Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[SGOS]

The human is always there, hidden.  In the past (making the car at some point ... machines are used to make machines, but they don't breed) or in the present (the programmer who programs the subway (guided transportation).  Don't be fooled by the man behind the curtain.  And there will be people in your autonomous car, just not driving ... just screaming as they make a wrong turn on the Apple map ;-(

The original creator needs to have a physical form.  Although creating something inferior encumbered by a physical form is pointless right out of the gate.  A real creator would just create more spirits without form and substance, which is what Christians, well some Christians, believe to be our eventual destiny, anyway.

Second, there is much bigger problem than the philosophical questions of mass and form.  Physical forms can only be designed by other physical forms (God created Adam from clay), even when mass is created from nothing through magic, it requires a physical creator with mass and form, because he needs hands so he can wave the magic wand around in the nothingness and utter phrases like, "Presto Change-o," and he needs the ability to breathe life into his creations.  So he has to have a mouth and a healthy set of lungs.  Anyone who has ever tried to inflate an actual human with air knows what I'm talking about.  Even blowing up a life-size inflatable doll is hard enough, and we all know exactly what that is like.

[aitm]

I have never had an issue with the accidental "creator", maybe I can go along with an indifferent "creator". But I have to admit that the more obvious is the sidebar of the oldest argument, not so much "where" did this god come from, infinitive existence?-meh. But lets say I can go along with that, the sidebar mentioned earlier is infinitive knowledge. How can anything understand the concept of light when it does not exist? Why would a "god" even need light? How would the process of being in a natural stable state of darkness, not because it is dark, because that would be normal, but being in the natural state and comfortable and being able to "function", why would light suddenly become something? How can one know the reaction of baking soda and vinegar when they don't exist? How can the knowledge of everything exist prior to the existence of anything?

I can grant that the method for using PI to determine a circumference exists no matter who, when or what discovers it, but prior to the creation of an atom how can one be aware of the requirement for DNA unless it is simply accidental?

Infinitive knowledge seems to be far harder for me to handle than something that has always existed and then suddenly decides one day to create a strawberry without prior knowledge of what a strawberry is.

[SoldierofFortune]

As far as i have observed, the religious people wrongly suppose that the atheists do not believe in God even though there is a God. It is very suprising for them that the atheists do not believe in God because they are so sure about the existence of God. My position on the existence of God is agnosticsm. I think we cannot totaly refuse the probability of the _trascendental_ God. The God that is above and beyond the universe. Maybe we are confined to the universe or live in a matrix or simulation of some type.

[SoldierofFortune]

I have never had an issue with the accidental "creator", maybe I can go along with an indifferent "creator". But I have to admit that the more obvious is the sidebar of the oldest argument, not so much "where" did this god come from, infinitive existence?-meh. But lets say I can go along with that, the sidebar mentioned earlier is infinitive knowledge. How can anything understand the concept of light when it does not exist? Why would a "god" even need light? How would the process of being in a natural stable state of darkness, not because it is dark, because that would be normal, but being in the natural state and comfortable and being able to "function", why would light suddenly become something? How can one know the reaction of baking soda and vinegar when they don't exist? How can the knowledge of everything exist prior to the existence of anything?

I can grant that the method for using PI to determine a circumference exists no matter who, when or what discovers it, but prior to the creation of an atom how can one be aware of the requirement for DNA unless it is simply accidental?

Infinitive knowledge seems to be far harder for me to handle than something that has always existed and then suddenly decides one day to create a strawberry without prior knowledge of what a strawberry is.

You approach the problem from the point of the ability of humans. Whereas we are talking about the God that is omnipotent and omniscient. Of course these qualities that is attributed to the God does not reflect the reality. this is just accepted so. Even if they cannot prove. This is belief, not knowledge and we do not want them to prove. If they can prove, the belief would be knowledge and do not be discussed.

[Baruch]

The original creator needs to have a physical form.  Although creating something inferior encumbered by a physical form is pointless right out of the gate.  A real creator would just create more spirits without form and substance, which is what Christians, well some Christians, believe to be our eventual destiny, anyway.

Second, there is much bigger problem than the philosophical questions of mass and form.  Physical forms can only be designed by other physical forms (God created Adam from clay), even when mass is created from nothing through magic, it requires a physical creator with mass and form, because he needs hands so he can wave the magic wand around in the nothingness and utter phrases like, "Presto Change-o," and he needs the ability to breathe life into his creations.  So he has to have a mouth and a healthy set of lungs.  Anyone who has ever tried to inflate an actual human with air knows what I'm talking about.  Even blowing up a life-size inflatable doll is hard enough, and we all know exactly what that is like.

Originally, the whole host of Heaven was taken seriously.  Up to your wings in angels and demons.  It is explained in theology, why humans are superior to angels, and even angels can sin.  In Islam humans, angels and jinn can sin.  So yes, G-d did create non-material beings ... until that got boring.  That, and you can take created humans off your income tax, but not immaterial beings ;-)

[Baruch]

I have never had an issue with the accidental "creator", maybe I can go along with an indifferent "creator". But I have to admit that the more obvious is the sidebar of the oldest argument, not so much "where" did this god come from, infinitive existence?-meh. But lets say I can go along with that, the sidebar mentioned earlier is infinitive knowledge. How can anything understand the concept of light when it does not exist? Why would a "god" even need light? How would the process of being in a natural stable state of darkness, not because it is dark, because that would be normal, but being in the natural state and comfortable and being able to "function", why would light suddenly become something? How can one know the reaction of baking soda and vinegar when they don't exist? How can the knowledge of everything exist prior to the existence of anything?

I can grant that the method for using PI to determine a circumference exists no matter who, when or what discovers it, but prior to the creation of an atom how can one be aware of the requirement for DNA unless it is simply accidental?

Infinitive knowledge seems to be far harder for me to handle than something that has always existed and then suddenly decides one day to create a strawberry without prior knowledge of what a strawberry is.

The use of Pi depends on a flat surface.  Since we discovered the Earth isn't flat, Pi is not as useful (though it shows up in other formulas, as we move from flat geometry to spherical geometry).  Besides ... if a creator didn't have prior knowledge, that would easily explain why creation is SNAFU.  In Lurianic Kabbalah, the creation was an accident.

[Baruch]

As far as i have observed, the religious people wrongly suppose that the atheists do not believe in God even though there is a God. It is very suprising for them that the atheists do not believe in God because they are so sure about the existence of God. My position on the existence of God is agnosticsm. I think we cannot totaly refuse the probability of the _trascendental_ God. The God that is above and beyond the universe. Maybe we are confined to the universe or live in a matrix or simulation of some type.

The human matrix is social, cultural, psychological.  That is very real and obvious.  If materialism is in some other matrix ... that is what we would call physical laws.

[Ananta Shesha]

I have never had an issue with the accidental "creator", maybe I can go along with an indifferent "creator". But I have to admit that the more obvious is the sidebar of the oldest argument, not so much "where" did this god come from, infinitive existence?-meh. But lets say I can go along with that, the sidebar mentioned earlier is infinitive knowledge. How can anything understand the concept of light when it does not exist? Why would a "god" even need light? How would the process of being in a natural stable state of darkness, not because it is dark, because that would be normal, but being in the natural state and comfortable and being able to "function", why would light suddenly become something? How can one know the reaction of baking soda and vinegar when they don't exist? How can the knowledge of everything exist prior to the existence of anything?

I can grant that the method for using PI to determine a circumference exists no matter who, when or what discovers it, but prior to the creation of an atom how can one be aware of the requirement for DNA unless it is simply accidental?

Infinitive knowledge seems to be far harder for me to handle than something that has always existed and then suddenly decides one day to create a strawberry without prior knowledge of what a strawberry is.

Good questions!

In a mass of absolute substance (quark matter) there is of course no light, yet there is energy, lots of it. Think of it like magma, no light can pass through it yet it emits light....so is it dark inside?

Consider an infinite absolute substance and Newtonian equal opposing reaction of that substance to make a voided space within itself. As it moves outward to vacate space it also moves inwards to the center.  It makes a very small concentration of itself with in a capacitance space, with a very large concentration as a spherical waveform around it.  Quantum nucleation.  This composite structure as a macro vibrational container patterns directly for the nested organization of an atom. This is tier 1 of a 4 tier internal cascade of shaping functions.

Photons can now travel through the emptied space.

[aitm]

Good questions!

In a mass of absolute substance (quark matter) there is of course no light, yet there is energy, lots of it. Think of it like magma, no light can pass through it yet it emits light....so is it dark inside?

Consider an infinite absolute substance and Newtonian equal opposing reaction of that substance to make a voided space within itself. As it moves outward to vacate space it also moves inwards to the center.  It makes a very small concentration of itself with in a capacitance space, with a very large concentration as a spherical waveform around it.  Quantum nucleation.  This composite structure as a macro vibrational container patterns directly for the nested organization of an atom. This is tier 1 of a 4 tier internal cascade of shaping functions.

Photons can now travel through the emptied space.

Well. that certainly explains infinite knowledge. Now I can see how a god could understand jealousy and fear, although it could have never experienced eiher prior, and in the latter... ever.

[Ananta Shesha]

Why would it be necessary for God to pre-know anything at all?

[aitm]

Why would it be necessary for God to pre-know anything at all?

Thank you.

[Hakurei Reimu]

What do you mean by whatever the universe is embedded in? The last I heard most scientists still believe the universe (at least in its present form) began to exist 14 billion years ago. There are alternative theories with little consensus. 

I see you continue to make statements not based on any fact or evidence but simply based on whatever your mortal mind imagines is true because it sounds logical to you.

Yes, this is the excuse you use to cover up the fact that you have not demonstrated any reason to belive that a very necessary part of your conception of this creation you speak of is not in evidence. You ignore the fact that any change to the state of the univere (including from going from non-existent to existent) requires some sort of time to even state, let alone construct and effect, because you think that by very virtue of the fact that you think your god is omnipotent gives you leave to construct impossible scenarios. Sorry, chum, but even hardcore apologists shy away from stating that god can do the logically impossible. Change without time is logically impossible. Therefore, without time, change cannot happen no matter how powerful you think your god is, and without change and time, there can be no creation.

You also limit any possible explanation to the constraints imposed upon time space and the laws of physics we are familiar with.

I have always stated it as "some sort of time" when applied to the universe as an entire object. I never said it had to be the kind of time we're familiar with. In fact, I have explicitly stated in the past that this time would not be our familiar time, which does only apply inside the universe. You can choose any form of time you want to apply to the universe as an entire object, so long as you justify why you think this time should exist. Instead, you simply reveal the fact that you cannot comprehend what I have been saying at all â€" even when I state them explicitly.

It boggles my mind how you can say that if something you're not even sure exists but if it does then there are minimum requirements its must satisfy...according to who you?

It is not my responsibility to prove the existence of things that are necessary for your hypotheses. That responsibility is yours and yours alone.

What rules of logic?

The ones that say that you cannot specify temporal actions outside a venue where some sort of time exists, as you have been doing. Like it or not, creation is a temporal action.

What expectation do we have that unguided naturalistic forces are confined to rules of logic or if a transcendent God exists God also would have to follow rules of logic.

Without logic, you have no tools at all to evaluate the veracity of claims. Not even hardcore apologists propose a god that violates logic. No philosopher will accept a god that violates logic. To do so is to admit that your god is not reasonable by definition. We might as well be little kids arguing whose daddy can beat up whose.

Do scientists who program virtual universes have to follow rules of logic?

YES. A computer follows a prescribed list of steps to perform some discrete, well-defined task: a program.

Being transcendent to the virtual universe they could apply chaotic rules that make no sense at all.

Even "rules that make no sense" would need to follow some sort of logical progression when programmed. So, let's add "Computer programming" to your long list of incompetences.

There is also precious little logic to your posts. No matter what I respond to you deny it the next post. You state everything as some incontrovertible fact whether it really is a fact or just whatever you imagine to be a good idea in your head that you think is fact.

Empty posturing. Everyone can read your posts and mine and see that the above quoted is merely wishful thinking on your part. You are factually wrong in this accusation, and I'm absolutely unafraid of anyone looking back and reading my previous posts. It is clear to me that you are even failing to comprehend what I am saying, and I'm trying to dumb this down as much as possible. You see demands for you to support necessary parts of your argument as me arguing "incontrovertible facts". No, I'm not doing that, and everyone can see that I'm not doing that. What they see is you flailing in the shallow end of the pool of knowledge and shaking their heads.

[Hydra009]

As far as i have observed, the religious people wrongly suppose that the atheists do not believe in God even though there is a God. It is very suprising for them that the atheists do not believe in God because they are so sure about the existence of God.

Yeah.  Their starting point is that a God exists and they try to justify that and bring other people on board.  Other people's starting point is that they know people raving about this God character but they're not so sure this character actually exists in the real world.  They see arguments like the watchmaker analogy and walk away unimpressed.  Theists don't understand why someone would be so foolish to deny something so obviously true.  But how were they convinced?

[Baruch]

Yeah.  Their starting point is that a God exists and they try to justify that and bring other people on board.  Other people's starting point is that they know people raving about this God character but they're not so sure this character actually exists in the real world.  They see arguments like the watchmaker analogy and walk away unimpressed.  Theists don't understand why someone would be so foolish to deny something so obviously true.  But how were they convinced?

Children are easily brainwashed ... and both commerce and government easily market to the sheeple.

[Ananta Shesha]

The use of Pi depends on a flat surface.  Since we discovered the Earth isn't flat, Pi is not as useful (though it shows up in other formulas, as we move from flat geometry to spherical geometry).  Besides ... if a creator didn't have prior knowledge, that would easily explain why creation is SNAFU.  In Lurianic Kabbalah, the creation was an accident.

Would you mind walking me through that accident? Sounds interesting :)