Donnadogsoth Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 Basically what you are saying is that since god is a "temporal" observer he can both be surprised by our actions, because we have free will, and not be surprised because he already knows what we will choose. Outside of time or "temporal observer" are simply just different ways of saying god exists outside of this universe, but since existence is inherently tied to this universe that means god cannot exist. Coming from the apophatic perspective of Nicolaus of Cusa: strictly speaking, God is beyond the Categories, including the category of being. That is, God is so strange, even existence itself can only analogously be applied to Him. In that precise sense is God outside of the universe, eternal, and capable of knowing what free willed entities will choose. I think he was saying the friend is the temporal observer and god is the 'eternal' one and that the friend can be surprised, but god can't. Correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koroviev Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 Coming from the apophatic perspective of Nicolaus of Cusa: strictly speaking, God is beyond the Categories, including the category of being. That is, God is so strange, even existence itself can only analogously be applied to Him. In that precise sense is God outside of the universe, eternal, and capable of knowing what free willed entities will choose. Isn't Nicolaus of Cusa saying we cannot know anything about god? *side note, so we're on the same page, I'm really not trying to change your beliefs, just enjoying the conversation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 Isn't Nicolaus of Cusa saying we cannot know anything about god? *side note, so we're on the same page, I'm really not trying to change your beliefs, just enjoying the conversation *Yes I understand, thanks for the note. I am trying to change your beliefs, but I hope I'm not a swine about it. Cusa says we can have negative knowledge of God, by knowing our own ignorance as clearly as possible. That is, God is mysterious and alienating, but only in analogous senses of the words. One of the higher formulations he gives is based on calling God the Not-other. By this name God defines Himself, as in the sentence, "III. Whoever sees that the Not-other is not other than the Not-other, sees that the Not-other is the definition of the definition." "IV. Whoever sees that the Not-other defines itself and is the definition defining everything, sees that the Not-other is not another from every definition and from everything defined." In other words, God is everything in everything, even though the individual creature is not God, nevertheless God defines that creature and is in a sense that creature, the quiddity of that creature, and indeed is the quiddity of quiddities. Similarly, the universe is the "contraction" of God. God is absolutum maximum where the universe is concretum maximum. These things are not accessible to the rational or logical mind, but only to the intellect or creative mind. These mysteries of which we can strive (as Cusa did heroically and voluminously) to understand our own ignorance of, are on the same order as the Trinity, and of the Incarnation of Christ. In the most relevant sense, what we are describing is the human mind itself, as something which creatively transcends logic, but is not chaotic. That is, if man is made in the image of God, then what Cusa is describing for God, he is also describing for man, that man is triune, that man is creative, that man is the highest reflection of the universe, and so on. And that's the real relevance, especially in light of the union of the two natures in Christ, who is the maximum contractum, the maximal contraction or perfected entity uniting God and the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebeardslastcall Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 Do you not see it as a sort of contradiction that you're saying God is strange and mysterious and beyond categories and standard notions of existence, but also claiming to know him in a sense? If you believe in connecting God to Christianity and Jesus then you are also creating a 'non-strange' existential presence in reality and connecting 'real' properties to these 'unreal' ones of God and based on what? A desire to have them connected that isn't based in reality or reasonable inference, but purely based on some desire you haven't openly placed and admitted to? Problem with a lot of religious people is they connect strange things to reality without a proper logical connection. They say this super strange thing exists, but outside of existence, and therefore I can have my weird unexplainable results and beliefs in reality, because I've created this incomprehensible thing outside of reality that allows one to defy reason and logic and comprehension and to believe whatever they want about God, because once you say logic and reason can't apply you're shutting down and rejecting analysis, because it's impossible to analyze something on logic that defies logic. The truth however is that nothing truly defies the logic of the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 Do you not see it as a sort of contradiction that you're saying God is strange and mysterious and beyond categories and standard notions of existence, but also claiming to know him in a sense? If you believe in connecting God to Christianity and Jesus then you are also creating a 'non-strange' existential presence in reality and connecting 'real' properties to these 'unreal' ones of God and based on what? A desire to have them connected that isn't based in reality or reasonable inference, but purely based on some desire you haven't openly placed and admitted to? Problem with a lot of religious people is they connect strange things to reality without a proper logical connection. They say this super strange thing exists, but outside of existence, and therefore I can have my weird unexplainable results and beliefs in reality, because I've created this incomprehensible thing outside of reality that allows one to defy reason and logic and comprehension and to believe whatever they want about God, because once you say logic and reason can't apply you're shutting down and rejecting analysis, because it's impossible to analyze something on logic that defies logic. The truth however is that nothing truly defies the logic of the universe. As I wrote, the difference is between logic, which is uncreative, and intellect, which is. What lets us discover universal physical principles and what is merely playing in the sandbox of the already known? The key is that man as imago viva Dei, made in the image of God, is creative and can access this power in order to increase his power to survive in the highly dangerous "logical universe". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebeardslastcall Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 As I wrote, the difference is between logic, which is uncreative, and intellect, which is. What lets us discover universal physical principles and what is merely playing in the sandbox of the already known? The key is that man as imago viva Dei, made in the image of God, is creative and can access this power in order to increase his power to survive in the highly dangerous "logical universe". So your God doesn't make logical sense and to be in his image you too are being illogical? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koroviev Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 As I wrote, the difference is between logic, which is uncreative, and intellect, which is. What lets us discover universal physical principles and what is merely playing in the sandbox of the already known? The key is that man as imago viva Dei, made in the image of God, is creative and can access this power in order to increase his power to survive in the highly dangerous "logical universe". This does not answer the issue thebeardslastcall brought about. How can anyone claim to know anything about something they admittedly can know nothing about? This is one more contradiction to add to the list of contradictions that have already been pointed out. Also, intellect does not ignore logic in fact intellect is based on logic. How can one claim to have intellect without being logical? How can one be creative without consistency? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 This does not answer the issue thebeardslastcall brought about. How can anyone claim to know anything about something they admittedly can know nothing about? This is one more contradiction to add to the list of contradictions that have already been pointed out. Also, intellect does not ignore logic in fact intellect is based on logic. How can one claim to have intellect without being logical? How can one be creative without consistency? An hypothesis is not a logical thing, it is a non-logical attempt to bridge a discontinuity between the known and the unknown. It was impossible to logick our way to universal gravitation. To get there required a creative hypothesis. Thus non-logical creativity as such is, here, responsible for a discovery of power. That is the kernel of what I am saying. Without hypothesis, creativity, there is no power. Logic alone accomplishes nothing except rearrange and clarify what we already know. On God, we start with revelation about God, who is hidden, and apply our intellects to the task of understanding our ignorance of Him in ever greater spirals of accuracy. Think of it like a hole rimmed with ice crystals. We cannot know the true shape of the hole, but we can knock away crystal after crystal and so see the rim of the hole more and more accurately. This you might call "special pleading" and you would be wrong that it is a fallacy here, because God is the most special of all special things, and thus pleading His case in such ignorance is appropriate, whereas principles per se require creative proof-of-principle experiments which then descend to the realm of logical consistency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koroviev Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 I'm not sure where the idea that hypotheses are not logical is coming from. I mean I suppose someone could, and people do, come up with hypotheses that are not logical but those are the ones that get disproven. They get disproven because they are not logically consistent or empirically supported, which is how things are proven to be true. What you are saying is that something that cannot be logically consistent and cannot be empirically proven (also known as false) is true and something that is the opposite of existing exists. Again contradictions. I can make a hypothesis that says when I jump off the roof I will fly away like a bird. Since that is not logically consistent (i.e. Humans are heavier than air and every other human falls to the ground) my hypothesis is false until it can be empirically supported. If it is empirically supported we adjust our laws of physics until they can logically support the new evidence. This is what happened woth universal gravitation. Even your example with the crystal rimmed hole, we can immediately toss out any hypothesis that says it is both square and circular shaped, that it is a hole and a hill, or that it consists of both fire and ice until those things can be empirically shown to exist. Then once they are we have to come up with a logical hypothesis as to how they can be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebeardslastcall Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 We aren't really talking about God though. We are talking about known concepts and logic and applying logic and reasoning to make sense of them and to show which are contradictory. You're defense basically boils down to God being unknown and therefore is able to be logically contradictory, which frankly is anti-philosophical. Also why are you ignoring the point that you're claiming to know the unknowable? Your position is irrational and you can't seem to admit that and just word-salad your way back to sounding like you're saying something that makes sense while simultaneously denying sense and logic on a philosophy forum. Can you admit you're being irrational or illogical in your belief in God? That you're both simultaneously claiming and denying definition to God? You're not going to convince anyone with that kind of talk, you're just going to teach others who have the same desire to be in the Christian group to toss word salads like yours at people to defend your irrationality and to confuse themselves into thinking they aren't just talking nonsense to get to fake believe in God and be part of the Christian crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 I'm not sure where the idea that hypotheses are not logical is coming from. I mean I suppose someone could, and people do, come up with hypotheses that are not logical but those are the ones that get disproven. They get disproven because they are not logically consistent or empirically supported, which is how things are proven to be true. What you are saying is that something that cannot be logically consistent and cannot be empirically proven (also known as false) is true and something that is the opposite of existing exists. Again contradictions. I can make a hypothesis that says when I jump off the roof I will fly away like a bird. Since that is not logically consistent (i.e. Humans are heavier than air and every other human falls to the ground) my hypothesis is false until it can be empirically supported. If it is empirically supported we adjust our laws of physics until they can logically support the new evidence. This is what happened woth universal gravitation. Even your example with the crystal rimmed hole, we can immediately toss out any hypothesis that says it is both square and circular shaped, that it is a hole and a hill, or that it consists of both fire and ice until those things can be empirically shown to exist. Then once they are we have to come up with a logical hypothesis as to how they can be. Take the simplest principle I know: The principle of doubling the square. Take a square 1 x 1 and generate a second square that is √2 x √2. This cannot be logicked to as if one were using a calculator or logical notation. The finest computer known cannot arrive at the solution with exactitude. It takes a non-logical, but not illogical, mental leap, typically aided by physical construction (e.g. cut squares out of construction paper and work on rearranging them) to realise the hypotenuse of the first square serves as a side of the larger square. That is what I mean by non-logical creativity. Logic is used to estimate, to correct, but the essential act of hypothesis is imaginative, the creativity is not a pure logical operation as if by computer. The hole metaphor is just that, a metaphor. If there is a better I would like to hear it, but until then it is all I can give. Analysing it logically as if it were a literal hole misses the point. We aren't really talking about God though. We are talking about known concepts and logic and applying logic and reasoning to make sense of them and to show which are contradictory. You're defense basically boils down to God being unknown and therefore is able to be logically contradictory, which frankly is anti-philosophical. Also why are you ignoring the point that you're claiming to know the unknowable? Your position is irrational and you can't seem to admit that and just word-salad your way back to sounding like you're saying something that makes sense while simultaneously denying sense and logic on a philosophy forum. Can you admit you're being irrational or illogical in your belief in God? That you're both simultaneously claiming and denying definition to God? You're not going to convince anyone with that kind of talk, you're just going to teach others who have the same desire to be in the Christian group to toss word salads like yours at people to defend your irrationality and to confuse themselves into thinking they aren't just talking nonsense to get to fake believe in God and be part of the Christian crowd. If God exists and is as I have said, then what choice do I have but to attempt to talk in ever-less-inaccurate “word salads”? God's mystery doesn't allow Him to be contradictory. He is, rather, the coincidence of opposites which precedes all contradiction. Logic is nice but suppose it had an origin which defined it, wouldn't that origin precede logic itself? The logical mind rebels against the awesome definitional might of the Not-other! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koroviev Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Take the simplest principle I know: The principle of doubling the square. Take a square 1 x 1 and generate a second square that is √2 x √2. This cannot be logicked to as if one were using a calculator or logical notation. The finest computer known cannot arrive at the solution with exactitude. It takes a non-logical, but not illogical, mental leap, typically aided by physical construction (e.g. cut squares out of construction paper and work on rearranging them) to realise the hypotenuse of the first square serves as a side of the larger square. That is what I mean by non-logical creativity. Logic is used to estimate, to correct, but the essential act of hypothesis is imaginative, the creativity is not a pure logical operation as if by computer. The hole metaphor is just that, a metaphor. If there is a better I would like to hear it, but until then it is all I can give. Analysing it logically as if it were a literal hole misses the point. Firstly this is false, secondly this is nonsense. With a simple web search you find that the √2 is a constant (pythagoras' constant) similar to pi and has a value of approximately 1.414. The only reason we have a √2 is because of logic (pythagorean theorem) and there are many logical mathematical proofs to back it up. I'm not really sure what you were getting at with your √2 x √2 square, but does it maybe have something to do with the √2 being the diagonal of a 1 x 1 square? Either way √2 is not self contradictory and does not contradict the known laws of physics as the idea of god does. Among everything else, even if there was some small semblance of consistency in any of your arguments, why would god create man who bases everything off of logic and consistency and knows that anything that isn't logically consistent cannot exist (ghosts, leprechauns, square circles, etc.) fault that same man for not believing in it's existence? How can you claim with a straight face that one thing that is not logically consistent and in fact self-contradictory and contradictory to everything else we know to be true while steadfastly claiming that nothing else that fits that description is. In a nutshell it is just as "probable" that god exists as it is that ghosts, leprechauns, square circles, and magical unicorns exist. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClearConscience Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 How does omnipotence and omniscience require a god to exist outside of time? Stefan referred to this argument in 'against the gods'. What are the attributes of a god? (in the logical sense, not google's incomplete definition) or is it vague and undefined? According to string theory, there exists 11 dimensions, the fourth of which is time. Even if string theory was somehow, inexplicably, proven false, we all know that time exists, and an omnipotent and omniscient God would have to, by definition, be capable of manipulating this dimension if he desired. That means He "exists outside of time." I mean, technically that statement doesn't make any sense. It's like saying we, human-beings, exist outside of 2-dimensions... yeah... we experience in full detail, and can manipulate, 3-dimensions. Any conception of an omnipotent and omniscient being should be capable of experiencing and manipulating all 11 dimensions. That's what's important in this discussion. I hope that helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Firstly this is false, secondly this is nonsense. With a simple web search you find that the √2 is a constant (pythagoras' constant) similar to pi and has a value of approximately 1.414. The only reason we have a √2 is because of logic (pythagorean theorem) and there are many logical mathematical proofs to back it up. I'm not really sure what you were getting at with your √2 x √2 square, but does it maybe have something to do with the √2 being the diagonal of a 1 x 1 square? Either way √2 is not self contradictory and does not contradict the known laws of physics as the idea of god does. Among everything else, even if there was some small semblance of consistency in any of your arguments, why would god create man who bases everything off of logic and consistency and knows that anything that isn't logically consistent cannot exist (ghosts, leprechauns, square circles, etc.) fault that same man for not believing in it's existence? How can you claim with a straight face that one thing that is not logically consistent and in fact self-contradictory and contradictory to everything else we know to be true while steadfastly claiming that nothing else that fits that description is. In a nutshell it is just as "probable" that god exists as it is that ghosts, leprechauns, square circles, and magical unicorns exist. No, not approximately, precisely. The only way to reach a precise construction of √2 is to make a rational leap, not a logical-deductive one. When we deal with the Origin we face the origin of all origins, of all categories, of all things. That gives that Origin a unique nature that the universe lacks. Why did God create the universe as it is? He created it for it to be creative, for man to be creative. Obviously logic helps in that regard, as a kind of alternating current of hypothesis-logic-hypothesis-logic. But when we face the originator of logic we face something that is more akin to square circles, though, again, one in which the opposites coincide rather than existing as a flat logical contradiction. An example from Cusa is the diameter of the circle relative to its circumference. If we extend the diameter to infinity, its length converges on its circumference. Thus, a metaphor for how all apparently different things converge in God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Torbald Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Interesting game of whack-a-mole, or whack-a-theist here. For every contradiction you bump with the hammer of logic, two more moles come up denying the hammer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Interesting game of whack-a-mole, or whack-a-theist here. For every contradiction you bump with the hammer of logic, two more moles come up denying the hammer. Indeed, I'm still on "Why does God need to be?" and not the metagames. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Indeed, I'm still on "Why does God need to be?" and not the metagames. That's a different thread, shirgall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koroviev Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Interesting game of whack-a-mole, or whack-a-theist here. For every contradiction you bump with the hammer of logic, two more moles come up denying the hammer. Agreed. In a nutshell god has to be outside of time because god is a self-contradiction and a contradiction to known laws of physics. Therefore god cannot exist in this universe/time/dimension (i.e. cannot exist) but only in another universe/time/dimension (i.e. imaginary-made-up-land). I started the intro to philosophy series the other day and all of the above arguments and more are neatly laid out in that series (http://feeds.feedburner.com/FreedomainRadio-IntroPhilosophy specifically parts 6-9) as well as in Against the Gods (https://freedomainradio.com/free/) and I don't think it bears any more discussion here. It's been fun but this obviously is getting nowhere. Thanks for the fun discussion though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnetic Synthesizer Posted September 22, 2015 Author Share Posted September 22, 2015 I stopped reading once it derailed off my question. I will chip in my position on the issue of causality. ->The universe, truth and reality always were. Also, in an entertaining fashion, With god, not everything in ''this'' world needs causality from 'this' world. The fossils and evidence for evolution were not caused by the world, and did not cause you. they were inserted to test your faith . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebeardslastcall Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 I stopped reading once it derailed off my question. I thought I tied in some of my stuff back to the original topic fairly well and even the derailment I thought sort of answered the question. In that you go outside of time to go outside of existence, reality, and logic, which is where you need to go for God, because there's where he make believe lives, as the insanity of this conversation showed. If your mole keeps getting whacked in reality you take it out of reality where the hammer no longer exists and the mole is whack immune. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 The problem with the conclusion of this thread, is that the crucial relevance of Cusa's work to humanity has not been understood. The point is not that God is strange and anterior to being, logic, and creation in general, the point is that man is made in God's image and therefore creative, not merely logical, as shown by the precise solution to the doubling of the square. It should be a point of pride that we are not logic machines, but creative or potentially creative and able to improve mankind's practice of power over nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Torbald Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 The problem with the conclusion of this thread, is that the crucial relevance of Cusa's work to humanity has not been understood. The point is not that God is strange and anterior to being, logic, and creation in general, the point is that man is made in God's image and therefore creative, not merely logical, as shown by the precise solution to the doubling of the square. It should be a point of pride that we are not logic machines, but creative or potentially creative and able to improve mankind's practice of power over nature. I think everyone will agree that man is a creative and imaginative creature. No shame in that. However, saying that we are made in God's image instead of God's being made in man's image is simply a case of not adhering to strict logical discipline. I know why someone wouldn't want that kind of discipline though. For one, it's much more fun to be vain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 I think everyone will agree that man is a creative and imaginative creature. No shame in that. However, saying that we are made in God's image instead of God's being made in man's image is simply a case of not adhering to strict logical discipline. I know why someone wouldn't want that kind of discipline though. For one, it's much more fun to be vain. Where does this creativity come from, though? There are two points to be made on that account: (1) temporality cannot be eternal by definition and therefore cannot cause itself, demanding an eternal substrate from which it originated. The materialists among us will say "physics is eternal," but physics merely describes the activity of the changing universe. Physical laws, at least to the physicists, do not have ontological existence, just as whiteness does not have any ontological existence outside of white things and our universal conception of whiteness. So there must be an eternal Origin to give substance to the temporal universe. (2) The relative power of change possessed by what V.I. Vernadsky called "phase spaces" indicates that man's creativity or the noösphere, is, in the long run, stronger than the biosphere, which, in the long run, is stronger than the geosphere. In other words, intelligent life is the commanding force in the universe, and the question of where this force originated appeals to point 1, where nothing changing can be eternal. Thus the Origin is the origin of all three phase spaces, but since intelligent creativity is the dominant in the universe, it follows it is the dominant in the Origin as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Torbald Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Where does this creativity come from, though? There are two points to be made on that account: (1) temporality cannot be eternal by definition and therefore cannot cause itself, demanding an eternal substrate from which it originated. The materialists among us will say "physics is eternal," but physics merely describes the activity of the changing universe. Physical laws, at least to the physicists, do not have ontological existence, just as whiteness does not have any ontological existence outside of white things and our universal conception of whiteness. So there must be an eternal Origin to give substance to the temporal universe. (2) The relative power of change possessed by what V.I. Vernadsky called "phase spaces" indicates that man's creativity or the noösphere, is, in the long run, stronger than the biosphere, which, in the long run, is stronger than the geosphere. In other words, intelligent life is the commanding force in the universe, and the question of where this force originated appeals to point 1, where nothing changing can be eternal. Thus the Origin is the origin of all three phase spaces, but since intelligent creativity is the dominant in the universe, it follows it is the dominant in the Origin as well. Creativity comes from Darwinian evolution by natural selection of genes that produce brains capable of creativity. Jumping from an eternal origin of time to a personal god who spoke to ancient and ignorant tribes and miracles is the jiffy in the argument with theists. You can't say "the universe must have had an origin therefore bible is true". Leave the origin of the universe to physicists since they actually know more than you know about the universe. If you want to know some science about cosmology read and watch Laurence Krauss on The Universe From Nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Creativity comes from Darwinian evolution by natural selection of genes that produce brains capable of creativity. Jumping from an eternal origin of time to a personal god who spoke to ancient and ignorant tribes and miracles is the jiffy in the argument with theists. You can't say "the universe must have had an origin therefore bible is true". Leave the origin of the universe to physicists since they actually know more than you know about the universe. If you want to know some science about cosmology read and watch Laurence Krauss on The Universe From Nothing. Lawrence Krauss knows more than Nicolaus of Cusa about nothing! Hahaha. Krauss' nothing isn't even nothing, it's just a rarefied something. It is his eternal substrate behind the temporal universe. To say "Darwinian evolution" created creativity, as if that's the last word on the matter, is like saying it created love. Shall I read to my beloved passes from the Origin of Species? Shall we meditate on Origin of Species when we are working on discovering a universal physical principle? The Origin has created, and we can create, ergo we are made in Its image. Coincidentally, this is what Christianity teaches. Are we made in rarefied quantum foam's image? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Torbald Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Lawrence Krauss knows more than Nicolaus of Cusa about nothing! Hahaha. Krauss' nothing isn't even nothing, it's just a rarefied something. It is his eternal substrate behind the temporal universe. To say "Darwinian evolution" created creativity, as if that's the last word on the matter, is like saying it created love. Shall I read to my beloved passes from the Origin of Species? Shall we meditate on Origin of Species when we are working on discovering a universal physical principle? The Origin has created, and we can create, ergo we are made in Its image. Coincidentally, this is what Christianity teaches. Are we made in rarefied quantum foam's image? Your comment on nothing signals you didn't really understand his nothingness. He does touch the subject of quantum fluctuations in a vacuum, but the nothing of no space and no time is not what you call the rarefied quantum foam. It is literally and physically nothing. That's what is being contended to be the origin of the universe. Yes, Darwinian evolution also created love. Love is a function of brains which were created by means of evolution. Love doesn't exist in any tangible form outside of brains. It would be really cool if you read your kids and loved ones about evolution, yes. Other religions also teach of gods creating men in their essence, it's not original to christianity. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Your comment on nothing signals you didn't really understand his nothingness. He does touch the subject of quantum fluctuations in a vacuum, but the nothing of no space and no time is not what you call the rarefied quantum foam. It is literally and physically nothing. That's what is being contended to be the origin of the universe. Yes, Darwinian evolution also created love. Love is a function of brains which were created by means of evolution. Love doesn't exist in any tangible form outside of brains. It would be really cool if you read your kids and loved ones about evolution, yes. Other religions also teach of gods creating men in their essence, it's not original to christianity. From nothing nothing comes, for it there were truly nothing, there would not even be sufficient reason for that nothing to become something. Only Christianity explains that man is made in the creative essence of God. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djoop Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 It does not require. That argument is just often made by the religious. The main argument against God, from a scientific point of view, is the fact that it doesn't explain anything. If you say God created the 'earth and skies' someone could ask you how God created the earth and skies. Vice versa, no matter how far we're able to track back our existance, we could always place a God in front of it, science never excludes God. Whenever we discuss religion we should discuss the morality of its teachings. Let's leave circular reasoning to the religious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Torbald Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 From nothing nothing comes, for it there were truly nothing, there would not even be sufficient reason for that nothing to become something. Only Christianity explains that man is made in the creative essence of God. But you are assuming we are 'something' to begin with. What if I told you that we come from nothing and we are actually just nothing playing with itself? And no, other religions still do that. I come from a religion completely unrelated to christianity and they still taught that. It does not require. That argument is just often made by the religious. The main argument against God, from a scientific point of view, is the fact that it doesn't explain anything. If you say God created the 'earth and skies' someone could ask you how God created the earth and skies. Vice versa, no matter how far we're able to track back our existance, we could always place a God in front of it, science never excludes God. Whenever we discuss religion we should discuss the morality of its teachings. Let's leave circular reasoning to the religious. But what created god??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 But you are assuming we are 'something' to begin with. What if I told you that we come from nothing and we are actually just nothing playing with itself? And no, other religions still do that. I come from a religion completely unrelated to christianity and they still taught that. Then "nothing" is identical to "substance." If all is illusion including me then the illusion is substantial and therefore in no meaningful sense "illusion" any longer. What other religion other than Christianity, or I'm subsuming Judaism in with it, teaches that man is made in the creative image of God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Torbald Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 Then "nothing" is identical to "substance." If all is illusion including me then the illusion is substantial and therefore in no meaningful sense "illusion" any longer. What other religion other than Christianity, or I'm subsuming Judaism in with it, teaches that man is made in the creative image of God? I didn't say illusion, I said nothing. All the energy in the universe adds up to zero after taking into account the positive and the negative energies. We are all one giant blank check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 I didn't say illusion, I said nothing. All the energy in the universe adds up to zero after taking into account the positive and the negative energies. We are all one giant blank check. Money brought into existence by a banker's pen came from nothing, and yet has a quality of reality. The fact that we came ex nihilo is something I as a Christian can agree on. The difference between myself an an atheist with the same belief, is that I believe there needed to be a cause for the nihilo to become ex. And the result is not nothing but substance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Torbald Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 Money brought into existence by a banker's pen came from nothing, and yet has a quality of reality. The fact that we came ex nihilo is something I as a Christian can agree on. The difference between myself an an atheist with the same belief, is that I believe there needed to be a cause for the nihilo to become ex. And the result is not nothing but substance. When talking about cosmology, philosophical terms like substance have no meaning. There is the technical scientific jargon for matter and particles which have no bearing on what you may refer to as substance. Calling God the cause for the universe has no logical way of giving you Jesus or Heaven or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebeardslastcall Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 Calling God the cause for the universe has no logical way of giving you Jesus or Heaven or anything. Bold and underline is mine for emphasis. We already established he's anti-logic, so why keep trying to use it with him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Torbald Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 Bold and underline is mine for emphasis. We already established he's anti-logic, so why keep trying to use it with him? I guess I got caught up in the moment. Thanks for snapping me out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts