|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5935 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How complex is God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shiloh Junior Member (Idle past 6143 days) Posts: 28 Joined: |
Two problems with this thread it starts off with the wrong assumtion and question - How complex is God.
The answer is quit simple God is not complex - composed of many interconnected parts; compound; composite, characterized by a very complicated or involved arrangement of parts, units, etc.: complex machinery. Thats not God and if you mean hard to understand well then other than what He reveals He is past finding out. Second, Damouse is not understanding what the "image" is reguarding man - just look at my other posts regarding this. The lightbulb just burned out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
shiloh writes: if you mean hard to understand Yes, that is the reason that 'many interconnected parts' are complex - they are hard to understand. God, regardless of how many parts he has, is infinitely hard to understand, so thus is infinitely complex. Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others. Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shiloh Junior Member (Idle past 6143 days) Posts: 28 Joined: |
The point of the thread was an issue of causality.
In the very first post, "We can also point out that creationist argue that complexity can never merely appear without cause so why should God?Intelligent design would be best for this topic." This is all semantic wrangling - this really is not going to go anywhere, there is nothing illlogical about an Uncaused Cause. Your question would fall under the category of analogous God-Talk. Language in which we talk about God can be equivocal - the meaning of words as we understand them are applied to God in a different way; univocal - the exact same way; or analogical, in a similar way. Your really saying there is a necessary relationship of ontology between the cause and the effect and that is not necessarily true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5935 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
shiloh
This is all semantic wrangling - this really is not going to go anywhere, there is nothing illlogical about an Uncaused Cause. Uncaused cause{analogous to the meeting of an immovable object with an irresistible force} is a contradiction in terms and therefore is illogical shiloh. The term uncaused is only applicable in the absence of a cause and ,therefore, cannot be used in conjunction with the term caused. Exactly what is God composed of in your view shiloh, and by what means do you ascertain this? Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shiloh Junior Member (Idle past 6143 days) Posts: 28 Joined: |
Like I said semantics. For clarity sake I'll use the term uncaused Being.
A cause is always ontologically prior to its effect, and one can not be prior to himself. God is not an effect and therefore does not need a cause. The assumption is as Sarte believed "everthing is caused." An effect is what is being actualized, and a cause is what is actualizing. And God is certainly not self-caused. Theist don't believe that everthing has to have a cause - believing that everthing has a cause does not help the atheist either. Infinite regression against the "science" of Big Bang theory. A Uncaused Being does not need a cause, He exist by His very nature.God has not revealed the total extent of that nature so I cant answer what is God composed of - I dont think He is a composite of seperate things. We know from revelation that He is Eternal and Creator. Beyond revelation there is no way to ascertain the totality of Gods natue. God is a Uncaused Being who causes things to be actualized, but He Himself is not actualized and hence not an effect - therefore the term Uncaused Cause (although admitadly not a good choice of words for semanticaly picky people). Now if you have a problem with the term as being impossible. I would simly ask "How do you know that?" (Wittgenstein is appropriate here) Language games. Either somthing comes from noting or somthing always was. You may assert that all contigent parts of the universe are equal to the whole and therfore the whole is also contingent. This is the fallacy of composition. Or you may claim that the universe is more than all the parts; the parts are caused or dependent but the whole is not caused it is simply there as Bertrand Russell said. But once you admit that ther is an eternal uncaused somthing which is more than all the finite parts and upon which they are dependent then you have acknowledged what the theist argued all along - God. I give credit for some of these thoughts to Norman Geisler. For your reading pleasure. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=q...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
shiloh writes: once you admit that ther is an eternal uncaused somthing which is more than all the finite parts and upon which they are dependent then you have acknowledged what the theist argued all along - God. But cosmologists will not state that the universe is eternal, but they may state that it was uncaused. So, I acknowledge a temporal uncaused universe. I do not think a biblical creationist will be happy with my belief, or consider it very similar to their own. Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others. Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18343 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Perhaps some Theologians would suggest that you substituted a belief in God for a belief in imagination---and that you believed in the ability of human imagination to come up with any and all potential scenarios that a philosopher or Theologian would assign to God.
For example, we humans know that we are not omnipotent--yet we can imagine the concept of omnipotence. To be all powerful would be to be able to control and redirect all known and conceived power or forces in the universe. To be omniscient would be to have all of the wisdom ever possible to have. To be omnipresent would mean that there was no place in any mental or physical plane that was not under the control of, awareness of, or literal presence of such an entity known as God. No persons mind would even be a haven of thoughts that were inaccessible to such a Being. In fact, the hardest part of being able to imagine such a Being is to then realize that the Being transcended even the imagination that imagined it! Edited by Phat, : spelling # 1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18343 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
sidelined writes: I do not think that (the) concept of eternity as grasped by humans is the problem but,rather, the difficulty posed by stating that God had no beginning. If God had no beginning then how can he have progressed through time to reach any future event as this would indicate that time had passed for God which indicates that some moment in the past must be referenced and that,in turn, means that his existence cannot have extended infinitely into the past. Why does time have to pass for God? Why couldn't God pass for time? If God is unchanging, time itself is not the reference point for Gods explanation---rather, God is the reference point for times contrast. "In The Beginning" indicates a particular point in time. It makes no sense to imagine a time before God. It makes more sense to imagine a God before time...that is, any given point in time. If God was, is, and always will be, this does not simply mean that time is finite or that time=God. This means that God is the reference point...the positive truth claim, if you prefer...that potentially existed before any human even had the ability to think that there was a choice to consider an alternative. I suppose I could summarize by saying that "potentially, God Is"...regardless of our conclusion or speculation that "potentially, God is Not". The positive truth claim is in reality a totalitarian truth claim. Edited by Phat, : fixed quote
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2504 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
shiloh writes: But once you admit that ther is an eternal uncaused somthing which is more than all the finite parts and upon which they are dependent then you have acknowledged what the theist argued all along - God. How does a "something" become a God in your mind. Why does an "eternal something" have to be some kind of being, or thinking entity? Because you want it to be?
We know from revelation that He is Eternal and Creator. You know? Or you believe? You shouldn't confuse faith based beliefs with knowledge. Where did this revelation come from? An oracle? A mystic? Perhaps a seer or a self-appointed prophet? These are no more reliable sources of knowledge than a gypsy with a crystal ball, or a new-ager doing tarot cards.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5935 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
shiloh
A cause is always ontologically prior to its effect, and one can not be prior to himself. God is not an effect and therefore does not need a cause. If God is not an effect then it stands to reason that he has no existence as well "ontologically" since this is not possible in the real world. I have heard the old arguement about God being completely outside of and beyond the world {transcendent} and yet is somehow capable of producing action upon the world which would by it very nature contradict the proposal of transcendence.Either God is transcendent and thereby incapable of producing an event within the world or he is immanent {existing and acting within} and subject to the laws of this world including cause and effect. You cannot have it both ways without further explaining the apparent contradiction. Theist don't believe that everthing has to have a cause - believing that everthing has a cause does not help the atheist either. Infinite regression against the "science" of Big Bang theory. Perhaps you have a misconception of the Big Bang and cosmology however the start to a universe with the properties we have is not at all implying that the universe did not exist prior to the big bang. All it is stating is that the properties that the universe contains today are traceable through time to an event in the past whereby we can find evidence consistent with a universe that started in a an immensely hot,dense state.Infinite regression of the universe today does not occur since before the Big Bang the properties themselves do not exist though some form of universe does.
A Uncaused Being does not need a cause, He exist by His very nature. God has not revealed the total extent of that nature so I cant answer what is God composed of - I dont think He is a composite of seperate things. We know from revelation that He is Eternal and Creator. Beyond revelation there is no way to ascertain the totality of Gods natue. This is highly vague and also unsubstantiated since revelation refers to what exactly?
God is a Uncaused Being who causes things to be actualized, but He Himself is not actualized and hence not an effect - therefore the term Uncaused Cause (although admitadly not a good choice of words for semanticaly picky people). If he is not actualized then ,again,how can he again be said to exist shiloh? Also the matter is not one of semantics but of clear thinking as opposed to vague hand waving and tossing around of contradictory terms in the hope that they will be unquestioned.Since they are the premises to the arguement you wish to present they are vital to the validity of your hypothesis and it would do you good to be more precise and explanatory of these. Now if you have a problem with the term as being impossible. I would simly ask "How do you know that? It is quite simple really. You have two terms. Uncaused and caused. Each term is the direct contradiction of the other. As I said earlier it is the same as the idea of the question what happens when an immovable object encounters an irresistible force? Since the existence of one is only possible by the absence of the other the question {or in your case the property} is meaningless.
Either somthing comes from noting or somthing always was. That depends on how you define the terms something and nothing. It is also dependent on how you view the property of time. You may assert that all contigent parts of the universe are equal to the whole and therfore the whole is also contingent. This is the fallacy of composition. I do not understand this sentence as it stands, could you rephrase it without the word contingent?
But once you admit that ther is an eternal uncaused somthing which is more than all the finite parts and upon which they are dependent then you have acknowledged what the theist argued all along - God. Excuuuu-uuuse me!, but this sounds suspiciously close to " If you agree with the arguements I have offered and quit questioning the hypothesis then you will be in agreement with others who have accepted this and then I will not have to defend my premises any more". After all, ignorance is bliss right? "Good displays of data help to reveal knowledge relevant to understanding mechanism, process and dynamics, cause and effect." We see the unthinkable and think the unseeable. "Visual representations of evidence should be governed by principles of reasoning about quantitative evidence. Clear and precise seeing becomes as one with clear and precise thinking." Edward R. Tufte
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Grizz Member (Idle past 5498 days) Posts: 318 Joined: |
Infinite regression of the universe today does not occur since before the Big Bang the properties themselves do not exist though some form of universe does. There are a number of metaphysical problems one needs to address when discussing temporailty in reference to an event such as the 'Big Bang'. In regards to the discussion at hand the problem is temporal and not causal. Stating 'before' implies a temporal succession based on causality. If something happens 'before' an event it is temporaly prior to that event. Based on our current understand of the physical universe there are no events temporaly prior to the Big Bang singularity - the compactification of matter-energy has folded the worldhseet of spacetime in on itself. At T=0 one reaches a singularity-infinite mass energy and a resulting infinitesimal crunch on the time dimension. In such a physical singularity the 'moment' of the Big Bang is T=0. Temporality would have no meaning at T=0. Asking what came before is meaningless as temporality and causality grinds to a hault. The idea of time or change becomes meaningless. Also asking what caused the singularity event at T=0 has no physcial meaning as cause implies a prior event and thus implies a temporal succession existed before T=0 - our current understanding of the laws of nature clearly tell us otherwise. Stating a divine act is responsibile for the Singularity at T=0 implies a prior temporal existence as well. Since by defintion such an entity resides outside of the temporality of the worldsheet then such an entity is static and does not change. So how can it produce a change? If one finds it difficult to accept this get out a sheet of paper and draw 2 axis for space and time. This is your imaginary worldhseet on which all casuality plays out. The presence of mass determines the topological properties of this worldsheet which itself is embedded in a higher dimension. The greater the presence of mass becomes localised to a point the more the sheet becomes distorted and extended into the dimension in which it is embedded. In the case of a singularity simply roll the paper up into a cylinder until the radius approaches zero. Both the space and time dimensions are warped and compactified to a point within the higher dimension in which it is embedded - they dissapear. You cannot draw out any events on this worldhseet - neither the space nor time dimensions have any extension as they do not exist. A physicists will state space and time began at the moment of the Big Bang. The beginning is when the sheet started unfolding and the dimensions of space and time increased from being wrapped into a point to having extension. Really the only thing one could say and retain any sense of consistency or validity is that a Singularity existed at T=0. This is exactly why scientists have always abhored the notion of singularities in nature - it leads to infinites and causal breakdowns. With the observational evidence for such oddities as Black Holes it is becoming obvious we really have no choice but to accept that singularities exist in nature. If one wants to start speculating on what exists or did not exist 'prior' to the big bang singularity then one is forced to: - Revise our conception of the fundamental nature of time and causality. - Reject the idea that there really are singularities in nature. - Simply Reject the Big Bang hypothesis - Argue that although it appears to us the mass-energy in the universe has expanded from a point perhaps we are wrong and future discoveries will revise this idea. - Propose the idea of interconnected multiverse where the worldsheets of the multiverses are not connected. Since they are not connected temporaly then how can one casualy influence the other? - Insert your theory here. All one can do is speculate. Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18343 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
shiloh writes: I am not sure I would admit anything! I do remember the sermon of the late Dr. Rick Ferguson, however. He brought up the comical yet simple observation: What came first? God or Dirt? But once you admit that there is an eternal uncaused something which is more than all the finite parts and upon which they are dependent then you have acknowledged what the theist argued all along - God. We really don't know, but to me it makes more sense to believe in an eternal Creator rather than eternal matter. People often jump to the question of where God came from, but I rarely hear as many people question where matter came from nor who have any problem with it always having been around, in their belief.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PeterMc Junior Member (Idle past 6118 days) Posts: 25 From: New Zealand Joined: |
We really don't know, but to me it makes more sense to believe in an eternal Creator rather than eternal matter. People often jump to the question of where God came from, but I rarely hear as many people question where matter came from nor who have any problem with it always having been around, in their belief. Perhaps you are not hanging around the right kind of people for those questions to be asked? Edited by PeterMc, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Phat writes: it makes more sense to believe in an eternal Creator rather than eternal matter. People often jump to the question of where God came from, but I rarely hear as many people question where matter came from nor who have any problem with it always having been around, in their belief. If we concede that the eternal existence of anything is problematic, purely on the basis of its being eternal, then which would pose additional problems of comprehension: something that is merely eternal (matter), or something that is not only eternal, but intelligent as well (a creator)? If you strike the need to explain the eternal existence of matter against the need to explain the eternal existence of a creator, you are still left with the need for an explanation for the intelligence of the creator. Also, if you accept the eternal existence of a creator, then you might as well accept the eternal existence of matter. The latter has the economy of not needing a creator. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin. Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
It is a case of Special pleading as you cleverly spotted, and it is used a lot by literalist Christians, in general. (Especially fellow-Christians, to my disgruntlement.)
Note: you can never get them to see this no matter how many times you tell them it's fallacious.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024