What/Who created God?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

You interjected above with a point of logic. Please back that up or concede that you were wrong so the rest of us can move along.

I'm not the one who hypothesized that a metaphysical, all-powerful, timeless being exists.

How science works is that if someone makes a hypothosis, that person needs to both have a reason to make that hypothosis - usually based on repeatable, verifyable evidence or observation - that can be verified through experimentation and peer review. Niether you nor any religious figure in all the history of civilization and humankind has been able to make any proof of any claim of supernatural events.

That's why, after 2000 some years, angel sightings and crying statues and miracles are regarded like UFO encounters and Evolution, M-Theory, Astronomy, Genetics, and Botany are all regarded as science.

As such, it is not an atheist's responsibility to disprove god. That's a theist's responsibility. It's a claim with no evidence. Thus, I'm not the one with the burden of proof.

[fr0d0]

For fucks sake TheDarkestOfAngels explain yourself or shut up!

We're not discussing the existence of God but exploring the logicality of his attributes, which you chimed in on. Either back up your statement or shut the fuk up.

<edit> I think you entered the thread TheDarkestOfAngels missing the point of the ongoing discussion. I'll ignore your comment and wait to see if tavarish can back up his statement about the conflict he sees between omniscience and omnipotence.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

For fucks sake TheDarkestOfAngels explain yourself or shut up!

The ideas are interrelated to the point to where you can't really excommunicate one without the other.
The entire arguement on god's attributes is entirely useless if he can't even exist.

Case and point:

Omnipotence violates the first law of thermodynamics. (Matter cannot be created or destroyed).
Omnipresence violates relativity in the sense that information cannot propogate faster than the speed of light.
Debating on timelessness is pointless without a better understanding of time, which also points to omnipresence being impossible.

[fr0d0]

Again you miss the point of the discussion TheDarkestOfAngels

Did you not hear that God is transcendental? What part of physics would that encompass? QED

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Did you not hear that God is transcendental? What part of physics would that encompass? QED

I'm sure he's as transcendental as the giant spagetti monster, Zeus, Thor, Superman, and an honest politician, but I can guarentee that none of those things are more or less real than your idea of god.
If any being can or will affect our world, such a being can't exist here and violate the laws of physics.

Ask a physicist what happens to matter and energy if a new universe were created in a local area and is forced to interact with the rest of the universe.
It's like hitting the reset button and making everything the new universe touches into a material I'll call "Explodium".

A better and clearer example, though, is like the sims game. Computer games work differently than real life does. I can't reach my hand into the game and change anything directly. Even if I created the game, I can't even violate the game rules without severely affecting gameplay.

It doesn't work.

[fr0d0]

What if you changed the rules? Obviously you could do what you like. Your example fails. Your logic fails.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

What if you changed the rules? Obviously you could do what you like. Your example fails. Your logic fails.

Then this arguement is going to delve into the assinine arguement of
"Well god is omnipotent so I win ha ha."

That isn't a platform to make any kind of valid arguement.

[Godscreated]

Are you serious about such a statement?

Yes.

@ EvidencevsFaith:

You can't harm me with that! I've been built with logical paradox-absorbing crumple-zones!

Does this qualifiy as absolute truth... some time in the near future you will cease to exist as you are now.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Does this qualifiy as absolute truth... some time in the near future you will cease to exist as you are now.

No. It doesn't qualify as 'absolute truth.' You can't be absolutely certain what the state of my existance will be in the immediate, near, or distant future.

I can be quite certain, for example, that given no unfortunate incidents between now and old age and assuming no major changes in medical science over the next half-decade or so, I'm quite certain that my life will end of some complication or another before a century of my life has passed.

However, that isn't a certainty. I could live a much shorter or a much longer life depending on many factors. I could a one-in-a-trillion human with the abilty to not die of old age or medical technology may have a breakthrough that would allow me to live indefinately in some manner or another.
There might even be a sort of afterlife or rebirth in which a part of me never truely dies and I simply change into something else but retain my basic essence.

As such, I can't even be completely certain of death with 100% absolute certainty. I can't even say with 100% certainty that I won't remain exactly as I am now until or through any instant in the future.

Still, I'm pretty damn sure I am never the same from any instant to another. Like any machine, every part of my body has a finite life span. There are living things existing inside my body. Even the atoms within my body is changing from one instant to another in their form and in their position.

As such, I can't even be absolutely certain on where 'change' is when you draw the line. In one sense, I may change very little in terms of my basic character, personality, and knowledge from now until the day I die but in another sense of change, I am never truely the same in any one instant in contrast to another. My body changes with each moment that passes.

So, no, there are no absolute truths.

[Godscreated]

Does this qualifiy as absolute truth... some time in the near future you will cease to exist as you are now.

No. It doesn't qualify as 'absolute truth.' You can't be absolutely certain what the state of my existance will be in the immediate, near, or distant future.

I can be quite certain, for example, that given no unfortunate incidents between now and old age and assuming no major changes in medical science over the next half-decade or so, I'm quite certain that my life will end of some complication or another before a century of my life has passed.

However, that isn't a certainty. I could live a much shorter or a much longer life depending on many factors. I could a one-in-a-trillion human with the abilty to not die of old age or medical technology may have a breakthrough that would allow me to live indefinately in some manner or another.
There might even be a sort of afterlife or rebirth in which a part of me never truely dies and I simply change into something else but retain my basic essence.

As such, I can't even be completely certain of death with 100% absolute certainty. I can't even say with 100% certainty that I won't remain exactly as I am now until or through any instant in the future.

Still, I'm pretty damn sure I am never the same from any instant to another. Like any machine, every part of my body has a finite life span. There are living things existing inside my body. Even the atoms within my body is changing from one instant to another in their form and in their position.

As such, I can't even be absolutely certain on where 'change' is when you draw the line. In one sense, I may change very little in terms of my basic character, personality, and knowledge from now until the day I die but in another sense of change, I am never truely the same in any one instant in contrast to another. My body changes with each moment that passes.

So, no, there are no absolute truths.

Sounds to me as though you just proved an absolute truth. Change is inevitable science has shown this to be true.