1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God's power

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Corban, Jun 13, 2004.

  1. Paraprakrti

    Paraprakrti Custom User

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,123
    Ratings:
    +53
    God is both the Supreme Knower and the Supremely Knowable Object. There is a necessity for God because the order relevant in our universe must be ordained by some intelligence greater than ourselves. This order of the universe comes due to the conditioned entities' varying necessities. how do we account for an unintelligent universe supplying everyone with the proper facilities required for sustenance? That makes absolutely no sense. How then does the universe KNOW to give us what we require? We did not ordain this universal order supply. We are not in control, we are controlled. Therefore it is only in logical sequence that we understand the necessity of God, the Supreme Order-Supplier. It is not by chance that an unintelligent universe supplies us with what we need. It is by order that an intelligence distinguished from this unintelligent universe is acting in order to supply us with what we need.

    This is understanding the difference between the field of activity and the knower of the field. This philosophy applies even to each individual:
    We can understand the field of activity (the body), but as soon as we deny the knower of this field (the self, or soul) we set ourselves up for logical inconsistency. Knowledge is objective. If we are subjective, fleeting perceptions, with no substantiality whatsoever, then we have no stance in perceiving objective fact. But we can, simply by being conscious of our constantly changing surroundings, understand that we do have the capacity to perceive objective fact. With this, and due to the fact that we cannot account for ultimately being the order-suppliers of the material body's necessities, reasons that there must be one who is overall Knower/Order-Supplier of the entire universe. A blindly acting universe is thus condemned from an ordered reality.
     
  2. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,001
    Ratings:
    +1,059
    That's a shame.

    I guess you'll have to tell us the basis of -
    "the amount of energy that would be needed to create one single protein (with the odds I used)" and the process and calculation at which you arrived at the odds

    How much is " the energy that exists in the entire universe." and the basis for the "odds [you] used"

    What is the rate of of expending energy per year to understand "For earth alone to create life would take 10 to the 243rd power years. "

    That's more than "billions and billions." You can twist it any way you want, but there have never been odds that have been lower than those that you subscribe to. They are so astronomically low that it is preposterous to even consider

    Just want to check that what you read is right.
     
  3. Runt

    Runt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,833
    Ratings:
    +189
    Words words words, and more than that, words with no proof.

    Or the order in our universe is governed purely by cause and effect. If A happens then B happens, causing C, which causes E and F, which cause G H I and J... I make a huge batch of macaroni and cheese and place it on a nice warm place in the cabinet, and it becomes the perfect environment to support life. I wait for a couple days and mold begins to grow on it. I open the cabinet a week later and there is a huge growth of spongy gray-blue mold covering the macaroni about three inches above the dish. I take a nice bite and it tastes bitter. I throw it away and play online for a few hours. I start to feel sick. Then I'm barfing all over the place and have to go to the doctor.

    All that is perfectly explainable using natural laws without having to throw God into the picture.

    The eventual development of life didn't predetermine the nature of the universe. It's the other way around. Life developed because of the nature of the universe, and the nature of the universe determined how it would develop, and what it would need.

    Right and wrong. With or without a God, we are both in control and we are controlled. We can work with the natural laws and be in control. We can build airplanes and powerplants. We can clone humans. Corban can make his lasagna. Yet the natural laws also control us.

    Suggesting that God is controlling us with the natural laws is taking it a bit too far. We can account for everything in the universe without adding God into the picture. We can even find spiritual fulfilment in the universe without adding God. So why add God to the picture? To gratify our ego or to humble us? To give the politicians we call "religious officials" more power? To give us justification for war? To suppress minorities? To keep men in power? To find a way of explaining the universe when we don't understand science well enough to do so? What?

    It is only in logical sequence that we understand the necessity of the NATURAL LAWS, the "Supreme Order-Suppliers". Adding God into the picture is not only unnecissary, but illogical. Unless you say that God is the natural laws. That would be weird, but would make more sense.

    Believe what you want.

    LMAO, ever heard of Taoism? Go play around in that forum for a while and see if you truly believe that.

    Ah, so you are one of those who believes in God because it gratifies your own ego? Perhaps if the human observer had always existed, then this would be evidence for the fact that an observant God exists. However not too long ago there was no such thing as life, so the fact that humans can observe the universe is proof of nothing. Better to say that God is simply like energy-- the basis for all things, subject to certain laws, free from any kind of subjective concepts (or any thoughts at all, for consciousness is biological and energy is not), eternal, and ever changing. This is logical and perfectly in line with science.

    I think a blindly acting universe is just fine.
     
  4. Ceridwen018

    Ceridwen018 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,768
    Ratings:
    +399
    I absolutely agree. If you're sitting there thinking that 'Isn't it so great that we're an oxygen breathing species, and we just so happen to live on a planet which provides oxygen?', then you definately have it backwards. the earth could have evolved any number of ways...if the only substance in our earth's atmosphere was sulfer, we would still exist, we'd just be breathing sulfer!

    I don't mean to offend, but I find this to be a bit humorous. To me it sounds a little something like this: "Therefore, it is only in logical sequence that we understand the necessity of Fuglyploof, the Invisible Pink Unicorn." I mean really, what's the difference?

    Why?
     
  5. dan

    dan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,464
    Ratings:
    +96
    Hey, if you guys want to question what I've written then go to a library and read these books. No matter what I write you're not going to listen to me; you're just going to flat out deny the statements I make or invent more excuses. You do the research yourselves and tell me what you find.
     
  6. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,001
    Ratings:
    +1,059
    It's knda hard, Dan, to understand the energy required to make a protein when it is a chemical reaction. The engery for a chemical reaction is contained in the material itself. The "calculations" of yours look spurious.

    Ya see, Dan, I have an expert in the house who works will real evoltionary science and not the pseudo-science of creation. Although what you said sounded a bit odd to me, she remarked. "What is he talking about?" thereby confirming my suspicion.

    Your avoidance in answering the questions is as telling as giving a wrong answer.
     
  7. Paraprakrti

    Paraprakrti Custom User

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,123
    Ratings:
    +53
    I was stating this to convey the philosophy of 'God'. And this wasn't the end point of what I was saying so your comment is useless.


    Necessity constitutes order. You are implying that there is no necessity for the existence of the universe. If this is the fact, then order is not the absolute quality. At this point it would be proper to cease trying to convey words in an orderly fashion to get a point across that does not exist.


    You can explain a link in the chain but not the existence of the chain itself. If we agree that order is an absolute quality of the universe, then what is the order for the universe? If you say there is none, then the fact would be that the universe is overall without order. Thus making natural laws valueless to the debate.


    So, higher nature (nature of the universe) developed lower nature (the nature of life), then what developed the higher nature? And what ordered the necessity for life to arise at all? "It just happened" is not an answer, it's a cop-out due to a lack of knowledge.
    And your explanation implies that lifeless matter is superior to life itself. Is this where you stand?


    I am speaking, overall.


    First of all, I recognize no religious politician. Nor do I use religion to justify war, suppress minorities or keep men in power.
    Secondly, we may be able to account for everything within the universe, but we cannot account for the universe itself without arriving at the concept of God in some form or another, personal or impersonal.


    I will say that God is "natural laws" only if these laws also constitute an intelligence that ordains life arising within the universe. Otherwise, blind law has no necessity to exist in the first place. And like I said before, necessity constitutes order, and vice versa.


    Yes, I have heard of Taoism and have read a couple books on it, but this is completely beside the point that I made in that paragraph.


    No, you have it backwards. It has nothing to do with my ego. Because I know that I cannot account for being the order-supplier of material sustenance, therefore that position must be had by one who transcends material nature.
    You say that not too long ago there was no such thing as life, but you do not know this. You were not present to observe no life. Even still, if it is a fact that life is a product of a constantly changing material existence, then objective consciousness has no meaning. You may not accept that your capacity to objectively perceive things is false, but yet you will continue to contradict yourself by accepting that you are a product of subjectivity. Have fun.


    Ok... But do you see that a blindly acting universe is just fine? LOL
     
  8. Paraprakrti

    Paraprakrti Custom User

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,123
    Ratings:
    +53
    Although I do not agree with Runt's statement, I do agree with you when you say, "if the only substance in our earth's atmosphere was sulfer...we'd just breathe sulfur!"


    The same difference that is between the words "puddle" and "cookie". These are two english words conveying different meanings. Similarly, the term "God" comes with a meaning and, moreover, a philosophy. I have yet to understand the philosophy of Fuglyploof, the invisible pink unicorn. Perhaps you can enlighten me to the awe of Fuglyploof, which, if equating to the concept of God, would simply be another name for the same entity I am attempting to convey when I use the term "God".
    Of course, this is all based on the premise that we are to speak english. If we cannot agree on that premise, then I leave you with a big "jukopy id blebinonx".


    Because blind men don't create prescription glasses.
     
  9. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,001
    Ratings:
    +1,059
    Paraprakrti:
    "Because blind men don't create prescription glasses."

    Humankind lost its "blindness" with the advent and continuence of science. The "blindness" I see today is of those who do not accept the process nor product of science.

    Ordination is not a requisite of order thus there is no requisite for a god in relation to order. It is only an asumption of those who presuppose a god.
     
  10. Runt

    Runt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,833
    Ratings:
    +189
    You’re right.

    It is true that the universe as we know it would not exist without this particular Order of energy and the natural laws governing its existence. However, to believe that energy and the natural laws were created so that the universe as we know it could exist seems incredibly egocentric to me.

    We humans believe that we are so awesome and important that the universe itself must have been designed so that we would be the outcome. When we let go of egocentrism we realize that we are an accidental product of this universe, one link in a long chain of creation, and no more important than anything else. We understand then that the Order of the universe doesn't exist because of us... but rather we exist because of it.

    I think that this egocentrism is what leads us to the mistaken belief that there is a conscious entity governing the Order of the universe. We know that energy and the natural laws are infinite, but they are not conscious. Most of us are unable to accept that they are the basis for the known universe because that means humanity is an inadvertent result of this Order, rather than a conscious creation, and therefore we are unimportant. Because evolution has made us egocentric (the instinct to survive leads us to the conclusion that our lives are important for a greater purpose than to simply pass on our DNA), it is incredibly difficult for us to let go of the notion of our own importance, and as a result we are unable to accept the concept of an Ordered but unpremeditated universe.

    Therefore, because we are uncomfortable with the implication that the sole basis of our universe is this undesigned “Order” of infinite energy and the natural laws governing it, we humans invent a conscious God to account for this Order, thereby giving purpose to our existence.

    The flaw in this logic is this: If that which is infinite had no beginning, then it could not have been created. If we are going to suggest that God somehow created energy—which can never be created or destroyed, only changed from form to form—and the equally infinite natural laws governing it, then we also must also account for the existence of God, because “infinite” can no longer imply something that exists independently of creation.

    If we start thinking this way, we have to account for the existence of every eternal thing there is: energy and the natural laws, God, God's God, the God of God's God... and so on and so forth forever and ever and ever. No explanation of origin will ever be good enough; with this thinking nothing can exist independently of everything else, and nothing can account for the existence of anything else. Not even God.

    Did it ever occur to you that that which you call God may simply be the natural laws and the energy that they govern? For centuries humanity has tried to explain the existence of the universe, and could only come to the conclusion that it exists because of something that is infinite and that accounts for everything within creation. This thing that for centuries has been called “God” is right before us! It is called Order, and it is eternal, accounting for the existence of the universe, transcending and yet a part of everything within creation. Its affect upon the universe can be accounted for, measured, and understood to a certain degree.

    If this Order has always existed, then it always will exist, even when the universe as we know it is gone and all energy has converted to its least useful form, even when life and the potential for life is long gone, even when entropy is basically all that is left.

    So at this point I must ask, for what purpose does Order exist? Do we say that God exists to create humans? No. Then why do we suggest that Order exists to fulfill a purpose?

    This can lead us to only one conclusion: Order is necessary for nothing. It just is. It accounts for the existence of everything in the universe, but does not exist to create anything in the universe. Not even us.
     
  11. Paraprakrti

    Paraprakrti Custom User

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,123
    Ratings:
    +53
    And somehow humankind gained their sight from a blind universe. Forgive me if I am reluctant to accept this, all the while, Runt would say I am being egocentric. Regardless, I see no logic in accepting that said quality comes from the lack of itself.


    I disagree. Ordination is a requisite for order. To say that it isn't suggests a lack of perceiving order. As egocentric as it might seem, the question arises, for what reason of order does that which exists, exist?

    Oxymoron of the day: Blind order

    It is like I said, blind men don't create prescription glasses. It is a theory resulting from despair that suggests relative order as a product of absolute chance. Biggest excuse: "...with infinite possibilities, given infinite time..." Nonsense, if you accept that such an infinity exists, but you deny the existence of an infinite intelligence, then your understanding of infinity is lacking in quality and thus not infinite.
     
  12. Paraprakrti

    Paraprakrti Custom User

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,123
    Ratings:
    +53
    @Runt

    You say the idea that there must be a higher reason for the existence of the universe as we know it is egocentric.

    I say the idea that the human consciousness is the highest objectively observing entity, overlorded only by blind laws, is egocentric. Not to mention, that it supposes a nonsensical premise of the quality of consciousness to be a product of the lack of itself. Voids don't beget substance.

    Anyway...
    Both choices can be understood as egocentric. It all depends on one's point of view, one's center of ego. How can you escape ego when ego means identity? Everything you say is egocentric. How can it not be, it is from your ego that it is said?
     
  13. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,001
    Ratings:
    +1,059
     
  14. kc8tbe

    kc8tbe Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    Messages:
    25
    Ratings:
    +0
    Wow! I guess a guy can miss a lot when he goes out of town. First off, I'd like to weigh in on a few items:

    1. Paraprakrti is not only ignoring parsimony, he is ignoring logic (sorry, no personal offense intended). Runt and Pah do adequate jobs of rebutting his arguments.

    2. God is supposed to be omnipotent. He should be able to anything. This includes sinning, becoming imperfect, eating lasagna, and anything else we can think of (this is directed at LCMS Sprecher). It is acceptable to say that God would not or would never do these things, but if one says that God cannot do these things then one admits that God is not omnipotent.

    3. I think I heard someone imply that an imperfect God destroys the creation theory. The reasoning behind this being that if God is imperfect, there must be something more perfect than God that created God. This argument fails on three fronts: 1) to argue that God's imperfection implies the existence of a more perfect being is a false dilemna fallacy; 2) to argue that afformentioned more perfect being must be the creator is a non sequitor; and 3) there is no reason to suppose that an imperfect being could not have created the universe.

    4. Parsimony! Since God ultimately cannot be proved to exist or not exist (or at least that's my position - some would disagree), belief in God is just that, a matter of belief. Lots of religious people I meet claim that such belief is obvious and that if I were to just "open my heart" or "take stock of my surroundings" that God would become "blatantly obvious". But how can this be so when various forum members disagree about what God is like, how many of him there are, and how he went about creating the universe? Based on the evidence for the existence of God presented thus far, I could argue that the universe was created by the toothfairy!

    5. Anyone who disagrees with #4 will have cavities in the afterlife.

    6. Finally, LCMS Sprecher mentioned a while back that perhaps the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is mistaken and that energy can be created or destroyed within a closed system. He has a point. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is science, but science is always open to debate. Is there a good reason to suppose that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is untrue?
     
  15. Ceridwen018

    Ceridwen018 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,768
    Ratings:
    +399
    Paraprakrti,

    Yes! Let's please stick to English! :lol: What language is that though? It's very cool looking!

    Fuglyploof is just an analogy, and I see the difference that you're pointing out, but the point here is: If I were able to provide you with a Fuglyploof philosophy, how would that change things for you?

    By this, I am assuming that you are referring to the old argument that people could not have created god because it's just too complex and it's just not something that could be created without some sort of tip off, etc. I'm can't recall the full argument, so please add what I'm missing. In a different forum, I refuted this by pointing out the invention of the wheel. If man could not have created god, they wouldn't have been able to have invented something as unheard of as a wheel.
     
  16. Mr Spinkles

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    10,985
    Ratings:
    +1,676
    Blind men don't create prescription glasses....does this mean, as Ceridwen suggested, that God must exist because if God didn't exist no one would have come up with the idea?

    According to that logic, leprechauns must exist....
     
  17. Ceridwen018

    Ceridwen018 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,768
    Ratings:
    +399
    Ye don't know what ye be sayin' Mr. McSpinkles! What a place this would be indeed without me lucky charms!
     
  18. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,001
    Ratings:
    +1,059
    We'd be stuck with corn flakes
     
  19. Ceridwen018

    Ceridwen018 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,768
    Ratings:
    +399
    Yuck, I don't like corn flakes. To remedy this, I shall fabricate a new cereal in my mind and pretend like I'm eating it. Yum...this is good.
     
  20. LCMS Sprecher

    LCMS Sprecher Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2004
    Messages:
    211
    Ratings:
    +1
    Supposedly according to the Big Bang, an anomoly occured in which there was a rapid expanse of the universe comprised almost entirely of energy. This hot energy dominated universe existed for around a million years or so and then proceeded to turn to matter. After a bit, the universe became matter dominated and cold. Scientists can't prove where the energy came from to produce the big bang. Furthermore, they don't know how the energy turned into matter to begin with. Now, I believe in six day creation, so I don't accept this Big Bang theory. However, I bring it up to show that even scientists do not know how our original reserves of energy and matter came into being.
     
Loading...