without the help of God?

Lets see if I can put this into a better wording.

Why is the idea of God coming into existence by itself MORE likely than natural laws coming into existence by themselves?

Universal Mind I'm not sure what exactly what you were asking for... I just didn't want you to think that I believe in God because of that one answered prayer (and I repeated myself because you still seemed to be talking about it.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremysr

Universal Mind I'm not sure what exactly what you were asking for

---

How many times do we need to explain the question? Have you been reading this thread you keep posting in? Here's a good summary of the issue...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

if God can come into existence without the help of a creator, why is it that existence itself can not come into being without the help of God?

Why is the idea of God coming into existence by itself MORE likely than natural laws coming into existence by themselves?

---

To answer that quote: well existence didn't come into being, only things within time can come into being. Outside time nothing "happens" I don't think. I don't really understand it much (like every other person in the world.) I'm just glad that I will understand soon!

According to how we know the Universe works, nothing should ever come from nonexistance. But it's different outside this Universe, and I think it's a waste of time to think about what it's "like" outside of the Universe. The only clue to what's "outside" the Universe is God. But we don't know much about him other than what he's like (not what he's "made of" or where he "came from"...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremysr

To answer that quote: well existence didn't come into being, only things within time can come into being. Outside time nothing "happens" I don't think. I don't really understand it much (like every other person in the world.) I'm just glad that I will understand soon!

According to how we know the Universe works, nothing should ever come from nonexistance. But it's different outside this Universe, and I think it's a waste of time to think about what it's "like" outside of the Universe. The only clue to what's "outside" the Universe is God. But we don't know much about him other than what he's like (not what he's "made of" or where he "came from"...)

---

You're still missing the issue. You harped on the "come into being" part of Sandform's summary. You can subsitute those words with "exist". What we are trying to get to is the discrepency between God and an inanimate principle specifically in terms of the intelligent design argument. Why do you assume that what is transcendent to the universe and at the root of it is God and not just a scientific principle? Is there any solid logic behind the intelligent design argument in terms of that? Please read the thread before you answer. I really want to understand this. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

=( well thats all very good and all. You made some nice points, but they didn't really address the question that is here (there are many areas of the forums you can copy and paste those explainations into, just not this one...). The question is not explain how God works, or even explain him in a more flattering mannor than most. The question is,

if God can come into existence without the help of a creator, why is it that existence itself can not come into being without the help of God?

Lets see if I can put this into a better wording.

Why is the idea of God coming into existence by itself MORE likely than natural laws coming into existence by themselves?

---

I will have to ponder what you asked more because I must not be understanding the question, I encourage you to re-read what I said because you might not be understanding my answer also.

Let me reword what you asked (sometimes that helps :) ) are you asking that if God can just "be" then why can't the universe just "be"? Because if that is your question I answered it.

If you wish, I can try to simplify my answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaasum

Let me reword what you asked (sometimes that helps :) ) are you asking that if God can just "be" then why can't the universe just "be"? Because if that is your question I answered it.

---

Very close. Not necessarily the universe, but existence itself, perhaps rooted in a scientific principle that is transcendent to the time and matter of our universe. If you already answered that, please quote your specific answer because I couldn't find it.

Okay, thanks you are letting me understand a little better.

I will think about it and get back to you. Which will probably result in shorter posts.

Okay, I have thought about it for a little bit as I finished up at work ect.

Here is how I can answer it, as simply as possible.

I like this question, I really do. I like it because it is one of the smartest things I have heard from an atheistic standpoint and it sounds like a sincere question. I have never pondered it and it made me think. I did answer it a little bit above but for the sake of clarity lets just move forward.

How I understand this is that since, according to Christians God always has been, then why can't existence just as easily always have been? That is interesting and I guess I missed it the question entirely at first because it is a loophole question. You answered it yourself. I am trying really hard to think of a good analogy but it's hard to explain. I see them as the same thing. Creation is an expression of God, it is part of God and God expresses it to us in many different ways. To clarify even more all the matter that we see as our own reality, all the matter we don't see ect is all literally a part of God. Good, evil, love, hate, the rocks, the skies, the sun, the stars is all God. Does that mean I think you and me ARE God? Not exactly, we are OF God. He birthed this reality of Himself because it was His nature. A God of laws such as the ones we see in nature is not a stupid one, and I see it as one with a plan that will be fulfilled, but this is where I'll stop. In short I see your question as trying to separate two things I see as the same. It's the same paradox I see with free-will and predestination. Sort of like two wings on a bird. If you use only one you will fly in circles, you need both to make sense of what IS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaasum

Okay, thanks you are letting me understand a little better.

I will think about it and get back to you. Which will probably result in shorter posts.

---

OWNED.

But really, I wonder what exact part of a Christian's mind is broken, so they can not see the factual logic that the existence of the universe (or of existence itself like UV said) is just as like likely to have come out of nothing than God.

Actually, some dude that gets angry and happy 'just existing' is waaayyyy less logically.

Anyhow. Oooold new : /

I am KINDOF confused by your post, or who you are talking to. But the part that is broken in most Christian's minds is the fact that they are brainwashed. Trained their whole life to go to church and listen to a pastor that they end up believing psychopaths like Kent Hovind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaasum

I am KINDOF confused by your post, or who you are talking to. But the part that is broken in most Christian's minds is the fact that they are brainwashed. Trained their whole life to go to church and listen to a pastor that they end up believing psychopaths like Kent Hovind.

---

Yeah. True.

But beside that, they just can't accept the FACT, (actual fact here, they are pretty rare) that a god isn't more likely to 'just exist' than for the universe to 'just exist'. (because it isn't an absolutism, like "God certainly didn't do it, It couldn't be a fact. I don't see how it can not be a logical fact now.").

That is all there is to it. "random entity, allah/god/whatever existing" or "Universe existing" are of the same order. There is no Reason why 'god' HAD to have made the universe, as some Christians think. You just have to use a different, wrong kind of logic (wrong in the sense that it would be a kind of logic that has never been tested to reality successfully), to think that one entity can 'just exist' (or whatever brown hole he came out of), god, but another entity (the universe) can Not.

Oh? If this is the sort of discussion that I get from people then I don't see it as discussion. You are blabbing the same bunch of mumbo jumbo without any kind of merit I hear from Christians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaasum

Okay, I have thought about it for a little bit as I finished up at work ect.

Here is how I can answer it, as simply as possible.

I like this question, I really do. I like it because it is one of the smartest things I have heard from an atheistic standpoint and it sounds like a sincere question. I have never pondered it and it made me think. I did answer it a little bit above but for the sake of clarity lets just move forward.

How I understand this is that since, according to Christians God always has been, then why can't existence just as easily always have been? That is interesting and I guess I missed it the question entirely at first because it is a loophole question. You answered it yourself. I am trying really hard to think of a good analogy but it's hard to explain. I see them as the same thing. Creation is an expression of God, it is part of God and God expresses it to us in many different ways. To clarify even more all the matter that we see as our own reality, all the matter we don't see ect is all literally a part of God. Good, evil, love, hate, the rocks, the skies, the sun, the stars is all God. Does that mean I think you and me ARE God? Not exactly, we are OF God. He birthed this reality of Himself because it was His nature. A God of laws such as the ones we see in nature is not a stupid one, and I see it as one with a plan that will be fulfilled, but this is where I'll stop. In short I see your question as trying to separate two things I see as the same. It's the same paradox I see with free-will and predestination. Sort of like two wings on a bird. If you use only one you will fly in circles, you need both to make sense of what IS.

---

Thank you for addressing the question after showing that you understand it. I appreciate that. However, I don't think your belief in the existence of God as an entity much like the Tao in Taoism or Brahman in Hinduism quite gets to the answer. You said what you believe, but you didn't really say how it explains why the source of the universe must be conscious. You just said you believe it is and showed a discrepency between your understanding of God's relationship to the universe and general Christianity's understanding of it. You expressed that you don't believe the story of creation as it is literally interpreted from Genesis. That's an interesting view, but it doesn't really explain the resolution to the limit we think we have found in the intelligent design argument. Why is it impossible for the eternal source of the universe to be unconscious? Why would everything unconscious require a conscious designer while not everything conscious requires a conscious designer? Saying that the source and its manifestations are not separate, contrarary to the general Christian view, does not explain that. But you have come closer than anybody to answering this. Please don't give up. Thanks again.

How is it not? This question I feel goes to a dead end. I can't point you to a fact that will show all that is as having a conscious like-mind behind it driving all that is.

Think of this. We are made of the same stuff that makes up the stars. When this universe expanded and then started to condense into clouds of gas, which condensed into planets ect. I find it so fascinating that our consciousness was birthed from this. The fact that we are sitting here pondering questions such as this is enough evidence for me.

But even if my perceptions of God are nothing more than an anomaly of what I am due to the nature of the universe then God is how I make sense of it. Because if not "God" then how do I even have the ability comprehend such a question? Is it as likely that existence birthed itself? Sure if we were rocks. But then if we were only rocks, or gas, or something that wasn't alive then how the hell would we even come up with that answer? You see what I am saying?

I can't answer your question because I can't give you any proof. I use maybe 15% of the bible in my thoughts, the rest is from thinking until my brain hurts. I have thought for hours "what created God?" and this is what I have come up with. This is what makes sense to me. You have to find what makes sense to you.

I am still open to discussion, I love this discussion thus far. If you can't tell it made my mind start racing (long posts) so we can continue it. I like the fact that I haven't really thought of this perception and I have taken some interesting turns in my beliefs, I would consider this one of those.

I do appreciate your involvement in this discussion, and you have made it much more interesting and thought-provoking and really made an effort to help us get to the bottom of the intelligent design issue. It is just that my question is very, very specific. I don't understand precisely how what you are saying answers my precise question. It is like you are playing darts and hit that circle that goes right around the bull's eye, twice. I am trying to get you to hit the bull's eye. I'll try to sum up where we are.

The intelligent design (creationist) argument: The universe is so complex, awesome, beautiful, and fascinating that it couldn't have just happened by itself and therefore was designed by a conscious being.

The atheist rebuttle: That is not any more logical than the point that God is even more complex, awesome, beautiful, and fascinating and therefore would have to have been designed by a conscious being.

The creationist rebuttle: Modern physics shows that the universe had a beginning. However, God would not require a beginning. He is transcendent to our universe and timeless. Therefore, he did not have to be created.

The next atheist rebuttle: The universe may have had a beginning, but that does not mean existence itself did. Why is it not possible for the universe to have been the result of a transcendent and timeless principle of existence that is not a conscious being?

That is where we were when you joined the conversation.

You: God is the universe and the rest of existence.

Me: I don't see how that answers the question.

You: Things in the universe, particularly conscious awareness, show by their incredible nature that something intelligent designed them.

So you have said where you disagree with the general creationist notion and why you believe a great consciousness exists in some form and created certain things, such as human consciousness, but you have not said why that which is the source of the entire universe has to be a conscious being and not an inanimate scientific principle any more than that conscious being, which is even greater than the universe, needed something to consciously design it. Do you see what I am saying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaasum

Oh? If this is the sort of discussion that I get from people then I don't see it as discussion. You are blabbing the same bunch of mumbo jumbo without any kind of merit I hear from Christians.

---

You mistake not understanding the simple principles of universal logic with people that think jesus is in their anus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neruo

You mistake not understanding the simple principles of universal logic with people that think jesus is in their anus.

---

What I was saying to you was that with creationists and atheists alike I see it as two separate ends of the spectrum. I see creationists trying to use logic simply to disprove atheists theory. Such as "They found dinosaur footprints next to human footprints in the mud. What now Mr. Atheist?" And then I see atheists will use other facts and logic ONLY to disprove creationists. "If the universe is intelligently designed then how come it is so uninhabitable? What now Mr. Creationists?"

I don't see people genuinely looking for answers, more like genuinely looking to disprove someone else. I think it is rooted in brash generalizations of people, therefore you generalize their thought process as always wrong. For example. The man Alex Jones is a fucking nut-case, but some things he says ARE true. There are people who can watch one of his videos and logically think about it, dismissing things that are unlikely or unproven and thinking about things as fact. But then you will have people who watch one of his videos and then run into the streets saying "9/11 was an inside job!" I don't agree with that, but I can agree with some things the man says. Does that mean everyone who agrees with Alex Jones is a nutcase? No. Not all creationists think "Jesus is in their anus" and not all atheists are pissed of morons.

Relax a little, this is just a discussion, maybe you should stop using divide and conquer with every conversation. Maybe then you might learn something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I do appreciate your involvement in this discussion, and you have made it much more interesting and thought-provoking and really made an effort to help us get to the bottom of the intelligent design issue. It is just that my question is very, very specific. I don't understand precisely how what you are saying answers my precise question. It is like you are playing darts and hit that circle that goes right around the bull's eye, twice. I am trying to get you to hit the bull's eye. I'll try to sum up where we are.

The intelligent design (creationist) argument: The universe is so complex, awesome, beautiful, and fascinating that it couldn't have just happened by itself and therefore was designed by a conscious being.

The atheist rebuttle: That is not any more logical than the point that God is even more complex, awesome, beautiful, and fascinating and therefore would have to have been designed by a conscious being.

The creationist rebuttle: Modern physics shows that the universe had a beginning. However, God would not require a beginning. He is transcendent to our universe and timeless. Therefore, he did not have to be created.

The next atheist rebuttle: The universe may have had a beginning, but that does not mean existence itself did. Why is it not possible for the universe to have been the result of a transcendent and timeless principle of existence that is not a conscious being?

That is where we were when you joined the conversation.

You: God is the universe and the rest of existence.

Me: I don't see how that answers the question.

You: Things in the universe, particularly conscious awareness, show by their incredible nature that something intelligent designed them.

So you have said where you disagree with the general creationist notion and why you believe a great consciousness exists in some form and created certain things, such as human consciousness, but you have not said why that which is the source of the entire universe has to be a conscious being and not an inanimate scientific principle any more than that conscious being, which is even greater than the universe, needed something to consciously design it. Do you see what I am saying?

---

I honestly think I answered that. Yes it is but my mind can't wrap around that, not because I don't want to believe it because then it leaves too many questions un answered for me. (thinking that the universe just basically birthed itself into existence. This is such a hard concept for anyone to grasp, that is the origins of existence, because everything we do has a beginning and and end, we can watch the beginning and we can watch the end. You were born, you live and you die. Your creation was from your parents. When asked "Where did you come from?" you could answer "I came from my hometown." but when we ask "Where did existence come from, or where did God come from?" then we are left with a perplexing situation. Because we cannot envision something creating itself. This is where the mystery lies, and this is where I have answered you. My mind sees this as having a purpose, and existence as part of something more aware. you see existence as simply being. I don't justify my argument by saying "The universe is so complex that proves there is God!" It is more like "God" whatever it is, is the only thing that makes sense. So sure the universe could have birthed itself, and maybe that is why we are left with this perplexing question, because our carnal minds cannot solve a problem such as that. Science as solved many questions, such as what the stars are, the origins of earth and countless other mysteries. But they push the limits and explain the big bang, the origins of our universe, and now they are just left with even more questions. Where did these membranes come from? Is there truly countless other universes next to ours that spread out for infinity in both directions? We can never answer that.

You can never give a solid answer that the universe, or existence itself wasn't planned. I can never give a solid answer to if the universe was planned. We can't find proof for those questions, we can only discuss. Yes your argument is likely, but so is mine. There is only so much of existence we can sense with our bodies, science proves there is much more around us than we can tell. So I have no idea even what reality is let alone where it all came from. God is just the most logical thing I can fathom, and no not because it is a cop out to a difficult question.

If your question is that "If the universe is complex and thus needed a creator, then wouldn't God be complex and thus need a creator?" And my final answer is "I think the universe IS God, you are looking at the same complexities. The universe doesn't need a creator because it IS the creator.

This idea crossed my mind for believers, if god is 100% almighty and god is 100% all knowing then his memory must also be 100% perfect without a flaw!

That means, like if I look at my table for example, I see then a tea cup, then god also knows the weight of that tea cup and its temperature! How many water molecules are in that tea cup. Also he must then know perfectly its on a table and that table in in a house, how the house looks, etc etc how the planet looks and so on till u reach the largest scale we know that is the universe itself.

Well if god has a perfect data copy of my tea cup to make it really perfect there would have to be no difference with the real one in the real world and the copy in gods consciousness because he is all knowing, but the same then that must rule for the universe.

So if you believe god is all knowing and almighty then the universe cant be created by god but must have always been part of gods almighty and all knowing consciousness and there for always existed. If god would created the universe he/it would exist itself in time for that action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidApple

This idea crossed my mind for believers, if god is 100% almighty and god is 100% all knowing then his memory must also be 100% perfect without a flaw!

That means, like if I look at my table for example, I see then a tea cup, then god also knows the weight of that tea cup and its temperature! How many water molecules are in that tea cup. Also he must then know perfectly its on a table and that table in in a house, how the house looks, etc etc how the planet looks and so on till u reach the largest scale we know that is the universe itself.

Well if god has a perfect data copy of my tea cup to make it really perfect there would have to be no difference with the real one in the real world and the copy in gods consciousness because he is all knowing, but the same then that must rule for the universe.

So if you believe god is all knowing and almighty then the universe cant be created by god but must have always been part of gods almighty and all knowing consciousness and there for always existed. If god would created the universe he/it would exist itself in time for that action.

---

Umm... what?

The fact that God knows how many molecules of tea are in your cup doesn't mean there is a physical copy of the tea in His "consciousness." Your line of thinking is fractured somewhere. If I look at a book, a copy of that book doesn't spring up in my brain, just the knowledge of that book.

Yes, God knows all about the Universe, because He created it. He created time and space. But that doesn't mean He was inside time and space to have to create it, kind of like I don't have to be two inches tall to assemble a model car.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Lonewolf, this thread is about the intelligent design argument. Please talk head on about this specifically since no other theist will.

---

I apologize for the misunderstanding, I realize that we are on a diferent page here, I am focusing on the big picture and jumping to future implications, while you are focusing on the details and specifics of your question, in a more direct way. I will try to keep that in mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

Anything within the field of paranormal can be easily explained by the fact that those who experience it are either
A, fools who don't understand what is really happening.
B, insane, there are plenty of people who have hallucinations, infact there is a specific desease that causes problems to have "visions" that result in imagery smell, and other senses.
C, Liars, lots of people want attention =)
Anyway, this quote is where we are in the discussion at the moment. (basically the main point of Universals self quote)

---

Although I agree, a lot of weird stuff turn out to be either hoaxes or lies, there really are things that are unexplainable that occur time and time again. No one can say for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaasum

The problem with Creationism VS. Astro-Physics and Biological evolution is quite simple. Creationism already has an answer. The creationists argument is that "according to the bible God created the heavens and the earth and in seven days created everything that was on earth." The root of this logic is flawed because they can't read their bible metaphorically, and they don't even understand the history of Genesis. These thoughts of a literal six day creation come from literal reading of the texts. However even the word "day" is a mistranslation, something along the lines of "age" would be more correct. My point being they simple read it and believe it, therefore they already have an answer.

---

I am a creationist and I don't take the 7 days part literally. The bible even proves that it is not literal.

Pslams 90:4: For a thousand years are in your eyes but as yesterday when it is past,
And as a watch during the night.

2 Peter 3:8: However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.

Also all the way in the apostle Paul's time, he mentioned that they were still in the 7th day of rest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaasum

The next flaw in the creationists argument is that they refute years of scientific study and research, collective knowledge and PROOF with what the bible loosely says in Genesis. But then they begin to pick and choose what is true about science. Because many of them try to use science to prove somehow that the Genesis story is true. This is where you get all the bullshit (excuse my language) You get them practically making stuff up to support a young earth. They have to bend over backwards to come up with this stuff it is hilarious.

---

Again, I am a creationist and I don't believe in a young earth FYI.

Also archaeology confirms much of the Bible's historical accuracy. True science harmonizes with the Bible. The following facts were in the Bible long before they were discovered by secular scholars: the order of stages through which the earth passed in its development, that the earth is round, that it hangs in space on nothing, and that birds migrate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaasum

Now that I have said all that, I get to attack the atheists :) (in all fun of course, I love discussion, don't make this hostile)

For one, I can tell that nobody in this thread TRULY understands what Christianity is about.

---

Oh yea. You haven't met me. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaasum

Before I get marked as a know it all, I can only say I have scratched the surface. Christians tend to get caught up in the ideas such as creationism, the rapture, proving Christ existed (seriously, just go to godtube.com and see what the most viewed stuff is) and in this respect they miss completely what Christ was about. And atheists, I don't blame you for blaming Christianity, it is a joke today. I say all that to say what I am about to which is my opinion, an opinion that I have formulated by letting down all walls, my doubts and my beliefs.

---

I am not part of mainstream christianity. The religion im a part of is different, we understand the truth about hte bible and about God and Jesus. I agree with you that christianity today is a joke. Many teachings of christianity are unscriptural including: hellfire, immortal soul, trinity, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaasum

To me, Christianity explains the why of creation. It explains this in very deep ways, and not literal ones. Science, all the amazing things we have found through letting go of ridiculous superstition and just letting ourselves learn is amazing! It is through this I find the how. I believe there is a how to God. If Science keeps advancing and exploring and breaking new ground I think we could eventually "put God under a microscope" so to say and explain, logically what is going on. This is because I find what science is finding out as part of God. All that exists is God and is of God. Do I believe that God is some bearded white man in the sky that is zapping people with his finger and watching them sin? No not really. I think the concepts of God that Christianity paints are very literal for the simple use of symbolism. It is much easier to picture God as a literally being rather than an abstract force behind all that is. I think that elements of God can be found in any religion and in many parts of life. I don't see the concept of God as something far off on a different plane, I see it as what IS. I could agree with lonewolf with the "I am" statement, but not in a lot of other things stated. I can agree with you guys on your disposition to the idea of creationism. I personally think creationism in the traditional sense is a bunch of BS. But the universes ability to bring order amongst all the chaos I find fascinating. The fact that we are matter that spawned from the beginning of time and has travelled through billions of years of existence has the ability to sit and ponder itself blows my mind. Science can tell me the how all day long, how we got here. And I look to spirituality and higher understanding to tell me the why. I do hold many Christian beliefs and yes, I do believe a man named Christ walked the earth and was indeed the Son of God. I think Christianity still has much to learn about the origins of this man and the events that surrounded it and what He really had to say (I do too), but it involves throwing away most of the Christian religion in the cultural context along with much of the doctrine. Christianity still pisses me off like no other, but I can get into more why I still believe Christianity, but first I look forward to hearing any thoughts on this.

---

You quoted me wrong, I didn't mention the "I AM" statement. I don't believe God can be found in all religions, that would not make sence. All those people are praying and worshiping a whole differnt god with different names, etc. I believe in one true God and I believe in the bible. It takes discernment to understand the bible. Some things are literal while other things are symbolic and it is easy to catch on with one by seeing the whole context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaasum

If your question is that "If the universe is complex and thus needed a creator, then wouldn't God be complex and thus need a creator?" And my final answer is "I think the universe IS God, you are looking at the same complexities. The universe doesn't need a creator because it IS the creator.

---

So the universe proves a conscious creator, and that creator is itself? I guess what you are talking about would be a timeless reality that did not create itself in a time sequence but is somehow the timeless/eternal metaphysical source of itself. I guess that would answer the question of how design can prove a designer without that designer proving a different designer. The design and designer are the same thing, so the intelligent designer requirement is there without an infinite heirarchy of designers. And the reason the source must be conscious is the miraculous nature of the existence of consciousness and other phenomenal things in the universe that could have otherwise very easily and even most likely never existed, yet do. And any source of such a thing would have to be traced back to a conscious designer. I get what you are saying. Wow! That is a very trippy concept.

Let's see if I have this right.

Q: How does the existence of the universe prove the existence of a conscious designer of it?

A: The universe is so complex and incredible, and human consciousness exists in it and ponders itself. That is so miraculous that something had to have consciously made that happen. Otherwise, it would have been way too easy for it to never happen anywhere.

Q: That conscious designer would be an even bigger deal than its creation and have even greater consciousness and philosophical awareness than humans, so wouldn't it, by the same argument, need a conscious designer of itself?

A: It does require a conscious designer of itself. That designer is itself. Therefore the designer of itself is not separate, so there is not an infinite heirarchy of designers. There is only one designer. It stops there.

I see what you are saying. I think you just gave the best answer a theist has given me in the history of this forum. Even if I don't agree with your idea, you just threw a curve ball and tied my brain in some knots. I love it when I get a disagreement response that is that good. Thanks. :) I am going to have to do some thinking about that one, probably a lot.

If I were on a debate team and had to argue for the existence of God, your points would be about the best ones I could use. Your points remind me of things my father says. He is agnostic, but since I am an atheist, he takes the theist side when we talk about religion. He has said a few times that the fact that humans exist and can think and experience emotions is so bizarre that the existence of God would not be any more bizarre.


SilverZero, can you answer the question we have been asking? I would love to know your take on it. I want to know what a Genesis style creationist would say about the resolution to our specific intelligent design dilemma.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

SilverZero, can you answer the question we have been asking? I would love to know your take on it. I want to know what a Genesis style creationist would say about the resolution to our specific intelligent design dilemma.

---

I got lost on those last few marathon posts. I'd be happy to offer my views if somebody can clarify the questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Why is it impossible for the eternal source of the universe to be unconscious? Why would everything unconscious require a conscious designer while not everything conscious requires a conscious designer?

---

The bottem line is---was this universe created by some thing eternal or some one eternal?

Conscious beings create inanimate things yes but the opposite couldn't logically be true. Inanimate things can't create conscious beings. No experiment has ever produced life from nonliving matter.

Also, we know from personal experience that things tend toward disorder. As any homeowner has observed, when left to themselves, things tend to break down and disinigrate. This is "the second law of thermodynamics." We can see this law at work daily. If left alone, a new automobile or bicycle will become scrap. Abandon a building and it will become ruin. So what about the universe? The law applies there too. So you might think that the order throughout the universe should give away to complete disorder. However this does not seem to be happening in the universe. Scientists find it mysterious that the universe was created in such a highly ordered condition. The entropy problem is---why the universe has not become chaotic.

Something devoid of awareness can't possibly give birth to consciousness or have the ability to organize or keep stable.


The fact that we have the ability to contemplate deep matters can't be the result that we eventually came about from something with no intelligence.

Lonewolf, thank you. You are the second person to answer the question. I was not expecting that answer, and it is something to really think about. I don't agree with your point, but it is thought-provoking. My goal here is not to argue about that. My goal here is to learn what I can about how the theist side of the argument can answer the discrepency issue I was talking about, and you and Jasuum have really helped with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SilverZero

I got lost on those last few marathon posts. I'd be happy to offer my views if somebody can clarify the questions.

---

We are here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The intelligent design (creationist) argument: The universe is so complex, awesome, beautiful, and fascinating that it couldn't have just happened by itself and therefore was designed by a conscious being.

The atheist rebuttle: That is not any more logical than the point that God is even more complex, awesome, beautiful, and fascinating and therefore would have to have been designed by a conscious being.

The creationist rebuttle: Modern physics shows that the universe had a beginning. However, God would not require a beginning. He is transcendent to our universe and timeless. Therefore, he did not have to be created.

The next atheist rebuttle: The universe may have had a beginning, but that does not mean existence itself did. Why is it not possible for the universe to have been the result of a transcendent and timeless principle of existence that is not a conscious being?

---

What is the next theist rebuttle?

Lonewolf, are you a JW? I am sorta joking, but I can't say I agreed with much you said. You are right though, I don't know you and it is wrong for me to make such a brash generalization, so my apologies.

Sorry to interrupt this wonderful and interesting thread but would you call yourslef an agnostic or a theist Jassum?
It seems to me, that you beleieve that God is a likely solution to a perplexing question? Thus you, claim to beleive but not know of God's existance?

You seem to me, to be an agnsotic leaning towards the thiest side, just as i am an agnsotic leading towards the atheist side.

I don't know what to call myself, the word Christian carries to many implications. I have never considered myself agnostic because that would imply I am searching, and I have never considered myself a theist (maybe because I don't fully understand would it implies to call myself a theist). I don't associate with any one group I find that hard to do. Personally for me I find the teachings of Christ the most powerful in my life, but from that perspective I am more of a Universalist. But those discussions aren't entirely for this thread. If you watch for the next few days I may start some threads geared toward the strong Christian audience there seems to be here and there you might find some of my specific beliefs stated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaasum

I don't know what to call myself, the word Christian carries to many implications. I have never considered myself agnostic because that would imply I am searching, and I have never considered myself a theist (maybe because I don't fully understand would it implies to call myself a theist). I don't associate with any one group I find that hard to do. Personally for me I find the teachings of Christ the most powerful in my life, but from that perspective I am more of a Universalist. But those discussions aren't entirely for this thread. If you watch for the next few days I may start some threads geared toward the strong Christian audience there seems to be here and there you might find some of my specific beliefs stated.

---

Thanks

Jaasum, did I characterize your point correctly?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Jaasum, did I characterize your point correctly?

---

Yeah I think you got it :)

We can keep discussing if you have more questions, I enjoy thought provoking questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

Neat I didn't know that one =).

---

I had bookmarked this for a day that I was sure to be addressed.
Every one looks to Einstien, relativly speaking.

Albert Einstein Quotes on Philosophy of Religion, Theology, God

The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism. (Albert Einstein)
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954, The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press)
Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being.
(Albert Einstein, 1936, The Human Side. Responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray.)
A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
(Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930)
I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature. (Albert Einstein, The World as I See It)
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
(Albert Einstein, Obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955)
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
(Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding "Do you believe in God?" Quoted from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? 2001, chapter 3.)
One strength of the Communist system ... is that it has some of the characteristics of a religion and inspires the emotions of a religion.
(Albert Einstein, Out Of My Later Years, 1950)
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/quote-e.htm
I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God. (Albert Einstein,The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press)
If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. (Albert Einstein)
The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously. (Albert Einstein, Letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946)
The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action. (Albert Einstein)
I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it. (Albert Einstein, The Human Side)
I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being. (Albert Einstein)
What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. (Albert Einstein)
The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning. (Albert Einstein)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What is the next theist rebuttle?

---

Dammit, it's spelled REBUTTAL! :bang:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaasum

What I was saying to you was that with creationists and atheists alike I see it as two separate ends of the spectrum. I see creationists trying to use logic simply to disprove atheists theory. Such as "They found dinosaur footprints next to human footprints in the mud. What now Mr. Atheist?" And then I see atheists will use other facts and logic ONLY to disprove creationists. "If the universe is intelligently designed then how come it is so uninhabitable? What now Mr. Creationists?"

I don't see people genuinely looking for answers, more like genuinely looking to disprove someone else. I think it is rooted in brash generalizations of people, therefore you generalize their thought process as always wrong. For example. The man Alex Jones is a fucking nut-case, but some things he says ARE true. There are people who can watch one of his videos and logically think about it, dismissing things that are unlikely or unproven and thinking about things as fact. But then you will have people who watch one of his videos and then run into the streets saying "9/11 was an inside job!" I don't agree with that, but I can agree with some things the man says. Does that mean everyone who agrees with Alex Jones is a nutcase? No. Not all creationists think "Jesus is in their anus" and not all atheists are pissed of morons.

Relax a little, this is just a discussion, maybe you should stop using divide and conquer with every conversation. Maybe then you might learn something.

---

LOL.

You are acting like science was 'invented' as a counter for creationism. As if Newton and Galileo found out what they did, to disprove anyone. The real proper search by answers is done by proper scientists. And most, actually, are smart enough to know the creationists false information will just blow over. Just like when the Christians couldn't accept the earth rotated the sun, just when the Christians couldn't even accept the world was round, just like when the Christians couldn't accept a lot of facts found by a honest search for answers.

To say creationism and science are on the same level, means you have to go to school, read more books and learn think a bit more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neruo

LOL.

You are acting like science was 'invented' as a counter for creationism. As if Newton and Galileo found out what they did, to disprove anyone. The real proper search by answers is done by proper scientists. And most, actually, are smart enough to know the creationists false information will just blow over. Just like when the Christians couldn't accept the earth rotated the sun, just when the Christians couldn't even accept the world was round, just like when the Christians couldn't accept a lot of facts found by a honest search for answers.

To say creationism and science are on the same level, means you have to go to school, read more books and learn think a bit more.

---

You know, both of those evidences you give for Christian ignorance were only temporary beliefs held by small sects (although the Catholic church was pretty big and influential in those times - and very, very corrupt and self-serving). You making that argument is like me saying "Non-Christians believe in spaceships that hide behind comets." Obviously the whole isn't represented by one small group.

And so the Battle Continues. Yup I've been reading. Keep it up you guys :goodjob2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Yup I've been reading.

---

Cool. Do you think you might have a shot at answering?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neruo

LOL.

You are acting like science was 'invented' as a counter for creationism. As if Newton and Galileo found out what they did, to disprove anyone. The real proper search by answers is done by proper scientists. And most, actually, are smart enough to know the creationists false information will just blow over. Just like when the Christians couldn't accept the earth rotated the sun, just when the Christians couldn't even accept the world was round, just like when the Christians couldn't accept a lot of facts found by a honest search for answers.

To say creationism and science are on the same level, means you have to go to school, read more books and learn think a bit more.

---

This is completely off topic and you don't even understand what I am trying to say, nor the context that post was in. So maybe you need to read some more before jumping the gun on that one. Thanks.

In my opinion, the idea of a creator becomes much more plausible if you remove the idea that it is necessary and all encompassing. The fact that a creator isn't needed doesn't necessarily negate its possibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

I had bookmarked this for a day that I was sure to be addressed.
Every one looks to Einstien, relativly speaking.

Albert Einstein Quotes on Philosophy of Religion, Theology, God

The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism. (Albert Einstein)
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954, The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press)
Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being.
(Albert Einstein, 1936, The Human Side. Responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray.)
A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
(Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930)
I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature. (Albert Einstein, The World as I See It)
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
(Albert Einstein, Obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955)
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
(Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding "Do you believe in God?" Quoted from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? 2001, chapter 3.)
One strength of the Communist system ... is that it has some of the characteristics of a religion and inspires the emotions of a religion.
(Albert Einstein, Out Of My Later Years, 1950)
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/quote-e.htm
I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God. (Albert Einstein,The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press)
If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. (Albert Einstein)
The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously. (Albert Einstein, Letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946)
The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action. (Albert Einstein)
I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it. (Albert Einstein, The Human Side)
I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being. (Albert Einstein)
What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. (Albert Einstein)
The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning. (Albert Einstein)

---

Cheers to howie for the use of his quote a bit ago =D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lonewolf

How can the matter just suddenly appear and what are the chances of everything in the earth and universe forming so perfectly exact to contain life? If the sun was just the most slightest bit away from the earth we would freeze to death, if it was the slightest bit closer, we would burn to death. There are many other examples that show how carefully put in place our planet is.

---

This is incorrect, grossly incorrect. The Earth's orbit is an elipse, not a perfect circle. Our orbit around the Sun varies by several million kilometres throughout each year.

And I would hardly call our universe friendly to life. 99.99999999% of our universe is empty space a few degrees above Absolute Zero. Incredibly hostile to life. Of the very few planets in our own solar system, ours is the only one so far with confirmed life. Mars, Venus, Europa and Titan are really the only candidates otherwise. On top of that, we exist on the surface of this giant ball of rock. All that matter on the inside is extremely hot, dense and under enormous pressure. Life exists on a very thin knife edge in this Universe. We live in a place which is a minority in the grand scheme of things.

Are you familliar with the anthropic principle? Without too much fluff, it basically means "no matter how improbable it is that life could have sprung into existence, it must have happened at least once, or we wouldn't be here to wonder about it". You throw enough big numbers at the anthropic principle such as the age of the Universe (13.7 billion years), the number of galaxies in the Universe (100 billion at least in the observable Universe), the number of stars per galaxy (roughly 500 billion for our own), the number of planets per galaxy (there are over 200 known planets outside the 8 in our own system), they start to add up. And you only need it to happen once. And we may have been that one time. It's my belief that life is abundant in the Universe, but the distances between each island of life may be so large that we never run into another lifeform (at least not for many millenia).

I'm so glad Howie got there before me, but it bears repeating:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

- Albert Einstein

I hate seeing Einsteins name dragged through the mud over his mis-use of the word 'God' in place of a reverence for the laws of the Universe. I'd put it on par with how people say Darwin had a deathbed conversion and renounced evolution.

In response to the origional topic of whether or not God needs a creator, logic tells me no he does not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riot Maker

In response to the origional topic of whether or not God needs a creator, logic tells me no he does not.

---

I can apply the same reasoning to why the universe doesn't need a creator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riot Maker

In response to the origional topic of whether or not God needs a creator, logic tells me no he does not.

---

So why not skip a step and believe the Universe needs no creator? My logic dictates exactly the same thing, I just take one less step to arrive at the same conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alextanium

So why not skip a step and believe the Universe needs no creator? My logic dictates exactly the same thing, I just take one less step to arrive at the same conclusion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omicron

I can apply the same reasoning to why the universe doesn't need a creator.

---

First of all i think you guys are missing the point of the thread. If i read sandforms post correctly he is looking for what created the creator, not if the universe needs a creator or not.

With that in mind take a gander at what i wrote in another thread:


-No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. (1 Corinthians 2:7)

-This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time (2 Timothy 1:9)

-The hope of eternal life, which God... promised before the beginning of time (Titus 1:2)

-To the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 1:25)

There are 2 general takes on these verses.

1. Ok so God existed before time but that still doesn't prove he created anything.

Let's say God does exist outside of time.

Like UM said we live in a world of cause and effect and it is the only way existence can function. But think about it, if there was no time there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist would have no need for a cause and were always there.

Therefore if God is outside of time he had no need for being created.


2. Dimensional

Things that exist in 1 dimension of time are restricted to time and cause and affect. Add a second dimension of time and we got a plane of time which has no begging and no and are not restricted to single direction. things that exist in 2 or more dimensions of time can anywhere and yet never had a beginning, since a plane of time has know start.

Both interpretations leads to the conclusion that God did not need to be created.

Nothing with memory can exist outside time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riot Maker

First of all i think you guys are missing the point of the thread. If i read sandforms post correctly he is looking for what created the creator, not if the universe needs a creator or not.

With that in mind take a gander at what i wrote in another thread:


-No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. (1 Corinthians 2:7)

-This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time (2 Timothy 1:9)

-The hope of eternal life, which God... promised before the beginning of time (Titus 1:2)

-To the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 1:25)

There are 2 general takes on these verses.

1. Ok so God existed before time but that still doesn't prove he created anything.

Let's say God does exist outside of time.

Like UM said we live in a world of cause and effect and it is the only way existence can function. But think about it, if there was no time there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist would have no need for a cause and were always there.

Therefore if God is outside of time he had no need for being created.


2. Dimensional

Things that exist in 1 dimension of time are restricted to time and cause and affect. Add a second dimension of time and we got a plane of time which has no begging and no and are not restricted to single direction. things that exist in 2 or more dimensions of time can anywhere and yet never had a beginning, since a plane of time has know start.

Both interpretations leads to the conclusion that God did not need to be created.

---

Oh well if we are starting with the assumption God exists, I have no doubt that he created himself/doesn't require creation etc. The problem I tend to find is in the preceeding part, of whether he exists at all.

I don't think he required creation. However I think I'm going to jump in this if it's okay with UM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omicron

Oh well if we are starting with the assumption God exists, I have no doubt that he created himself/doesn't require creation etc. The problem I tend to find is in the preceeding part, of whether he exists at all.

---

Right, but whether or not God exists is a debate for a diffrent thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riot Maker

Right, but whether or not God exists is a debate for a diffrent thread.

---

Yes. Yes it is.

I find it terribly convenient that "God exists outside of time" is always given as an answer, when in fact it answers nothing at all. No human being can comprehend exactly what that statement means because we have absolutely no frame of reference for it. It's like me saying "I can smell the color green". Its absurd. Explaining what one, two or three dimensions of time might be like is one thing, but positing what zero dimensions of time might be like lies outside the framework of what we're capable of comprehending.

The fallacy here is that you define the parameters of the debate by making up your own rules (the first cause of the Universe would have to exist outside of time), then you posit an answer that fits EXACTLY those rules (my God exists outside of space and time), and call the game over. It is circular logic. There is no evidence, no empirical data, it's all glorified guess work with a few scripture quotes written by 2nd century monks sprinkled in for flavour.

Here's a theory to bake your noodle. Suppose there was no beginning, and there will be no end. Lee Smolin once hypothesised that a sort of "cosmological natural selection" takes place in the multi-verse. He supposed that when a black hole is formed in our Universe, it was the formation of a Big Bang in a 'daughter universe'. That daughter universe's intrinsic properties (the Planck length, the speed of light, the strength of the Strong nuclear force etc) could be free to vary just as mutation in biological species can vary a genome. Those universes that had the ability to create black holes would 'reproduce' and create more universes, and so the cycle continues. It need never have a beginning, and it need never have an end. No need for a creator, and no predisposition for life to be suited to exist in each Universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alextanium

I find it terribly convenient that "God exists outside of time" is always given as an answer, when in fact it answers nothing at all. No human being can comprehend exactly what that statement means because we have absolutely no frame of reference for it. It's like me saying "I can smell the color green". Its absurd. Explaining what one, two or three dimensions of time might be like is one thing, but positing what zero dimensions of time might be like lies outside the framework of what we're capable of comprehending.

The fallacy here is that you define the parameters of the debate by making up your own rules (the first cause of the Universe would have to exist outside of time), then you posit an answer that fits EXACTLY those rules (my God exists outside of space and time), and call the game over. It is circular logic. There is no evidence, no empirical data, it's all glorified guess work with a few scripture quotes written by 2nd century monks sprinkled in for flavour.

---

just because you find something "terribly convenient" does not mean it's wrong. The fact of the matter is that the description put fourth in the bible about God and how he created the universe (through interpratation) syncs in harmoniously with science. The fascinating thing is that the book was written a couple millenia ago and still has yet to be defeated by modern science.

Quote:

---

Here's a theory to bake your noodle. Suppose there was no beginning, and there will be no end. Lee Smolin once hypothesised that a sort of "cosmological natural selection" takes place in the multi-verse. He supposed that when a black hole is formed in our Universe, it was the formation of a Big Bang in a 'daughter universe'. That daughter universe's intrinsic properties (the Planck length, the speed of light, the strength of the Strong nuclear force etc) could be free to vary just as mutation in biological species can vary a genome. Those universes that had the ability to create black holes would 'reproduce' and create more universes, and so the cycle continues. It need never have a beginning, and it need never have an end. No need for a creator, and no predisposition for life to be suited to exist in each Universe.

---

Same with hawking. In his theorys he has no need for a creator.

I am glad to see that this thread has risen again. Creationists, please read the first part of the thread so you can really get an understanding of what the big issue is. The problem is this... The intelligent design argument is that something as incredibly complex and great as the universe is so phenomenal that it had to have been designed by a conscious mind. (I think it is too complex and great to have been designed by a conscious mind.) That argument only raises a much harder question. What created that conscious mind? Creationists say things like, "He has always been," and, "He is outside of time." When they say that, they are contradicting the very point that they just argued. They are giving an example of something even greater than the universe that does not require a conscious creator. That is where the intelligent design argument really fails. I want to know why nonconscious principles cannot be eternal or outside of time or __________________________ (Fill in the blank with whatever intelligent design argument might be applied to a conscious creator.) Why does the creator of the universe have to be a consciousness, and why would the arguments for the necessity of that consciousness not apply to that very consciousness?

I tried very hard to get to the bottom of that in this thread, and Jaasum is the only people who ever attempted to answer it. I was far from agreeing with his answer, but I was so glad to see somebody even attempt to answer it that I did not keep asking for answers. Can anybody give a solid, logical argument that backs intelligent design?

Jaasum's argument: Something as great as the universe requires an intelligent designer, and so does the intelligent designer. The universe is the intelligent designer of itself, so the designer's designer is the design itself, which means that there is no inifnite heirarchy of creators. There is one creator, and that creator is the creation. So any issue of the creator's creation is answered by the creation.

That of course raises the question of what created the creator before it was there to create itself, and it of course contradicts itself. Anybody else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riot Maker

First of all i think you guys are missing the point of the thread. If i read sandforms post correctly he is looking for what created the creator, not if the universe needs a creator or not.

---

The point of the thread is actually if God can exist without it being necessary for something to create him (I.E. he came from no where) Why can't the universe somehow come from no where as well?

Basically I'm saying that by creationist logic it is illogical to assume that the universe needs a creator in the first place, since the creator, something of different complexity, needs no creator.

Nowhere > god > everything
or
Nowhere > everything.

What makes the first one more logical than the second? That is the issue.

UM; all those problems vanish if you think in the context that energy has alway been therefore the universe has always been therefore there was no creation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

The point of the thread is actually if God can exist without it being necessary for something to create him (I.E. he came from no where) Why can't the universe somehow come from no where as well?

Basically I'm saying that by creationist logic it is illogical to assume that the universe needs a creator in the first place, since the creator, something of different complexity, needs no creator.

Nowhere > god > everything
or
Nowhere > everything.

What makes the first one more logical than the second? That is the issue.

---

I just noticed "whether" is spelt wrong in your sig, you might wanna change that.


Otherwise I entirely agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

UM; all those problems vanish if you think in the context that energy has alway been therefore the universe has always been therefore there was no creation.

---

But we're not targeted towards people who understand that there is no god, were after an explanation from creationists.

are you a creationist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riot Maker

just because you find something "terribly convenient" does not mean it's wrong.

---

Because you find something comforting, does not raise its 'truth value'. Truth isn't a democracy, it exists whether or not you accept it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riot Maker

The fact of the matter is that the description put fourth in the bible about God and how he created the universe (through interpratation) syncs in harmoniously with science. The fascinating thing is that the book was written a couple millenia ago and still has yet to be defeated by modern science.

---

The Bible is not harmonious with science, it's not even harmonious with itself. It's wrought with contradictions and inconsistencies. I have a book on the subject, but these two websites will have to do, even though some of them are plainly ridiculous (such as Heaven being held up by pillars is obviously meant to be a metaphor, but the author of the website treats it as literal).

List of Biblical Contradictions (1992)
Biblical Contradictions

You can argue metaphor and interpretation until you're blue in the face, but at the end of the day it's a Bronze Age text written by at least a dozen different authors, then translated from Aramaic, to Greek, to Latin, to English, and had almost 2000 years worth of Chinese Whispers run through its pages (to say nothing of unscrupulous interpretors changing words to suit their own political standing at the time). If the Holy Spirit divinely orchestrated the translations throughout the ages as some people suggest, you'd think the book would be a little more consistent.

I don't need modern science to 'defeat' the Bible, it does it to itself quite nicely if you're willing to look at it objectively, and not the authoritative word of God.

I'm wandering off topic here, so back to the main point at hand. You set the parameters of the Universal First Cause by putting unknowable restrictions on its properties and attributes, then posit your own God who happens to have THOSE properties himself, then declare by fiat that you've won the argument because its unprovable by science. That's not even bad science, it's bad philosophy.

And I suspect that Jassum's form of belief is more towards pantheism than Christianity. I get a very strong vibe of "God is one with everything and everything is God" when I read your posts. If you're looking for a label, that one might fit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omicron

I just noticed "whether" is spelt wrong in your sig, you might wanna change that.


Otherwise I entirely agree.

---

Heh I guess I should change that.