The creation conundrum - General

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43454275]if it's directions go out forever, that literally does mean it is infinite.[/QUOTE] I suspect he's saying something about how, for instance, you can walk in one direction forever on a sphere, but a sphere isn't infinite in size. I'm not sure.

[QUOTE=uperkurk;43438037]A) The universe created itself from absolute nothingness. B) The universe was created by god and god is eternal. C) The universe has always existed in one form or another.[/QUOTE] What I noticed here is that some of these things seem similar in a odd way. If a god creates a universe, does that not imply that he either requires material to create it with, or otherwise brings those things into existence? If you were say a god tinkering with making a universe inside a snowglobe, you could only really have two options: 1: Use whatever is lying around (energy, matter, apple pies, etc) as material with which you can create the universe. 2: In absence of such materials, you are forced to create it essentially from nothing. The god fellow seems to bring up its own problems. Despite the existence of a god, you are really only left with two origins for the universe. The former says that if a god used existing material, then really the universe is eternal. The substance it is made of has always existed, merely that the god has simply toyed around with it to create what we currently understand to be our universe. The latter however, says that if the universe was created from nothing by a god, the universe itself was still created from nothing in the end. In both instances, it still boils down to two circumstances. Either the universe (or least the substance it is made of) has always existed, or that it was created from nothingness. I'm sorta of musing atm I'll probably have to return later to tidy up this post a little.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43452680]I don't really see how that follows, regularity does not imply infinity. But again perhaps I am mis-understanding.[/QUOTE] I think the reasoning is that if the universe had a defined boundary (so it was not infinite) the structure of the universe would be perceivably different the closer you get to that boundary, so the universe would not appear uniform at a cosmological scale. I would be interested in hearing your response on the line of reasoning that if the universe being created by a god requires that god to exist without cause, why not allow the universe itself to exist without cause? The latter scenario is undeniably simpler, so surely should be the rational belief.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43455165]What I noticed here is that some of these things seem similar in a odd way. If a god creates a universe, does that not imply that he either requires material to create it with, or otherwise brings those things into existence? If you were say a god tinkering with making a universe inside a snowglobe, you could only really have two options: 1: Use whatever is lying around (energy, matter, apple pies, etc) as material with which you can create the universe. 2: In absence of such materials, you are forced to create it essentially from nothing. The god fellow seems to bring up its own problems. Despite the existence of a god, you are really only left with two origins for the universe. The former says that if a god used existing material, then really the universe is eternal. The substance it is made of has always existed, merely that the god has simply toyed around with it to create what we currently understand to be our universe. The latter however, says that if the universe was created from nothing by a god, the universe itself was still created from nothing in the end. In both instances, it still boils down to two circumstances. Either the universe (or least the substance it is made of) has always existed, or that it was created from nothingness. I'm sorta of musing atm I'll probably have to return later to tidy up this post a little.[/QUOTE] Yes but I said no matter how many layers of creation you peel back so even if god did make the universe from nothing, then god is the answer to creation. Like I said it can only be one of those 3 things. It doesn't matter who used what or when, you just go back to the very first thing to ever be true. If god made the universe, either from matter or nothing, he is still the first thing and thus option B would be the answer for creation.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43455165]What I noticed here is that some of these things seem similar in a odd way. If a god creates a universe, does that not imply that he either requires material to create it with, or otherwise brings those things into existence? If you were say a god tinkering with making a universe inside a snowglobe, you could only really have two options: 1: Use whatever is lying around (energy, matter, apple pies, etc) as material with which you can create the universe. 2: In absence of such materials, you are forced to create it essentially from nothing. [/QUOTE] The salt-shaker view of creation doesn't really do it justice. The difference between Elohim and the Universe is that the Universe is physical, and exists in/with time. Some people believe him to be some kind of energy. As I said before, in order for E=mc^2 you first need E. It seems that the attitude is that Elohim is the basis of existence in the same way that he is the source of it's existence. By virtue of his eternal existence, he can lend that being to creation. The tetragrammaton YHWH means "I am that I am". He is the basis of existence, the final pedestal, and it is not one eroded by, or made up from the rocks it created, rather he is like the first crystal within a growing structure, lending it's existence to that which it is inclined to. [QUOTE=Ziks;43455207] I would be interested in hearing your response on the line of reasoning that if the universe being created by a god requires that god to exist without cause, why not allow the universe itself to exist without cause? The latter scenario is undeniably simpler, so surely should be the rational belief.[/QUOTE] It is not simpler as it would require an infinite regression of events. 'God' is not within the chain of events, and so his eternal existence does not cause nearly the same amount of complications as an infinite physical universe. 'God' isn't physical.

Word soup and superfluous terms might be a good few things to take out of your shpeal there as it stands, it doesn't have a whole lot of meaning [editline]7th January 2014[/editline] and stating over and over again that he isn't subject to first cause because you say so isn't a great set of arguments honestly.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;43454250]But since we don't think the universe is finite, we don't think we can measure a line from one end of the universe to the other and get a finite answer. ([B]"one end to the other"[/B] wouldn't even have meaning) We can, however, draw a line, between two arbitrary points, measure it, and measure it again later to see that the distance has increased. [/quote] Again, I'm not entirely sure if you are refering to the ability for someone to go past the farthest object, or if you are saying that there is an infinite amount of objects in a frozen frame of time within any given direction. When I say one end to the other, I mean, the leftest object, to the rightest object, if that makes any sense. That is how I define the universe, as what exists physically. [quote] Sure, but the fact that a balloon expands and is finite does not mean that anything which expands is finite. [/quote] That is true, but it comes down to how you answer my earlier question. [quote] I'm not sure what you mean by this. [/quote] This is critical. I define the universe as the physical things which exist within time. I don't define it as the theoretical ability for someone to move forever in a certain direction. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that if you go far enough you will hit a wall of non-existence. [quote] I'm not getting how any of this relates to "it cannot conceivably go on forever in time."[/QUOTE] Backwards regression in time requires a first even for it all to even begin. Think like an infinite field of dominos, fallen ones represent occuring/past events, and standing ones represent unoccured events. [editline]7th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43455677]Word soup and superfluous terms might be a good few things to take out of your shpeal there as it stands, it doesn't have a whole lot of meaning [editline]7th January 2014[/editline] and stating over and over again that he isn't subject to first cause because you say so isn't a great set of arguments honestly.[/QUOTE] First cause requires change. He doesn't change, he just is. That is the difference. The universe changes, he does not. The universe exists within time, he does not.

I don't see how you know he's without change without scriptural basis so I'm not sure how that's applicable.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43455710]First cause requires change. He doesn't change, he just is. That is the difference. The universe changes, he does not. The universe exists within time, he does not.[/QUOTE] Why can't the same exceptions be applied to an explanation that does not require a sentient entity?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43455764]I don't see how you know he's without change without scriptural basis so I'm not sure how that's applicable.[/QUOTE] Something which is eternal by definition occurs outside of time, and without time there is no change. My entire argument hinges on him being eternal and the qualities that arise from that. I suppose in the end it's faith. Sorry.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43455851]Something which is eternal by definition occurs outside of time, and without time there is no change. My entire argument hinges on him being eternal and the qualities that arise from that. I suppose in the end it's faith. Sorry.[/QUOTE] well that's why I have to dispute it. In the end you're saying something which we have never seen and have no ability to understand, some form of eternal intelligence exists and caused us. For me, i feel if you have this answer as your selected answer, like it seems you have, then you have no reason to look for new evidence. You have no reason to search for a different or better fitting answer. You have already figured it out and any new evidence that supports it is incorporated. It's not good or solid logical thinking to approach a problem you don't have a serious and solid understanding of(I'm not saying you, I'm saying all people) like our beginnings and coming in with an answer presupposed rather than trying to piece together what's there.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43455851]Something which is eternal by definition occurs outside of time, and without time there is no change. My entire argument hinges on him being eternal and the qualities that arise from that. I suppose in the end it's faith. Sorry.[/QUOTE] At this point I think I should ask the question. Are you absolutely certain, with no possibility for any other alternatives, that an intelligent entity created the known universe?

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43455710]Again, I'm not entirely sure if you are refering to the ability for someone to go past the farthest object, or if you are saying that there is an infinite amount of objects in a frozen frame of time within any given direction. When I say one end to the other, I mean, the leftest object, to the rightest object, if that makes any sense. That is how I define the universe, as what exists physically. This is critical. I define the universe as the physical things which exist within time. I don't define it as the theoretical ability for someone to move forever in a certain direction. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that if you go far enough you will hit a wall of non-existence.[/QUOTE] Spacetime is physical. It is what I am talking about. [QUOTE=Zenreon117;43455710]Backwards regression in time requires a first even for it all to even begin. Think like an infinite field of dominos, fallen ones represent occuring/past events, and standing ones represent unoccured events.[/QUOTE] Why would that require a beginning point?

For anyone interested I highly recommend reading this paper about the shape of the universe. It isn't too math heavy so even if you don't understand the math you should understand the lengthy explanations. [url]http://www.ams.org/notices/199811/cornish.pdf[/url] All credit goes to Neil Cornish and Jeffrey Weeks at the American Mathematical Society.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43455851]Something which is eternal by definition occurs outside of time, and without time there is no change. My entire argument hinges on him being eternal and the qualities that arise from that. I suppose in the end it's faith. Sorry.[/QUOTE] How could you know any entity exists, let alone what its characteristics are, if it is outside of time?

[QUOTE=Megafan;43457968]How could you know any entity exists, let alone what its characteristics are, if it is outside of time?[/QUOTE] Because while to us it seems like a chronological progression, in the view of eternity all his actions are done at once. He can have influence upon this world, and being 'silly' as I am, I believe he revealed himself through the Torah and Yahushua.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43458491]Because while to us it seems like a chronological progression, in the view of eternity all his actions are done at once. He can have influence upon this world, and being 'silly' as I am, I believe he revealed himself through the Torah and Yahushua.[/QUOTE] And why do you believe that that is substantial enough to support that? Why would he not reveal himself at a point when it could be properly recorded?

[QUOTE=Megafan;43458554]And why do you believe that that is substantial enough to support that? Why would he not reveal himself at a point when it could be properly recorded?[/QUOTE] If the word of the Torah is true, then it speaks for itself as far as testimony. And as far as I understand it he does reveal himself to his most faithful, those who follow his commands almost perfectly and faithfully. Certainly not to an agnostic or atheist with a microphone.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43458659]If the word of the Torah is true, then it speaks for itself as far as testimony.[/quote] Yay circular reasoning! [quote]And as far as I understand it he does reveal himself to his most faithful, those who follow his commands almost perfectly and faithfully. Certainly not to an agnostic or atheist with a microphone.[/QUOTE] Why wouldn't he, though? The Bible plainly says that Christ came to minister to the sick, not talk to the saved. Wouldn't that mean us atheistic microphone-waving free-thinking logical reasonable not-deluded people? Why CAN'T he reveal himself again? Is he unable? Why WON'T he reveal himself again? Is he capricious or malicious?

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43458659]If the word of the Torah is true, then it speaks for itself as far as testimony.[/quote] Well you're just begging the question then. Yes, if the Torah is true then it's a good testimony, but my question is about how you know it is true. How do you? [QUOTE=Zenreon117;43458659]And as far as I understand it he does reveal himself to his most faithful, those who follow his commands almost perfectly and faithfully. Certainly not to an agnostic or atheist with a microphone.[/QUOTE] Would that not solve many disputes and serve as a reason for more to believe in him?

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43458659]If the word of the Torah is true, then it speaks for itself as far as testimony. And as far as I understand it he does reveal himself to his most faithful, those who follow his commands almost perfectly and faithfully. Certainly not to an agnostic or atheist with a microphone.[/QUOTE] I don't like how you constantly berate and devalue honest skeptics like we're of less value in a creators mind. It's weird, useless and also a bit of an assumption about the god. I'd also be curious to know how and why you know for sure these documents lead to truth besides them being self supporting.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43458659]Certainly not to an agnostic or atheist with a microphone.[/QUOTE] But a friggin' atheist with a microphone would be the sort of person you DO want to reveal to yourself so people friggin' follow your godly ass. Going "oh it totally reveals itself just only to those that are super 100% totally faithful" is like me going "you can't see the invisible dragon in my attic because you're not MY BEST FRIEND/something super arbitrary"

[QUOTE=Levithan;43470232]But a friggin' atheist with a microphone would be the sort of person you DO want to reveal to yourself so people friggin' follow your godly ass. Going "oh it totally reveals itself just only to those that are super 100% totally faithful" is like me going "you can't see the invisible dragon in my attic because you're not MY BEST FRIEND/something super arbitrary"[/QUOTE] I'm more surprised anyone could hear that and not be a *little* suspicious. "Well, he only reveals himself to his most loyal followers, and there is no evidence otherwise sans the source that claimed he was real in the first place" sounds like the hallmark of a bad lie.

I am God, the one and only, Alpha and Omega. I will reveal this to any and all of you via irrefutable proof, provided you demonstrate your faith with a one-time payment of $9.99. [QUOTE=Zenreon117;43458491]Because while to us it seems like a chronological progression, in the view of eternity all his actions are done at once.[/QUOTE] Do me a favor and explain what "in the view of eternity" means in this sentence. Between this and the "He doesn't change, he just is." comment it sounds like your deity of choice is a static poof of stuff happening outside time as you understand it. So, you know, a singularity of sorts, which doesn't require holy books or anthropomorphism.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43455617]The salt-shaker view of creation doesn't really do it justice. The difference between Elohim and the Universe is that the Universe is physical, and exists in/with time.[/quote] What is Elohim? [quote]Some people believe him to be some kind of energy. As I said before, in order for E=mc^2 you first need E. It seems that the attitude is that Elohim is the basis of existence in the same way that he is the source of it's existence. By virtue of his eternal existence, he can lend that being to creation. The tetragrammaton YHWH means "I am that I am". He is the basis of existence, the final pedestal, and it is not one eroded by, or made up from the rocks it created, rather he is like the first crystal within a growing structure, lending it's existence to that which it is inclined to.[/quote] So how exactly can one prove G-D created the universe? (And furthermore why do you keep using Hebrew names?) If he exists outside of the universe then you can hardly examine him. I could say that a omnipotent Fireman Sam is outside the universe and responsible for its creation with the same argument and with roughly the same backing.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43481286]What is Elohim? [/quote] Mighty one, deity. What people think when they say the word 'God', at least for the most part. [quote] So how exactly can one prove G-D created the universe? (And furthermore why do you keep using Hebrew names?) If he exists outside of the universe then you can hardly examine him. I could say that a omnipotent Fireman Sam is outside the universe and responsible for its creation with the same argument and with roughly the same backing.[/QUOTE] Like I said before, existing outside of time does not exempt you from being able to interact with it. The difference it makes is that you do all things at once, to us however it seems like a progression, or rather seperate events. By this many have come to believe in YHWH as opposed to Fireman Sam. YHWH revealed himself mostly in hebrew. I find the removal of all things Hebrew from 'christianity' ,just because some council declared it, to be folly. It doesn't match up with what he said, and it gives rise to various seeming contradictions. It's the sort of thinking that has convinced people that Easter and Christmas actually has anything to do with Ha Mashiach. Discarding all else, the name YHWH satisfies my concept of a final foundation of being. "I am that I am". Self existing, non-physical (independant of physical things). Is there something wrong with preferring Hebrew?

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43481481]Mighty one, deity. What people think when they say the word 'God', at least for the most part.[/QUOTE] Are you absolutely certain, with no possibility for any other alternatives, that an intelligent entity created the known universe? Additionally, with what certainty do you believe that particular entity was the god you interpret from scripture?

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;43470904] Do me a favor and explain what "in the view of eternity" means in this sentence. Between this and the "He doesn't change, he just is." comment it sounds like your deity of choice is a static poof of stuff happening outside time as you understand it. So, you know, a singularity of sorts, which doesn't require holy books or anthropomorphism.[/QUOTE] In the view of eternity means in the view of one without time. As for the other part. Not a claim I am qualified to make, I haven't seen him. [editline]9th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Ziks;43481515]Are you absolutely certain, with no possibility for any other alternatives, that an intelligent entity created the known universe? Additionally, with what certainty do you believe that particular entity was the god you interpret from scripture?[/QUOTE] Are you certain of the opposite? Perhaps you may be able to tease out my answer by examining your own. My Elohim is the highest of the high, whether I fail to know him properly is my failure. My Elohim needs no gold, and requires no roof, he is the self existing one, the basis, and in our terms, the cause of all existence as such, multiverse or not.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43481577]Are you certain of the opposite? Perhaps you may be able to tease out my answer by examining your own.[/QUOTE] I am not certain that an intelligent entity did not create the universe, because to be certain would implicate that my perception of reality was perfect, my ability to reason was perfect, and my awareness of the entirety of history was perfect. That being said, I would wager any amount of money, or even my life, on the non-existence of any of the gods worshipped by humanity. May I make the assumption that you are also not certain that your god exists, but feel the same confidence as I? However, I was once certain. I was certain that the Christian god did exist, and did create the world. It was obvious, I mean how could such beauty exist without Him? How could such a complex entity as a person exist without design? I lost my faith pretty quickly after learning that the apparent complexity of the universe is inevitable given a simple set of fundamental laws, leaving far less to be explained than any religion assuming the unexplained existence of a sentient creator god. Learning about the hostility of the universe and the prevalence of suffering didn't help with my belief of a compassionate god either. [QUOTE]My Elohim is the highest of the high, whether I fail to know him properly is my failure. My Elohim needs no gold, and requires no roof, he is the self existing one, the basis, and in our terms, the cause of all existence as such, multiverse or not.[/QUOTE] Can you rule out the possibility that there exists a fundamental set of physical laws from which a universe such as the one we observe is inevitable? Surely the assumed existence of such a set of laws without cause evokes less complexity than the assumed existence of a sentient entity without cause? This is really the crux of the argument.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43481577]In the view of eternity means in the view of one without time. As for the other part. Not a claim I am qualified to make, I haven't seen him. [editline]9th January 2014[/editline] Are you certain of the opposite? Perhaps you may be able to tease out my answer by examining your own. My Elohim is the highest of the high, whether I fail to know him properly is my failure. My Elohim needs no gold, and requires no roof, he is the self existing one, the basis, and in our terms, the cause of all existence as such, multiverse or not.[/QUOTE] You don't have to be absolutely sure about anything, but that's where you and others (including me) differ: I don't have a problem with your beliefs at all so don't get me wrong, but you're absolutely determined that your deity is real and that your way of belief is the correct one - me on the other hand, for example, would simply admit that I do not know the answer and untill enough evidence that points toward something is given I will not embrace anything as the truth. You state that your deity needs no proof, so why are you even here debating about it? Obviously nobody is going to be able to persuade you because you don't trust in evidence, likewise you're not going to pursuade anyone with a lack of evidence - so why even bother? Surely whatever there is for you to learn, you are just going to keep ignore.