5 of 10
5
Why did God create the Earth and humanity in the first place?
Posted: 09 July 2012 05:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4615
Joined  2007-10-05

W4U, that is a very clear explanation of your concept of Potential, but even that assumes something existed before the Big Bang. That may not be a valid assumption according to new theories in cosmology. See Lawrence Krauss’ book Something from Nothing for an explanation of how the universe could have spontaneously arisen from nothing.

The short answer is the total of all the matter and energy in the universe equals zero. If you add all the mass together and subtract the potential gravitational energy the result is zero. The universe could be nothing more than a special case of nothing.

Who needs a god to create nothing?

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2012 06:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5975
Joined  2009-02-26
DarronS - 09 July 2012 05:11 PM

W4U, that is a very clear explanation of your concept of Potential, but even that assumes something existed before the Big Bang. That may not be a valid assumption according to new theories in cosmology. See Lawrence Krauss’ book Something from Nothing for an explanation of how the universe could have spontaneously arisen from nothing.

The short answer is the total of all the matter and energy in the universe equals zero. If you add all the mass together and subtract the potential gravitational energy the result is zero. The universe could be nothing more than a special case of nothing.

Who needs a god to create nothing?

As I read your synopsis, Lawrence Krauss does assume something (matter and energy). Apparently he postulates that balancing properties create a zero state, which when disturbed might have been causal to the BB. I can understand the zero state balance (that would be an expression of potential), but I have a real problem with the notion that nothingness can consist of matter and energy. IMO, that is a contradiction in terms.

Taking the definitions of potential in a philosophical context as “that which may become reality” it must have existed before all this matter and energy was created in the first place. IMO, potential can exist both inside and outside of reality itself. This, I believe is the gist of Bohm’s true zero state non-reality consisting of pure potential (the Implicate), which became Explicate in the formation of pure energy (still in a zero state, but dynamic in nature), which in turn led inevitably to the BB and the creation of matter, energy, and the universe(s), i.e. physical reality. This process may have taken a single instant before this conversion from pure potential compressed in an infinitely small singularity expressed itself in pure energy which in turn was causal to BB in a single mega quantum event, where everything happened in the same place and at the same time.

Who needs god to create nothing? No one!  OTOH, Potential (implicate) can exist as nothing (not expressed), but is essential in the creation of anything, even an expression of a zero state field of energy and/or matter (explicate).

[ Edited: 09 July 2012 06:15 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2012 06:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4615
Joined  2007-10-05

I think if we get any deeper into this we’ll be talking around each other. Sounds like we’re essentially stating the same concept in different words.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2012 06:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5975
Joined  2009-02-26
DarronS - 09 July 2012 06:08 PM

I think if we get any deeper into this we’ll be talking around each other. Sounds like we’re essentially stating the same concept in different words.

I agree, and I freely admit that my knowledge in physics is insufficient to speak with any authority on the matter.

However, in a discussion of the properties of a biblical God I believe that the introduction of the philosophical concept of Potential is valid.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2012 06:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4615
Joined  2007-10-05

Not only valid, but much more logical than a supernatural being who exists outside time, especially when believers start saying that god created us for the purpose of worshipping him eternally.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 08:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2012-07-04

Write4U:

You said the only legitimate question is if god created the universe and pre existed the big bang. Assuming the answer is unknown, can we go ahead and assume both (with two different answers), yes, or no? Without an assumption, how does this post move forward on the post’s title question? Literally, has the post’s title question already assumed yes? Should this post be terminated because assumptions are not allowed?

student

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 10:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2753
Joined  2011-11-04

The question “why” pre-supposes a causal action intended for an effect.  Cause and effect are temporal, thus anything preceding the existence of space-time, could not have a cause/effect.  (In fact, I don’t understand how the Big Bang, itself, could have happened.)  Anyway, it seems to me that if there is something that loosely fits the definition of what we refer to as god, then I think that it’s “reason” for creating humanity would have to have occurred after the Big Bang. 

It may be that the question itself is nonsensical.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 12:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 68 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
TimB - 10 July 2012 10:47 AM

The question “why” pre-supposes a causal action intended for an effect.  Cause and effect are temporal, thus anything preceding the existence of space-time, could not have a cause/effect.  (In fact, I don’t understand how the Big Bang, itself, could have happened.)  Anyway, it seems to me that if there is something that loosely fits the definition of what we refer to as god, then I think that it’s “reason” for creating humanity would have to have occurred after the Big Bang. 

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t374-is-timeless-divine-action-coherent

The first moment of time is the moment of God’s creative act and of creation’s simultaneous coming to be.

http://philofreligion.homestead.com/files/timeless.htm

God’s bringing about the universe is the total and direct dependence of the contingent universe on the divine will. Such a relation of dependence does not require that God be located in time. Thus, divine timeless action is not incoherent.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/grunbau.html

The Creator may be conceived to be causally, but not temporally, prior to the origin of the universe, such that the act of causing the universe to begin to exist is simultaneous with its beginning to exist.

Contemporary philosophical discussions of causal directionality deal routinely with cases in which cause and effect are simultaneous; indeed, a good case can be made that all temporal causal relations involve the simultaneity of cause and effect.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 04:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 69 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5975
Joined  2009-02-26
student - 10 July 2012 08:13 AM

Write4U:

You said the only legitimate question is if god created the universe and pre existed the big bang. Assuming the answer is unknown, can we go ahead and assume both (with two different answers), yes, or no? Without an assumption, how does this post move forward on the post’s title question? Literally, has the post’s title question already assumed yes? Should this post be terminated because assumptions are not allowed?

student

No.
Science has evidence that indicate an inevitability of creation. Theism has no evidence whatever of a god. Self-evidence is a circular argument and does not in any way prove the possible existence of supernatural entities such as GOD or FSM. There is no philosophical difference between the two.
Why accept GOD and reject FSM?  The only acceptable known definition of “that which may become (create) reality” is contained in the word Potential.

The notion of a god is the remnant of an obsolete naive interpretation of the natural mathematical nature of universal constants.

[ Edited: 10 July 2012 04:25 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 04:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 70 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Write4U - 10 July 2012 04:08 PM

No.
Science has evidence that indicate an inevitability of creation

what evidence is that ? and what caused the universe into being ?

 

. Theism has no evidence whatever of a god.

what do you consider valid evidence ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 05:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 71 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5975
Joined  2009-02-26
Adonai888 - 10 July 2012 04:36 PM
Write4U - 10 July 2012 04:08 PM

No.
Science has evidence that indicate an inevitability of creation

what evidence is that ? and what caused the universe into being ?

Read “String theory”, read CDT (causal dynamic triangulation) theory, read Field theory, read Spinoza.

. Theism has no evidence whatever of a god.

what do you consider valid evidence ?

I have no clue, you have not provided properties of god. There is no god theory other than some ancient scientifically inaccurate books and copious justifications (apologetics) .

[ Edited: 10 July 2012 05:31 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 05:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 72 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Write4U - 10 July 2012 05:26 PM

Read “String theory”, read CDT (causal dynamic triangulatio) theory, read Field theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory

Please note that the number of superstring theories given above is only a high-level classification; the actual number of mathematically distinct theories which are compatible with observation and would therefore have to be examined to find the one that correctly describes nature is currently believed to be at least 10^500 (a one with five hundred zeroes). This has given rise to the concern that superstring theories, despite the alluring simplicity of their basic principles, are, in fact, not simple at all, and according to the principle of Occam’s razor perhaps alternative physical theories going beyond the Standard Model should be explored.

not a very plausible theory, if you ask me…....odds of one to 10^500 suggest probability of practically zero…...

I have no clue, you have not provided properties of god.

You should ask this to the thread starter, of what kind of God he is writing about.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 06:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 73 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5975
Joined  2009-02-26

I believe I did. See # 57. You even agreed with me.
But in the absence of the original author of this thread, I have given an alternate interpretation of the properties of god, but my interpretation rejects the notion of motive and intent.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 06:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 74 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Write4U - 10 July 2012 06:11 PM

I believe I did. See # 57. You even agreed with me.
But in the absence of the original author of this thread, I have given an alternate interpretation of the properties of god, but my interpretation rejects the notion of motive and intent.

http://www.carm.org/failure-atheism-account-existence

Whatever caused the universe, existed before the universe. Since the universe had a beginning in time, and since matter and energy do not spontaneously change and arrange themselves into something new, then the best explanation for the cause of the universe is an action that was a decision.In other words, a decision to act at a specific time in the past is the best explanation of the existence of the universe. Of course, we Christians would say this decision was made by a personal being who we call God.

that is how i believe God is :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t79-who-is-god-essence-of-god

God is the supreme being of the universe. God is a unbodied mind, He is righteous and just, love, good, free from sin, he is perfect in his character and person, he is righteous in all His attitudes and actions, he is eternal, without a beginning, and without a end, he is omniscient, omnipresent, limitless in authority, immutable, he is the truth. Moreover, God is self-existent, nonspatial, nonmaterial, unimaginably powerful, and personal.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 07:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 75 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5975
Joined  2009-02-26

Your truth is not my truth and i have a right to my truth as you have a right to yours.  So far your truth (and it’s adherents) has not shown those qualities (properties) which you ascribe. In fact, man’s actions in the cause of belief in your truth is its greatest counter argument.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 10
5