What created God?

Originally posted by Agerg
I see no reason to regard your god (capitalised) as anything other than a fictional construct. As such I have no reason to deferentially refer to it as "Him". Evolution is a process, not an account of how the process started. For all I know the FSM could have started it.
The point of contention we have in this thread is whether it is logically possible for a ...[text shortened]... y the arguments of those who don't even understand what it is they attempt to disprove.

I am still saying that you are way too technical and you claim you argue on basics. You'd have to convince me otherwise.

A good example of an infinite loop will be me and you...me saying God was just there and you saying no.... thus a yes and no will never stop. I too, say that God did not create Himself, He was just there. Up until that point (a point before God) does not make any sense at all. Something had to provide the spark, and it was not lightning that struck a pound millions of years ago after a big bang.

With regards to valid proof that evolution is false I would agree that you're not impressed with the proof at hand. Basic logics is what was used to come forth with the false theory, and you claim to argue on basic logics...
What it is "they" want to disprove?
Evolution is based on the scientific method right?

Lets define scientific method:
The process of proposing a hypothesis, and then testing its accuracy by collecting data on events the hypothesis predicts. If the predictions match the new data the hypothesis is supported. Generally the best supported hypothesis is considered correct.

For the ones that don't believe me...google it.

Thus the definition tells me a lot actually. It tells me that evolution has not being observed ... like in ever, but only propose something that can not exist with logics being around. Evolution thus is only a theory and will stay only a theory cause it just can't be proved. To say many tests has passed the theory is not proof. This only tells me that the computer and the person that build the program has limited knowledge with not near all the facts, thus, a fictional book for some scientist to read whilst on the toilet.

Originally posted by Nicksten
I am still saying that you are way too technical and you claim you argue on basics. You'd have to convince me otherwise.

A good example of an infinite loop will be me and you...me saying God was just there and you saying no.... thus a yes and no will never stop. I too, say that God did not create Himself, He was just there. Up until that point (a point ear all the facts, thus, a fictional book for some scientist to read whilst on the toilet.

Do you think that god can make the statement "No sentence in the English language can contain more than four words" true?

EDIT: question open to and directed to all theists not just Nicksten.

Originally posted by tomtom232
Why does creation have to be "the beginning?"

By calling something infinite you are calling it limitless, boundless, without end, all encompassing etc. If this limitless "thing" has sentience then it is God. If you say it doesn't have sentience then you have put a limit on it and it is finite. In conclusion, you can believe in a finite existence or an theories. It used a numerical or "logical" system based on God to explain its theories.

A general question for all: If any given moment is preceded by an unlimited ("infinite" ) passage of time, how does that moment actually come to pass?

Originally posted by JS357
A general question for all: If any given moment is preceded by an unlimited ("infinite" ) passage of time, how does that moment actually come to pass?

By the Word of God.

Originally posted by JS357
A general question for all: If any given moment is preceded by an unlimited ("infinite" ) passage of time, how does that moment actually come to pass?

I think this falls under the same sort of problem as Zeno's paradoxes.

If you had a universe/multiverse that has always existed, but in a constantly changing state,
then at any particular point you could travel backwards or forwards in time indefinitely without
ever reaching a beginning or an end (making the universe temporally infinite) but yet still the
ever changing now still exists.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I think this falls under the same sort of problem as Zeno's paradoxes.

If you had a universe/multiverse that has always existed, but in a constantly changing state,
then at any particular point you could travel backwards or forwards in time indefinitely without
ever reaching a beginning or an end (making the universe temporally infinite) but yet still the
ever changing now still exists.

Is it strictly necessary that we even appeal to Zeno's paradox though? If time is granular then surely the problem dissolves anyway.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Do you think that god can make the statement "No sentence in the English language can contain more than four words" true?

EDIT: question open to and directed to all theists not just Nicksten.

Well from my point of view as Christian - Yes, with God all things are possible.
From a logical point of view, I don't see the logic in this, neither did God thus no statement as such exists. If it did, would we have noticed the difference?

Just out of curiosity - whom has listened to another person translating a long sentence in just a couple of words.

Originally posted by Nicksten
Well from my point of view as Christian - Yes, with God all things are possible.
From a logical point of view, I don't see the logic in this, neither did God thus no statement as such exists. If it did, would we have noticed the difference?

Just out of curiosity - whom has listened to another person translating a long sentence in just a couple of words.

And translating few words into many words?

Originally posted by googlefudge
I think this falls under the same sort of problem as Zeno's paradoxes.

If you had a universe/multiverse that has always existed, but in a constantly changing state,
then at any particular point you could travel backwards or forwards in time indefinitely without
ever reaching a beginning or an end (making the universe temporally infinite) but yet still the
ever changing now still exists.

I doubt that you can travel in time in general...not possible. I do believe that you can find yourself next to point A one second, and the next at point B which could be millions of kilometres or even light years apart. But time does not stand still, nor can move backward of forward, it only is the present and was only the present and be only the present.

Originally posted by RJHinds
And translating few words into many words?

To add some humour...I think it all depends on some of the translators alcohol levels LOL. Some times you just can't get to the end of the story. LOL

Originally posted by Nicksten
I am still saying that you are way too technical and you claim you argue on basics. You'd have to convince me otherwise.

A good example of an infinite loop will be me and you...me saying God was just there and you saying no.... thus a yes and no will never stop. I too, say that God did not create Himself, He was just there. Up until that point (a point ...[text shortened]... ear all the facts, thus, a fictional book for some scientist to read whilst on the toilet.

In philosophy of science, the notion of an observable is pretty complex. All sorts of unobservables are posited in the explanations of theoretical physics and the social sciences. Unobservables are abductively inferred, and this is common. So even if I grant that evolution has not been directly observed in practice (which I don't; papers are published every year on instances of speciation), what would that matter for the justificatory credentials of the theory? Perhaps you could say a bit more on what you take 'observation' to mean, or require, and why you think it is essential to scientific testing. After all, evolutionary theorists make all sorts of observations, just like physicists and chemists. And these observations serve both as data and as things that need to be explained. The observation of genetic similarity, geographical dispersion of species tracking morphological similarities, etc. are observed by biologists...

Originally posted by Nicksten
Well from my point of view as Christian - Yes, with God all things are possible.
From a logical point of view, I don't see the logic in this, neither did God thus no statement as such exists. If it did, would we have noticed the difference?

Just out of curiosity - whom has listened to another person translating a long sentence in just a couple of words.

The statement "No sentence in the English language can contain more than four words"
Is what is known as self refuting.
It is a sentence in English longer than four words that says no sentence in English can be longer than four words.

For true and false to have any meaning this statement must be false.

It is a logical impossibility for it to be true.

If your god can do things that are logically impossible then there is Nothing and I do mean Nothing you can say about
it.
If it is not bound by the laws of logic......
then it can both exist and not exist,
be both evil and not evil,
be everything and not-everything,
be nothing and not-nothing,

You would have no basis to make any claim about it of any kind at all whatsoever.

If god can make "A = not-A" be true, then you can't say anything about god at all.
Including god's ability to make "A = not-A" be true.

Nothing can avoid being bound by the laws of logic.


Given that it is possible to put bounds on what god can and can't do.
Albeit massively wide in scope.

For example god can't be self creating as the first cause.
Because to create himself god has to exist, and to exist god has to create himself.
If god exists he has no need to create himself.
If god doesn't exist then he can't create himself.


If you then postulate god having existed forever, and then use god as an explanation for the beginning of the universe.
Why not skip god altogether and simply have the universe exist (in some form or another) forever?

As god doesn't explain anything as he himself is unexplained, there is no benefit to any explanation that involves god.
And such explanations do harm in preventing actual explanations from being formed.

Originally posted by Nicksten
I doubt that you can travel in time in general...not possible. I do believe that you can find yourself next to point A one second, and the next at point B which could be millions of kilometres or even light years apart. But time does not stand still, nor can move backward of forward, it only is the present and was only the present and be only the present.

I wasn't claiming it possible to travel through time (at least not in the Hollywood, backwards in time,
it is certainly possible to travel forwards in time) Simply describing aspects of the hypothetical thought
experiment universe.

As for the rest of your post.... I am not sure you know what you mean, and I certainly don't.
Could you try to expand on what you are saying because I have no clue what your trying to say?

Originally posted by Agerg
Is it strictly necessary that we even appeal to Zeno's paradox though? If time is granular then surely the problem dissolves anyway.

I wasn't appealing to zeno's paradox, rather comparing the problem to it.

However...
No, making time granular doesn't solve the problem as an infinite line of integers
has exactly the same issue as the real number line.

Namely how do you get from -infinity to any number on the number line, because add any
number to -infinity and you still get -infinity... Whether you are using integers or simply any
real number.

However the point is that infinity is a concept not a number.

A similar argument can be made with respect to space.
If space is infinite, (ie you can travel forever in any direction without ever reaching an edge or
curving back on yourself) then you can ask the question how, starting from infinitely far away
could you ever get here.... the answer is you can't, but that doesn't mean here can't exist in an
infinite universe.

EDIT: also you can't start from infinitely far away. Infinity is not a distance you can ever reach, or be at.
Any object in the universe would be a finite distance from any other object.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Wow is your logic flawed.

Of course if you define god to mean everything then of course god exists, but the word has become meaningless.

And no you can't argue that because I am sentient, and I am part of everything, that everything is sentient.

Which is what your argument boils down to.

I am not arguing that every "thing" is sentient, this is what you assume, I am aruguing that the entity everything is sentient but not everything in it is sentient. You are sentient but your hands and feet are not. God(everything) is sentient but the rocks on the ground are not. You are part of the sentience of God. I am also not using this as "the" argument I am using how you define infinity as the argument and if you believe infinity then this is the same thing as believing in God.