In the beginning...

[stone]

By simply speaking his words.

But how could he speak the words if there was no time or space or atmosphere or air pressure or language or etc.....

This is your problem. You can not get your mind around the fact that science can not be used to explain everything around you. If God doesn't fit into your banana peel, then it doesn't exist.

---

Hold on, you asked me to come here and speak with you guys. If you want to debate with DR.Craig, then speak with him, if you want to speak with me, then speak with me.

Ok Stone. How does God will creation onto nothing and create something? Without anything to be effected by his power (no matter how much it may be) the power itself is useless and not effective.

The very concept of him willing it into place suggests there was a state of change within His will

(A state that He did not will it, into a changed state of His will from which it occurs) Without time, how is there change? Even change as in his difference in will?

God can speak, what does not exist into existance. Is the little monkey still playing God. Do you claim to know the mind of God?

---

Here's an up-dated version of my interpretation of Panentheism:

The Totality is all that is, was, and ever will be. The Totality is complete since by definition it cannot lack anything. It already contains everything that could possibly be. As such, only the Totality could be the “Supreme Being”. This does not mean that the Supreme Being, the Totality, is the same thing as physical reality. The Totality is also called the One. The Totality has at least three essential aspects: form, substance, and potential. The Totality as to its substance is Primal Matter. The Totality as to its form is Ideal Form. The Totality as to its potential is called Emanation. None of these divisions within the Totality has priority over any other nor can any one aspect be contingent upon the other. They exist as a perfect unity.

Particular entities come into being when substance actualizes form through emanation. Nothing can be only substance. Nothing can be only form, though you can imagine. Nothing could come into being without emanation. Creation simply means causing something to exist. Within the Totality entities have their identity within a larger context. As such you experience each entity as a unit, a one, even though physically no definitive demarcation separates any one thing from another. Intellection singles out a specific portion of physical reality and call that portion one thing, a whole unit. Parts come into being and persist for as long as they partake of the Totality's inherent unity, or oneness as perceived by a consciousness entity. Parts are contingent upon the One. Each person is one consciousness. The One is the fullest expression of consciousness that extends completely throughout reality and is fundamental to it. Each personal existent would dissolve into nothing if its oneness was not maintained through unity with the One.

You make it sound as if you are God and are making up the rules of the universe. Want a banana?

---

Is it more ignorant to think you know everything or to understand that there are things in this world that we don't understand? Which is the fool?

Yes, it would be foolish to think you know everything and equally foolish to avoid inquiring into all things.

and 3x more foolish to think you know if someone you don't know does not take advantage of the advancement in science made by monkeys, I mean men. Although I don't see much of a difference between men and monkeys when it comes to their pride.

---

You're applying logic strangled with a modernist material view, yeah.

It must be nice to win all your arguments in your head by framing every single one of your arguments specifically so that they are unfalsifiable, but that's not how grownups conduct rational discourse.

Somebody give that man a banana.

---

You're applying logic strangled with a modernist material view, yeah.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0FXPqYpt0g

I dunno why I just posted that

hubba hubba

---

Yes, it would be foolish to think you know everything and equally foolish to avoid inquiring into all things.

Chad, I am mad at you for making me give you kudos TWICE in a single day!

WTF??

I agree, the stupidity of you monkeys is infinite.

---

@Chad

No. Regardless of what you suppose this totality to contain, you cannot avoid the fact that change is a product of time, and time itself is contingent upon the very existance of this universe.

I ask you again...

If the bible posits that God created the universe...

Which inherently gave time meaning and existence as time and the universe are one in the same.


How is it that the God you defend existed in a state of change before change was possible?

Come on!

You're better than this!

Don't make up guess works to conform to your beliefs.

What is this telling you?

It's obvious...admit it!!!! Lol


If you take the God part out of it, it's merely seeking understanding for yet another phenomena that also has an explanation.

You don't have to just keep jamming god into the equation where he obviously doesn't fit!

I believe you're smarter than that.

---

@fr0d0

(Today 14:20)Texas Sailor Wrote:
What material?

"Science 101 is down the hall.

Materialism isn't the subject here. You're transposing a modern materialist world view onto a non materialist one."

Don't change the subject home slice

I'm applying logic, combined with a modern understanding of scientific knowledge to a fairy tale. You can call it whatever you want, and I can point out your excuses for avoiding the objection every time, but until you have something intelligent to add to the discussion, I'd recommend that you just continue feeding Wooters kudos. Your responses are distractions to others that wish to gain understanding and actually display the intellectual capacity to achieve some.

and like a monkey that thinks it can explain everything around it.

---

I would say "reducing to physics" means we might be able to understand it. If you define the universe by "how" the interactions take place, I would agree, it falls woefully short. But it does seem that we are a hierarchy of structure. And what is the next level becomes the question.

F=MA, really is not based in "ideal conditions". It is based on a set of conditions that we can work with. We limit the number of complexities to be able to make some predictions. But you have a point in that our understanding falls short at lower and higher masses. That doesn't mean there is magic.

I take issue with the physics "'Krauss''' when he implies that if we can't make predictions, then pink elephants could appear. That is not true. It is more that our formulas are very incomplete and we can't predict the next event. But pink elephants are not coming out of black holes. Also his "zero" notion, well, that might hold true for a "poof there it is god", but that's it.

What is time? there is no time. As you stated, we call a regular set of conditional changes a "tick". But it does not exists.

I don't agree with your last stance. It is not that it is "not physical". It is that we don't know what it is yet. Finding the higgs means, at least, particle and energy interactions is a good start.

What is this "non-physical" part of the universe you speak of? I think it just means interactions that we just don't understand yet. Like one atom having the ability to process more than one bit of information at the same time. To a "hardon" group like us, it would be seen as "not physical" if information passed through you at the same time you were you. But in actuality, it is "physical".

Then let's boil it all down to a single molecule and put the shoe on the other foot. Where did this one single molecule come from? Explain where this came from using your monkey brains. How do you get something out of nothing? Peel that banana.

---

@stone


Well this just proves your whole analogy to be bullshit.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D0YRm5Os1uQ

ok, that was funny, but, come on. Your not seriously using that are you? Did you notice that.... how do i insert that smiley rolling on the floor laughing?

It's one of those student driver cars. There's two steering wheels. Here, have a banana and a pepsi.

---

Your 1st problem is that you don't understand that there are things in this world that you don't understand.

Your first problem is that when you don't understand something, you make up answers and call it 'truth'.

Were talking about the existance of God, the creator of men and monkeys.

---

Hey TeX

I didn't avoid the question. I hit it squarely out of the park. You dismiss it without entertaining it. I assume because the concept is unknown to you. Wouldn't it be better to question it rather than dismiss it out of hand?

You're applying logic strangled with a modernist material view, yeah. Try addressing the subject and you might see the actual logic of what it's saying.

Burying your head in the sand may be your atheism style. If so, please carry on.

The whole point is God's ability to create (INSERT NOUS) is contingent on the existence of something upon which to exercise HIS causal energies. This does not imply that God is a contingent being in the sense that HIS being is contingent on something other than Himself. You could even say that God isn't a contingent being but his powers inherently ARE and must be in order for any rational mind to continue entertaining Him if you so choose. You disagree? God is subject to logical restrictions just like any and everything else (material or immaterial), If it can be understood rationally this must be true. If it is an irrational assertion, it is illogical and should be dismissed as such. God can't be God and not-God at the same time (you disagree?), God can't make a weight so big that he himself couldn't lift it, and guess what dude? God can't be both material and immaterial at the same time! So, answer the question. The fact that all of these things must be true in order to maintain the logic we apply to literally EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S TRUE... What is God's power contingent upon? Is it not contingent on something? If you say no, then I'm curious as to how you make sense of this.

My Guess is that one of these will be how you choose to continue...


a) Deflect the question, fillubustering, straw-man arguments, or another possible Red Herring.

b) Admit that belief in God is completely irrational at least as far as this, and you have no logical reason to believe in him, but are totally cool with supporting it's "possibility" inspite it's irrationality and you GLADLY accept the implications such a statement makes on your intelligence in the name of faith.



Hmm...Which one will it be.

I'll give you the same question I gave to your monkey brother. How do you get something out of nothing?

[StatCrux]

God created (blank) from...


What material?

...and using what level of approximate power? (limited or omnipotent)

Don't wanna make assumptions, I'll wait for a Christian to fill me in.

Ex Nihilo, wow nobody has ever thought about this before..doh

[Neo-Scholastic]

What's with all the monkey and banana jokes? Please someone explain to me what I'm missing.

[Esquilax]

I'll give you the same question I gave to your monkey brother. How do you get something out of nothing?

How is it that you're willing to accept "it's magic!" when it happens to agree with your pet beliefs, but you expect us to know every last little thing when we don't? What's wrong with simply saying we don't know? Why does that mean your god exists?

[archangle]

lamo at stone:

It is possible that the universe strated by something else. And it is possible that it wasn't "poof there it is".

stone is a troll. leave him be. "peeling a banana" means he didn't understand a word that was said and he blames us for that.

[Tonus]

stone is a troll. leave him be. "peeling a banana" means he didn't understand a word that was said and he blames us for that.

Huh. I figured that "peel that banana" was a euphemism for masturbation.

[CapnAwesome]

If you look at Genesis 1:1 something did not come out of nothing. "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void."

It says God created X and Y It does not say from nothing X and Y were manifested. We know this because the word for Create is the Hebrew ברא bara' it means to shape or form. The Idea is like taking a lump of clay or a rock and to shape it into a vessal.

Are you saying that then the Universe is infinite in time, along with God? If something was not created from nothing it existed already. In which case I don't see the need for God at all.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

In my mind I thought I was giving a fairly clear picture of God as the All out of which all things come and to which they owe their existence. Apparently, I was mistaken. You raise legitimate concerns about possibly trying to critique a moving target. Describing the ineffable is quite the challenge, especially for me, since my views are constantly evolving. But I will do my best to follow your suggestion, even if it may take a little bit of time. And it may be a good topic for a separate thread like, "What Attributes Must God have to be God?" BTW the attributes of your car far exceed those of mine...you the Man!

If would be much easier if you would stop imposing imaginary characteristics like ineffable upon this fantasy of yours.

As to what is required to be a god that is spelled out quite clearly in the Eden story. A god must know good from evil and live forever. No other criteria are given. Or do you freely add new requirements on your gods just to make it hard on yourself? Those requirements are essentially the same as required for the Greek/Roman pantheon and all the other gods at that time east to the Indus river.

[archangle]

what is the problem with traits of god that change with new observations?

[Tex]

God created (blank) from...


What material?

...and using what level of approximate power? (limited or omnipotent)

Don't wanna make assumptions, I'll wait for a Christian to fill me in.

God created (all real things) from (his love*), only possible through (omnipotence).

*That actually isn't what we're constructed from though, it's his motivation for creating. Otherwise I'll go ex nihilo and say we are not made out of anything already existing.