That just doesn’t make sense. Who defined what the rules were for supernatural. If he is dealing with us, he is affected. I’m not saying he’s altered, only affected.
I can see that could be true as far as physically affecting him, but I’m still not getting how he can have a physical impact on me without some sort of “physical way” of doing this.
I’m not saying he is necessarily altered in anyway, but even the act of allowing the photons to pass through him is in some ways a physical act. Even though it’s more of an act of suppression of natural law, it is still a physical thing. Since we have no grounds or basis for magic, we have to assume there is an actual physical process.
So what about “matter” that doesn’t interact with anything? You seem to have no problem including it in the universe, according to the definition you cited, yet you agree that something that doesn’t interact can’t be said to exist.
Now you’ve let nonexistent things into the universe. Nice job with the logic, buddy. Perhaps for an encore you could prove white is black and black white…
n 1: everything that exists anywhere; “they study the evolution of the universe”; “the biggest tree in existence” [syn: existence, nature, creation, world, cosmos, macrocosm] 2: the whole collection of existing things [syn: cosmos] 3: (statistics) the entire aggregation of items from which samples can be drawn; “it is an estimate of the mean of the population” [syn: population] 4: everything stated or assumed in a given discussion [syn: universe of discourse]
So, how does this not include God or should I pick one of the definitions that matches your argument.
I don’t believe there is one. I’m still trying to figure out when we made the amazing discovery that God is literally a non-physical thing. I must have missed that science periodical.:eek:
Precisely. God can’t be non-physical AND exist. Not really.
There’s a vague sense in which we can say that light, or thoughts, or radio waves aren’t physical, but this is technically not the case. Physicality == Existence.
This is my answer to the OP. I am going to agree that for many believers, there is truth in this. I don’t agree that "belief in a creator is caused “simply” by the illusion of perspective. But think the illusions we are indoctrinated with actually block true perspective and limit our ability to have true faith.
I have coming to the conclusion that the problem with theism is that originally man had a mental, spiritual knowledge of God. We took that and fleshed it out with many different and conflicting details that are not knowable or provable, just to comfort ourselves with a perception of credibility. We say that they came from God, but there are so many different versions of this, there is no real certainty, when it comes to the various beliefs. The profusion of conflicting information casts doubt on all of it. We also gave him a physical or ghost type definition that defied logic and has no factual basis. I can’t know the literal makeup of God through faith or fact. What God looks like is unimportant. We should not be so insecure that we have to make up the facts that we don’t have. That is the main reason for an atheist to argue with us and for us to in reality lose the argument, whether we admit it or not. We have a lousy argument. I know God. I know him through my mind and spiritual “events”. I feel him. It is sufficient to prove God to me. I don’t know him through a tedious list of religious premises and anecdotal stories. If I depended on those only, I would not know him. I am not saying there isn’t a divine basis for some of these stories, but I don’t know that. You can’t possibly know God from reading or following religious rituals. You should be able to get enough from God and be content with filling in the blanks as the true answers are available. That’s faith. It’s not blind, but it’s patient.
Of course my perspective was altered by being the sole believer on a thread for weeks. Answering hundreds of posts. Defending beliefs that I had no clue were absurd, losing many along the way and emerging stunned, but with a much clearer perspective that is only my own, not somebody elses. So I would agree, illusion of perspective exists. It doesn’t preclude God, but it impedes us. I was told I shouldn’t play with atheists, that it could harm my religious beliefs. They were right.
Your argument is irrational. What could have caused the oceans of atoms being cooked in the first place, but a Creator.
Consciousness did not “become” rather it has always been.
Always been, because no one has even the slightest clue where anything came from to begin with. This includes the so-called “big bang”.
Last I checked, “decent texts” on probability consisted mainly of mathematics, not physics, and most (although clearly not the ones you’re used to) “decent texts” on thermodynamics refer to the Second Law as I’ve understood it. I never did hear of this “Theory of Eternal Recurrence” and I’ll be sure to look it up for my own edification…but it wouldn’t have killed you to actually give a cite of some sort.
Oh, wait; that might have been a step toward politeness. Never mind, it very well could have killed you.
cmkeller, I’m trying to understand your position here. How does the assumption that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed necessitate the existence of a creator?
Furthermore, given that a creator exists and created all the matter in the universe, wouldn’t that be a violation of the first law? Isn’t your conclusion, that a creator’s existence is necessary, based on the assumption that the first law is inviolate?
Algorithm, physical laws only apply to physical entities. Thus, the first law lends itself to the conclusion that there must be some sort of non-physical entity to which said law does not apply.
There is no reason to believe that the first law is impossible without an entity. The law:
as I understand it only requires agreeing that you can’t have more or less than is already there. It is in a constant state of change though. This seems fairly basic or I’m over-simplyfying it. There is no reason to assume that the law doesn’t apply, God or no God. Two options:
No God: Timeless universe, always was, in a constant state of change, but still has all it’s original energy. Always has and always will. Lots happening until finally the right combination happened. Odds are not in favor of that, but not impossible.
With God: Timeless God(hanging around in some sort of setting, let’s call it the universe:)), which in effect still means that the universe in some form or where ever he was, existed. He altered the energy, which by the way would have already been in the universe, to start the universe. If you would like to believe that he somehow thought more energy into existence, then you can; but reguardless of how you think about it, the energy was in God’s brain or where ever. He set the evolutionary ball rolling or whatever you want to believe. Odds are not in favor of this either, but cannot be proved impossible.
Both are really saying the same thing as far as the constant energy of the universe. The first law doesn’t prove God and the universe could possibly have happened without him. That is not what I believe, but that is what others believe. It is not all contigient on the first law. I probably blew it somewhere because I was trying to be more basic, but as always; someone will tell me.
cmkeller
What it really boils down to (no pun intended) is that there are scientific experiments that show that however something changes, it’s all still there. Our argument that God created that something out of nothing isn’t any more credible than the universe creating itself out of nothing. If the first law were disproved tomorrow, I wouldn’t draw any conclusions for or against God’s existence. Science is only going to show how it could possibly happen without a creator, but can’t show that it was. Dying is the only way to prove God one way or another, unless he changes his MO.
Gravity is a physical “force.” But is that force itself considered a physical thing? It has physical effects. It interacts. Does it have demensions? It exists.
And time. Is time a physical thing? It has physical manifestations, but time itself is not a physical thing. It exists.
Arrogance is not a physical thing. It may be born of a chemical reaction and have physical ramifications and manifestations. But it is an abstract. It exists.
I’m going to have to ask you where the hell you pulled that definition from. I already provided a link to my source, and I must ask that you do the same. The definition which I cited clearly shows that it refers only to the physical world – matter and energy.
Moreover, your definition only applies to those things which exist somewhere, i.e. at some location in space. It does not apply to things which transcend space, such as the creator of all space and time. Ergo, even if we grant your dubious definition, it still does not prove that the universe is everything which exists. If anything, its precise phrasing demonstrates otherwise!
In fact, if you want a truly authoritative scientific definition, I refer you to the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (Fifth Edition), which defines it as
Nowhere does this suggest that it must encompass everything in existence.
No, I made no such claim. Ergo, your objection has no merit.
What I said is that something which does not interact with the physical cannot be called physical. Matter – any matter – by its very nature must interact with the physical. It has mass and energy, and hence, it must obey Newton’s laws, not to mention the laws of momentum and energy conservation.
Now, before you trot out the neutrino argument again, I’d like to remind you that it’s IRRELEVANT. Neutrinos do interact with matter, however weakly, and so they are physical in nature.
Your argument breaks down right here. Since no one knows the rule for supernatural interaction, one can’'t prove an instance of such speculation wrong, as long as it doesn’t demonstratably affect purely physical interactions. Also, what’s the difference between “affected” and “altered”? One has to, in some way be altered in order to be “affected”.
Like I am speculating so far, physical matter may interact in two ways. One is the normal way as with other physical matter, and the other is with “entity” matter. The rules for both interactions need not be similar.
No, the act isn’t physical. Remember, there are two types of interactions. Physical matter isn’t supposed to collide with entity matter, so there’s no “suppression” here.
The whole point of my debate here is not to posit or justify my speculation as the “truth” or most likely scenario. FTR, I don’t believe in an anthropomorphic God, and I don’t care about an entity otherwise. All I’m trying to show is that it’s possible to devise a system of rules whereby “non-physical matter” can interact with “physical matter” in a way non-contradictory to human observation and demonstration.
I used your link. I’d recommend you learn to scroll down and not stop at the one that you like best.
How do you know God transcends space and what does that mean, anyway? The Universe is everything. It encompasses all. How could the Universe not be everything? One more time I’m going to tell you that I have absolutely no doubt that God is our creator. But I get tired of arguing about something we have no way to prove or disprove. It makes us look like idiots. That may be okay for some. My personal choice is to only argue what we know or at least have even the tiniest bit of evidence on. God did not give us those details.
Okay, you can’t describe God objectively, but why make up stories?
Nowhere does it give you a free pass to say anything you want, either.
But…but…I could say anything I wanted then and expect it to be an explanation for what we can’t explain. I think the IPU is God’s district manager(God, now I’m starting to sound like them, if I bring up Santa, I’m a gonner) and he gave the Holy Ghost the boot. Okay, now I’m being irreverent again. What would be the point of making rules for an entity that we can’t even define. It’s like buying him shoes before we find out whether or not he has feet!!! I’m not sure exactly why the “affected” thing came up, but I’m thinking that’s a non-issue. We can’t affect him unless he allows it. He made us in his image, so he’s probably kind of attached.
I still say “HOOEY”. I interact with him in a physical manner. I am physical, therefore all of my actions and thoughts are physical. When he interacts with me, he must activate my physical self in some way. We actually have only described God the way we have, as invisible; because we can’t see him. I could speculate that he is physically the same as us, but with powers that block our visual and audio perception of him. He has God-shield on.:rolleyes: Just as likely as what you’re saying. Doesn’t affect us, we’re ignorant.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo…:eek:
It is possible to devise anything we want. Hell, oops, heck religions been doing it for as long as it existed. Stop encouraging them. We should wait and see if it’s necessary to make new rules. The Razor would definitely apply here.
Exactly. So, you can’t prove that God must interact in a certain way. We humans, based on our current conceptions, don’t have the faculties to assert that God must be “physical”.
There is no point. But that’s what you’re doing by saying that God interacts in a “physical way”.
If such a God lifts a rock, will we see the rock floating in mid-air? Of course, if God is physical, he better not get near a black hole, else we might have a Godless universe.
The Razor is a guide, not a law. And it only applies to equally valid provable explanations. We can’t test the validity of any speculation dealing with a supernatural entity so we are not at the Razor stage.
