NationStates Jolt Archive

First off,I declare that any and all questioning or backing up of God not related to the discussion itself is off limits.So please,no jesus,gay,thiest,athiest or midget bashing.Don't ask about the midgets,it'll get to that somehow.Anyways...

"Can God create a boulder that he cannot Lift?"

I assume many of us have heard this very famous philosphical question.The result is usually that God cannot exist because it is paradoxical.Let's break down the logic for those who can't or don't want to think.

Base:Omnipotent beings can do anything and everything.God is an omnipotent being.

Logic:If god can create this boulder, then he cannot lift it, so he is not omnipotent so he cannot exist.If he cannot create this boulder, then he is not omnipotent and cannot exist.

Result:God is not omnipotent and does not exist(At least not a Judeo-Christian-Islamic god).

Now,on to the main point.There is an counter-arguement to this which is that God cannot create the boulder in the first place because his powers are controlled by logic.That is to say,he cannot defy the laws of logic.

However,it seems that God has done it numerous times.For example,the big bang of creating ,well, the entire universe out of nothing seems to defy logic. Second is the various miracles has done. The most famous example ,perhaps,is that he had Mary,a virgin, give birth without even a sperm sample.Of course,there is the arguement that Jesus is God's son literally,which would make one wonder if God has a physical form or even DNA...But that is another topic.

Anyway,what do you think?

I will go with the old standby that humans have a very limited view of the universe and that trying to limit God who is all powerful to our understanding of how things works, is pretty stupid indeed. :D

I don't get why not omnipotent neccessarily equals not existing.

The logical system is not capable of dealing with omnipotence because omnipotence is inherantly paradoxical. The logical system defines axioms that are the basis of its reason and therefore cannot be violated. Omnipotence violates these axioms, and thus logic is incapable of dealing with it. Whether or not that means omnipotence is impossible, however, is always and interesting debate.

I don't get why not omnipotent neccessarily equals not existing.

Well, at least not in the way a Judeo-Christian-Islamic God as I have mentioned above.There are plenty of other ways to view God,like Brahman in Hinduism for example.

I don't get why not omnipotent neccessarily equals not existing.

Well, the reasoning goes like this.

God is omnipotent.

Nothing which is not God is God.

Therefore, nothing which is not omnipotent is God.

Therefore, if God is not omnipotent, God is not God.

If God is not God, than God is not.

If God is not, then there is no God.

The main assumption there is that to be qualified as God, you have to be omnipotent.

i find that the whole boulder argument is one of those things that boggles your mind when you are a young teen and it first occurs to you. after a while its not all that persuasive as a proof of god's non-existence (much weaker than the babblefish, for example)

god is not bound by human logic. god is not limited by the human mind. paradoxes are only paradoxical to US, not to god

god doesnt spend his time making or lifting boulders.

Actually, there's a whole new logical dillema to derail this one.

Any boulder too large for God to lift, (unless it was really, really dense, but at that point I think that it would probably go through the earth, and have enough speed upon exiting to escape orbit anyways...) would, in theory, have to be located in space. And since there's no gravity in space, how would you lift something?

Religion tends to help solve the issues which cannot be solved logically. The most fundamental question asked, "Why does the universe exist?" is still not completely answerable by science. Even the big bang theory cannot explain how in a universe of cause and effect, you can get your first cause from 'nothing'; or worse yet, that the effect has always existed without an initial cause.

Religion, in an attempt to ease the rational mind, creates order by celebrating the irrational, such as the immaculate conception, or the idea of reincarnation; none of which are proveable, but lift the spirits of people burdened by the seeming oppressiveness of logical reality.

To further complicate things, religion becomes a social tool in developing and fostering communities by helping to define moral values. As science progresses and dismisses some of religions findings through the use of 'logic', there is a sense of 'attack' on the source of ease created by religion, and the source of a seeming font of moral order.

First off,I declare that any and all questioning or backing up of God not related to the discussion itself is off limits.So please,no jesus,gay,thiest,athiest or midget bashing.Don't ask about the midgets,it'll get to that somehow.Anyways...

"Can God create a boulder that he cannot Lift?"

I assume many of us have heard this very famous philosphical question.The result is usually that God cannot exist because it is paradoxical.Let's break down the logic for those who can't or don't want to think.

Base:Omnipotent beings can do anything and everything.God is an omnipotent being.

Logic:If god can create this boulder, then he cannot lift it, so he is not omnipotent so he cannot exist.If he cannot create this boulder, then he is not omnipotent and cannot exist.

Result:God is not omnipotent and does not exist(At least not a Judeo-Christian-Islamic god).

Now,on to the main point.There is an counter-arguement to this which is that God cannot create the boulder in the first place because his powers are controlled by logic.That is to say,he cannot defy the laws of logic.

However,it seems that God has done it numerous times.For example,the big bang of creating ,well, the entire universe out of nothing seems to defy logic. Second is the various miracles has done. The most famous example ,perhaps,is that he had Mary,a virgin, give birth without even a sperm sample.Of course,there is the arguement that Jesus is God's son literally,which would make one wonder if God has a physical form or even DNA...But that is another topic.

Anyway,what do you think?
Why is the Big-Bang out of logic? Sounds as illogical to us as the conception of a baby would sound to a microscopic cell living in the baby....

Actually, there's a whole new logical dillema to derail this one.

Any boulder too large for God to lift, (unless it was really, really dense, but at that point I think that it would probably go through the earth, and have enough speed upon exiting to escape orbit anyways...) would, in theory, have to be located in space. And since there's no gravity in space, how would you lift something?

I suppose God has his own gravity?

The main assumption there is that to be qualified as God, you have to be omnipotent.
Who decided that? In my mind, qualifying as God means "creator of the universe" or even the universe itself....

Why is the Big-Bang out of logic? Sounds as illogical to us as the conception of a baby would sound to a microscopic cell living in the baby....

So... God had sex with the void?

Why is the Big-Bang out of logic? Sounds as illogical to us as the conception of a baby would sound to a microscopic cell living in the baby....

Well,it's not that.It's that big bang wasn't created out of something.It was just created.

A baby is created from the chemical and bioloigical reactions of sperm and an egg.The big bang was just...made.

Who decided that?

That would be the OP. Take it up with him. Depends on your definition of God I suppose.

Well,it's not that.It's that big bang wasn't created out of something.It was just created.

A baby is created from the chemical and bioloigical reactions of sperm and an egg.The big bang was just...made.
How do you know it was "just made"? The Big Bang theory involves pre-existing matter compressed into a singularity and exploding... Matter is chemical and biological...

In the Bible, the word omnipotent isn't actually used, just all powerful.

In the Bible, the word omnipotent isn't actually used, just all powerful.

Well, according to dictionary.com...

Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. See Usage Note at infinite.

Well, at least not in the way a Judeo-Christian-Islamic God as I have mentioned above.There are plenty of other ways to view God,like Brahman in Hinduism for example.

Hmm, I guess. But I still wouldn't say that if a Judeo-Christian-Islamic God is not omnipotent, that is hardly proof for their non-existence. I mean, even if suh a god has to abide by logic, which is what we're assuming here.

Hmm, I guess. But I still wouldn't say that if a Judeo-Christian-Islamic God is not omnipotent, that is hardly proof for their non-existence. I mean, even if suh a god has to abide by logic, which is what we're assuming here.
Maybe God does abide by logic, but the logic still escapes us...

How do you know it was "just made"? The Big Bang theory involves pre-existing matter compressed into a singularity and exploding... Matter is chemical and biological...

Yeah, but where did that pre-existing matter come from? And anything else before that?

Who decided that? In my mind, qualifying as God means "creator of the universe" or even the universe itself....

Well,I suppose you'd have to omnipotent to create the universe.:rolleyes:

Like I said,we are assuming that God must be omnipotent in this discussion.

Well, according to dictionary.com...

Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. See Usage Note at infinite.

But i think, in the context it was used at that time, it probably didn't mean so infinately powerful it causes a paradox.

Like I said,we are assuming that God must be omnipotent in this discussion.

Yeah, and that's the problem? Where are you getting this assumption from?

So... God had sex with the void?
Maybe God is the father and the mother of an entity on a much bigger scale, of which our planet is just like an atom... Maybe that entity will die one day (if that was the case it would probably take zillions of years, since Time would also be on a different scale)

Yeah, but where did that pre-existing matter come from? And anything else before that?
Wouldn't we love to know?... :D

How do you know it was "just made"? The Big Bang theory involves pre-existing matter compressed into a singularity and exploding... Matter is chemical and biological...

The lack of logic in the Big Bang theory, is that if the theory involves 'pre-existing matter', then it doesn't really explain the 'origins' of the universe - just it's current incarnation. It still doesn't answer one of two illogical conclusions; a) That the origins of matter/energy/everything started from nothing. The first 'cause' in the cause-and-effect chain would logically have to come from somewhere... b) That there was no 'origin', and the universe always was.... Either conclusion defies conventional logic; if you believe in the laws of cause and effect.

Yeah, and that's the problem? Where are you getting this assumption from?

Umm,that is the perception of what God is?

In Judiasm(Sp?),Christianity and Islam , God is all-powerful, which is synonimous(Sorry,Sp again?) with being omnipotent.

I don't have a problem,ma'am/sir,I'm just starting a discussion.:D

The lack of logic in the Big Bang theory, is that if the theory involves 'pre-existing matter', then it doesn't really explain the 'origins' of the universe - just it's current incarnation.
Welcome to the world of Science skepticism.... What you just stated would earn you the despise from the scientific community that abides blindly to the Big Bang theory as the response to "the origin". Like you said, how can the Big Bang be the origin if it implies existing matter?

It still doesn't answer one of two illogical conclusions; a) That the origins of matter/energy/everything started from nothing. The first 'cause' in the cause-and-effect chain would logically have to come from somewhere...
Does a baby start from nothing?

b) That there was no 'origin', and the universe always was.... Either conclusion defies conventional logic; if you believe in the laws of cause and effect.
Yet the baby didn't exist before...

Yet the baby didn't exist before...

Well, technically he did, just in a different form. His matter existed inside the mother at first, and was put into the baby through the umbilacle cord. The rest was from the food he ate.

Welcome to the world of Science skepticism.... What you just stated would earn you the despise from the scientific community that abides blindly to the Big Bang theory as the response to "the origin". Like you said, how can the Big Bang be the origin if it implies existing matter?

I'm not skeptical of science. It just hasn't been able to rationally explain the first cause in the cause and effect chain.

Does a baby start from nothing?

Of course not. It is a result of reproduction, a long list of causes and effects (usually pleasurable).


Yet the baby didn't exist before...

But its existence is explainable from previous causes. It is the result of a chain of events. This still doesn't explain how you can have a chain of events without a logical 'first cause'.

Science defines the world as we can observe it. It just can't logically explain the origin yet.

Well, technically he did, just in a different form. His matter existed inside the mother at first, and was put into the baby through the umbilacle cord. The rest was from the food he ate.
inside the mother? aren't you forgetting the father? wasn't the child in two places? doesn't that defy logic?

And what is a black-hole, if not the food it eats?

inside the mother? aren't you forgetting the father? wasn't the child in two places? doesn't that defy logic?

Ok about 0.0000000001% is from his father, the design of course is 50% the fathers. The father provides half of the DNA code on which the baby is then built up on. However the one sperm cell containing the DNA will actually only be about 0.0000000000000000000001% of the baby's matter. How does that defy logic?

inside the mother? aren't you forgetting the father? wasn't the child in two places? doesn't that defy logic?

And what is a black-hole, if not the food it eats?

Reproduction doesn't defy logic at all. Science has been able to explain that one for quite some time.

Of course, it depends on how we're using the word "can't" in "Can't lift the boulder." But the easy answer is that God could simply create a boulder of arbitrary size and then incarnate (which He'd have to do to do any lifting anyway) into a form which cannot lift the boulder physically. God would still be all powerful (at least outside the incarnation) and able to raise the boulder in other ways, but the solution is provided for, at least in a way, in this scenario.

Of course, it depends on how we're using the word "can't" in "Can't lift the boulder." But the easy answer is that God could simply create a boulder of arbitrary size and then incarnate (which He'd have to do to do any lifting anyway) into a form which cannot lift the boulder physically. God would still be all powerful (at least outside the incarnation) and able to raise the boulder in other ways, but the solution is provided for, at least in a way, in this scenario.

Part of the problem is the popular conception of God as an 'individual'. Rather, perhaps we should be thinking of God as the boulder, and everything that may or may not be able to lift it. God wouldn't be creating or lifting anything, God is everything.

I'm not skeptical of science. It just hasn't been able to rationally explain the first cause in the cause and effect chain.
Thank you for the admission that science has done no better than religion to answer the eternal question. In fact, I argue that humanity knew more about the universe when science and religion were lovers...

Of course not. It is a result of reproduction, a long list of causes and effects (usually pleasurable).
So must be the universe then... As to pleasurable... have you ever heard a cat having sex? Or have you heard about the female spider that eats the male during sex? Don't reduce the laws of Nature to the experience of mankind... :D

But its existence is explainable from previous causes. It is the result of a chain of events. This still doesn't explain how you can have a chain of events without a logical 'first cause'.
Maybe we simply have no way of seeing the first cause, since it precedes the visibility of existence?

Science defines the world as we can observe it. It just can't logically explain the origin yet.
If science defines the world as we can observe it, how can it ever answer the origin? Doesn't this imply knowledge before anything could be observed?

Thank you for the admission that science has done no better than religion to answer the eternal question. In fact, I argue that humanity knew more about the universe when science and religion were lovers...Excuse me, but what exactly has religion done to explain the eternal question, and what exactly is the eternal question?

Reproduction doesn't defy logic at all. Science has been able to explain that one for quite some time.
In the same way, the creation of the universe doesn't necessarily defy logic either... only in the minds of little particles like ourselves...

Excuse me, but what exactly has religion done to explain the eternal question
It has done as much as science... considering we still don't know the answer. Since science depends on observation and proof, it will never be able to answer the eternal question.

and what exactly is the eternal question?
"How did the universe begin?" Isn't that what was being discussed in the last posts?

Thank you for the admission that science has done no better than religion to answer the eternal question. In fact, I argue that humanity knew more about the universe when science and religion were lovers...

I'm not a science or religion fanatic. Religion attempted to answer the eternal question by making one up (at least that's the way I view it), while science made observations of the physical universe and tried to draw a conclusion about 'how' the universe came into being. Religion and Science need not be at odds, the problem is that Religion is relatively old, and some of its 'conclusions' are easily denounced by science. What we need is relgion that works well with science.

So must be the universe then... As to pleasurable... have you ever heard a cat having sex? Or have you heard about the female spider that eats the male after sex? Don't reduce the laws of Nature to the experience of mankind... :D ?

Logically, the universe would have to be the end result of a chain of events, but you're still avoiding the central issue; logically there would have to be a first cause, and without anything to create a cause, no event could logically commence. The alternative is a universe that just always 'was', which is just as illogical. Thus the universe is a wonderous place, that while observable, and follows a definable set of rules, the creation of it doesn't seem to follow that same set of rules.

As to the sex comments; I'm simply observing it from my simple male mind. :)

Maybe we simply have no way of seeing the first cause, since it precedes the visibility of existence??

That's quite possible. However you don't need to see anything to know that you can't logically have a chain of events without a first cause. It is therefore illogical to have a first cause when nothing prior to it can cause the first cause? See where I'm getting at here?

It could be that the universe is cyclical, and constantly forming and regressing. Even then, it defies conventional logic, because science dictates that the universe follows the laws of cause and effect, and a universe that always existed would therefore never have an original cause... not logical. If the universe was created by a 'god', that also defies conventional logic, becasue what is the cause of 'God'?

The origin of 'everything', is not conceivable through conventional logic; at least as far as I can tell.

If science defines the world as we can observe it, how can it ever answer the origin? Doesn't this imply knowledge before anything could be observed?

The same way science observes anything that isn't currently 'visible'. We must follow the trail of evidence and draw conclusions based on our understanding of the universe. The universe seems to follow a certain set of rules which is demonstrable, and we can apply those rules and follow them to a logical conclusion. Unfortunately, I don't see how we can find a definitive answer if we can't conceive a 'logical' origin.

The universe is a big place that defies rational convention. It might just be that the rules of the universe have changed since it's inception. Logic need not apply.

It has done as much as science... considering we still don't know the answer. Since science depends on observation and proof, it will never be able to answer the eternal question.Actually..
We have a pretty good scientific theory about how the universe began. It involves a rapid, omni-directional expansion & is usually refered to as the Big Bang.

No telling why it happened though.

But what have religion done to address this? AFAIK, some religions claims god created the universe over a few days. Others claim the universe is the corpse of someone or other (sometimes an animal). Others still, claim the universe itself IS god. If memory serves, there's even a religion that claims the universe is debris from the battlefield of the gods.

If we apply a bit of critical thinking here, religion haven't done much at all. I can do everything religion have done, in a moment:

"The universe is the manifestation of BogMarsh's Invisible childhood friend's fantasy".

That's a genesis story, and it is every bit as credible as any given religious genesis story. That is, not credible at all.

So I'd say science accomplished more. It has allowed us to realise that we don't have the answer. All religion has done, is to pretend we have one."How did the universe begin?" Isn't that what was being discussed in the last posts?Just checking

Actually..
So I'd say science accomplished more. It has allowed us to realise that we don't have the answer. All religion has done, is to pretend we have one.

Precisely.

I'm not a science or religion fanatic. Religion attempted to answer the eternal question by making one up (at least that's the way I view it), while science made observations of the physical universe and tried to draw a conclusion about 'how' the universe came into being. Religion and Science need not be at odds, the problem is that Religion is relatively old, and some of its 'conclusions' are easily denounced by science. What we need is relgion that works well with science.



Logically, the universe would have to be the end result of a chain of events, but you're still avoiding the central issue; logically there would have to be a first cause, and without anything to create a cause, no event could logically commence. The alternative is a universe that just always 'was', which is just as illogical. Thus the universe is a wonderous place, that while observable, and follows a definable set of rules, the creation of it doesn't seem to follow that same set of rules.

As to the sex comments; I'm simply observing it from my simple male mind. :)



That's quite possible. However you don't need to see anything to know that you can't logically have a chain of events without a first cause. It is therefore illogical to have a first cause when nothing prior to it can cause the first cause? See where I'm getting at here?

It could be that the universe is cyclical, and constantly forming and regressing. Even then, it defies conventional logic, because science dictates that the universe follows the laws of cause and effect, and a universe that always existed would therefore never have an original cause... not logical. If the universe was created by a 'god', that also defies conventional logic, becasue what is the cause of 'God'?

The origin of 'everything', is not conceivable through conventional logic; at least as far as I can tell.



The same way science observes anything that isn't currently 'visible'. We must follow the trail of evidence and draw conclusions based on our understanding of the universe. The universe seems to follow a certain set of rules which is demonstrable, and we can apply those rules and follow them to a logical conclusion. Unfortunately, I don't see how we can find a definitive answer if we can't conceive a 'logical' origin.

The universe is a big place that defies rational convention. It might just be that the rules of the universe have changed since it's inception. Logic need not apply.

Actually, I have a valid explanation.

The original matter came from a different universe, due to a quantam phenomenon involving a black hole and a supernova.

Where did their original matter come from? They can figure that out for themselves, lazy bastards.

I like this idea that God is powerful enough to defy logic and reason. I find it simply amazing that when people counter an unfortunate situation, they boldly claim "I don't understand", as if reality was going to be embarrassed that it was caught in the act of doing something illogical and settle down to doing something that makes more sense.

It doesn't work that way.

Reality has existed, does exist, and will continue to exist regardless of wether or not it makes sense. The flaw is not in reality as much as one's understanding of it. The trick is that in order to understand the way things are, one has to accept things as being as they are, regardless of one's understanding of them.

If one denies reality, then it will never make any sense.

Actually, I have a valid explanation.

The original matter came from a different universe, due to a quantam phenomenon involving a black hole and a supernova.

Where did their original matter come from? They can figure that out for themselves, lazy bastards.

:)

Or more to the point; we can continue to debate the origins, or just realize that its pretty fantastic any way you look at it, and debate more important things, like how do we get the Toronto Maple Leafs to win a Stanley Cup or what is the sound of Mikesburg winning the lottery?

I like this idea that God is powerful enough to defy logic and reason. I find it simply amazing that when people counter an unfortunate situation, they boldly claim "I don't understand", as if reality was going to be embarrassed that it was caught in the act of doing something illogical and settle down to doing something that makes more sense.

It doesn't work that way.

Reality has existed, does exist, and will continue to exist regardless of wether or not it makes sense. The flaw is not in reality as much as one's understanding of it. The trick is that in order to understand the way things are, one has to accept things as being as they are, regardless of one's understanding of them.

If one denies reality, then it will never make any sense.

Ah, but the question here is 'is God reality',

Imaginary friends and forced emotions can be quite comforting, but their activities and existance are in no way logical.

Ah, but the question here is 'is God reality',

I would say that God is an extrapolation of reality. The problem with deistic religions is that once people start defining things in anthropomorphic terms, they start assigning things like motivation and emotion to them. While applicable to human beings, they are not applicable to reality. If you walk off a roof, you are going to fall, regardless of wether or not you are a good person.

This is not to say that believing in God is useless. I would think it was better for someone to believe in God and work on increasing that understanding than for someone to not believe in God and work on not increasing that understanding. The trick is to develop a seeking spirit and make it a lifelong persuit.

Now,on to the main point.There is an counter-arguement to this which is that God cannot create the boulder in the first place because his powers are controlled by logic.That is to say,he cannot defy the laws of logic.

No. The real answer to this objection cannot be that God's powers are controlled by logic, because if they were there would be something above Him. The answer is that God has no inclination to create a rock that He cannot lift, or in destroying Himself, or in any way using one of His infinite aspects to interfere with any of the others; they serve as tools to intervene with the finite material world, where the description is perfectly legitimate.

I'm not a science or religion fanatic.
i'm a fanatic for both. :D i'm joking.... i'm anything but a fanatic. i don't follow any dogma, whether religious or scientific...

Religion attempted to answer the eternal question by making one up (at least that's the way I view it),
that's the way you view it and i would argue you are wrong. most people today don't really try to understand the origin of religion, because of how the catholic church persecuted science but religion actually grew out of a mix of ancient science and faith. ancient religion embraced science and cosmology much more than modern religion. look at the jews and how they have been able to marry the two for centuries. ancient christianity did as well. it was only when the catholic church started persecuting gnostic christians, jews and pagans that religion became separated from cosmology.

while science made observations of the physical universe and tried to draw a conclusion about 'how' the universe came into being. Religion and Science need not be at odds, the problem is that Religion is relatively old, and some of its 'conclusions' are easily denounced by science. What we need is religion that works well with science.
religion and science came from the same bag. they are two sides of the same coin; the human brain = intuition + rationality. as i said, ancient religion was very much based on the stars and the observable universe.

Logically, the universe would have to be the end result of a chain of events, but you're still avoiding the central issue; logically there would have to be a first cause, and without anything to create a cause, no event could logically commence. The alternative is a universe that just always 'was', which is just as illogical. Thus the universe is a wonderous place, that while observable, and follows a definable set of rules, the creation of it doesn't seem to follow that same set of rules.
i'm not avoiding the central issue. first, i'm arguing that the set of (scientific) rules we've created to try to explain the universe is very far from being perfect. this is clear when you realise that quantum physics and relativity are not compatible (from what i hear) and they are the main theories in place, as far as i know.

As to the sex comments; I'm simply observing it from my simple male mind. :)
and a human mind as well :D

That's quite possible. However you don't need to see anything to know that you can't logically have a chain of events without a first cause. It is therefore illogical to have a first cause when nothing prior to it can cause the first cause? See where I'm getting at here?
I see where you are trying to get... but what I mean is that we cannot observe what is "behind (in time)" of the birth of the universe, since it precedes our own existence. therefore, like you said, we can only apply the same set of rules we already know, to try to second guess it. that set of rules tells us categorically that what generally precedes existence is a male and a female...

It could be that the universe is cyclical, and constantly forming and regressing. Even then, it defies conventional logic, because science dictates that the universe follows the laws of cause and effect, and a universe that always existed would therefore never have an original cause... not logical.
well, i am not arguing the universe is eternally cyclical, even if there is a growing body of evidence that there is a cyclical nature to it, nor that it was always here (i do believe it had a beginning)... our set of rules tells us that everything lives and dies, begins and ends.

If the universe was created by a 'god', that also defies conventional logic, becasue what is the cause of 'God'?
first, that depends on how you define God. my definition of God is not an entity sitting in a golden throne, even if i feel that i have no way to discard completely that possibility. i rather think of God as the Law that rules the universe, which is nothing more than what scientists (and religion) have been looking for...

The origin of 'everything', is not conceivable through conventional logic; at least as far as I can tell.
i think you worded it just right when you said "conventional logic". what is conventional logic today wasn't 100 years ago (but it could have been 2,000 years ago ironically). if we are made exactly of the same chemical components of the stars and ruled by the same laws of physics (some of which i feel we don't yet understand), then the origin of everything could be right under our eyes; a male and a female (beyond visible astronomical proportions). a child is a universe of atoms and molecules, which didn't "exist" before conception. in the same way, the matter that today makes our universe could have belonged to another universe.

The same way science observes anything that isn't currently 'visible'. We must follow the trail of evidence and draw conclusions based on our understanding of the universe. The universe seems to follow a certain set of rules which is demonstrable, and we can apply those rules and follow them to a logical conclusion. Unfortunately, I don't see how we can find a definitive answer if we can't conceive a 'logical' origin.
only because we don't accept stars and planets as life forms. instead we have chosen to label them as non-living matter, which certainly isn't. dead matter decomposes...

The universe is a big place that defies rational convention. It might just be that the rules of the universe have changed since it's inception. Logic need not apply.
i rather believe that what fails is our comprehension, not the logic of the universe, the Law, God or Nature (whatever you choose to call it)

First off,I declare that any and all questioning or backing up of God not related to the discussion itself is off limits.So please,no jesus,gay,thiest,athiest or midget bashing.Don't ask about the midgets,it'll get to that somehow.Anyways...

"Can God create a boulder that he cannot Lift?"

I assume many of us have heard this very famous philosphical question.The result is usually that God cannot exist because it is paradoxical.Let's break down the logic for those who can't or don't want to think.

Base:Omnipotent beings can do anything and everything.God is an omnipotent being.

Logic:If god can create this boulder, then he cannot lift it, so he is not omnipotent so he cannot exist.If he cannot create this boulder, then he is not omnipotent and cannot exist.

Result:God is not omnipotent and does not exist(At least not a Judeo-Christian-Islamic god).

Now,on to the main point.There is an counter-arguement to this which is that God cannot create the boulder in the first place because his powers are controlled by logic.That is to say,he cannot defy the laws of logic.

However,it seems that God has done it numerous times.For example,the big bang of creating ,well, the entire universe out of nothing seems to defy logic. Second is the various miracles has done. The most famous example ,perhaps,is that he had Mary,a virgin, give birth without even a sperm sample.Of course,there is the arguement that Jesus is God's son literally,which would make one wonder if God has a physical form or even DNA...But that is another topic.

Anyway,what do you think?

Omni-whatever is an unsupported infinitive. An artefact of Christian/Islam/Judaism version of God useful to inspire awe from believers and consolidate their social power.

Even our current Universe is not infinite. A God can be very powerful, run this and many other Universes and still not be infinite. We should stop abusing the concept of infinity.

Actually..
We have a pretty good scientific theory about how the universe began. It involves a rapid, omni-directional expansion & is usually refered to as the Big Bang.
that cannot explain the beginning, since an explosion implies pre-existing matter...

No telling why it happened though.
precisely

But what have religion done to address this? AFAIK, some religions claims god created the universe over a few days. Others claim the universe is the corpse of someone or other (sometimes an animal). Others still, claim the universe itself IS god. If memory serves, there's even a religion that claims the universe is debris from the battlefield of the gods.

If we apply a bit of critical thinking here, religion haven't done much at all. I can do everything religion have done, in a moment:

"The universe is the manifestation of BogMarsh's Invisible childhood friend's fantasy".

That's a genesis story, and it is every bit as credible as any given religious genesis story. That is, not credible at all.

So I'd say science accomplished more. It has allowed us to realise that we don't have the answer. All religion has done, is to pretend we have one.Just checking
first, you should never read genesis literally. second, you have to allow for different terminology, since science moved on a bit from the ancient wording of the old testament. third, if you read the very beginning of genesis carefully, it's not so distant of scientific belief.

in verse 2 of the bible we hear that the darkness covered the abyss and the spirit of God was carried over the waters. after the big bang (assuming that one big even happened - remember, it's only a theory), the universe would be a dark place filled with hydrogen, the prime element which could mean water. the waters carried the spirit of God, which could be interpreted as "energy", or the basic essence of God.

wording such as "days" in the bible shouldn't be taken literally. a day for God is not necessarily a day for mankind. just like a day for a human isn't a day for an atom.

Has anyone else read that one Asimov story with Aaron telling Moses they don't have enough papyrus to cover several billion years of creation?

Moses asks how many days they can cover, and Aaron tells him seven.

Has anyone else read that one Asimov story with Aaron telling Moses they don't have enough papyrus to cover several billion years of creation?

Moses asks how many days they can cover, and Aaron tells him seven.
:D i rather read the seven days as 7 stages of creation...

interestingly... according to the bible man was created on the sixth day and science argues that mankind appeared in the 6th period of life on our planet.

:D i rather read the seven days as 7 stages of creation...

interestingly... according to the bible man was created on the sixth day and science argues that mankind appeared in the 6th period of life on our planet.

What's a 6th period of life?

Logic isn't the best way to prove things. It works well for geometry and tends to break down after that. It's really a good whore, you can use it to prove anything, all you have to do is establish the correct premise and go from there. When I was taking a physical science class in college, the professor decided, as an intellectual exercise, to demonstrate a premise of molecular physics using logic - it didn't work - he ended up using proven facts instead - demonstrating that facts and logic aren't the same thing.

In any case the whole argument about what God(s)/Goddess(es) can and can't do logically, is moot. In point of fact his/her/their existence is only important if you want it to be.

What's a 6th period of life?
:D it's my poor way to explain that we're currently going through the 6th extinction on planet earth, according to scientists...

if we're going through the sixth extinction, that implies six periods of life (and we appeared in the sixth)...

:D it's my poor way to explain that we're currently going through the 6th extinction on planet earth, according to scientists...

if we're going through the sixth extinction, that implies six periods of life (and we appeared in the sixth)...

6th extinction??? You mean mass extinctions? You know that we've always been in the age of Bacteria, right?

What's a 6th period of life?

I don't know.Please,explain.

Sounds interesting.

6th extinction??? You mean mass extinctions? You know that we've always been in the age of Bacteria, right?
I mean what scientists mean and - yes - i do believe they mean mass extinctions... we appeared after the 5th. therefore, we appeared on the 6th major period of life or evolution of life. call it "coincidence" if you wish or complain to scientists for saying so...

I don't know.Please,explain.

Sounds interesting.

I don't know. Assis brought it up. I think he meant the six commonly agreed major mass extinction events. There could be as many as 23 such events. Still when you have a bible figure to pitch you would use the most convenient number.

I don't know. Assis brought it up. I think he meant the six commonly agreed major mass extinction events. There could be as many as 23 such events. Still when you have a bible figure to pitch you would use the most convenient number.
you are contradicting yourself. you said:

"I think he meant the six commonly agreed major mass extinction events."

like you said, there have been other events, but not major ones like the six commonly agreed by science. we're going through the sixth major period of evolution and this will inevitably end with a major 6th mass extinction.

I mean what scientists mean and - yes - i do believe they mean mass extinctions... we appeared after the 5th. therefore, we appeared on the 6th major period of life or evolution of life. call it "coincidence" if you wish or complain to scientists for saying so...

Did you call these "periods" of life yourself, or do you have a reference? The world doesn't stop when mass extinctions occur you know. Other surviving species grow and occupy niches left behind.

And not the sixth "period", by the way. The last severe mass extinction was in late Cretaceous, the one that killed off the dinosaurs, so we are properly in our seventh "period" if you will.

Well, convince yourself. Try here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/exfiles/massintro.htm

you are contradicting yourself. you said:

"I think he meant the six commonly agreed major mass extinction events."

like you said, there have been other events, but not major ones like the six commonly agreed by science. we're going through the sixth.

???:confused:

Did you call these "periods" of life yourself, or do you have a reference? The world doesn't stop when mass extinctions occur you know. Other surviving species grow and occupy niches left behind.

And not the sixth "period", by the way. The last severe mass extinction was in late Cretaceous, the one that killed off the dinosaurs, so we are properly in our seventh "period" if you will.

Well, convince yourself. Try here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/exfiles/massintro.htm
try this one, also from BBC:

Biodiversity: The sixth great wave
As part of Planet Under Pressure, a BBC News Online series looking at some of the biggest environmental problems humanity faces, Alex Kirby considers the current increase in extinction rates.

By Alex Kirby
BBC News Online environment correspondent

A quarter of all mammals face some extinction risk
All the creatures we share the Earth with are important in some way, however unprepossessing or insignificant they may appear. They and we are all part of the web of life.

From the dawn of time, extinction has usually progressed at what scientists call a natural or background rate. Today the tempo is far faster.

Many scientists believe this is the sixth great wave - the sixth mass extinction to affect life on Earth."
I'm convinced by scientists, not the bible (which i only use for leads).

Source here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3667300.stm)

try this one, also from BBC:


I'm convinced by scientists, not the bible....

Source here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3667300.stm)

Meh. Whichever number goes, five, six or 23. When I read mass extinctions in college, our prof only covered in detail the two more severe ones, late Permian and late Cretaceous I think.

If improved evidence shows more or less mass extinction events I won't have to cry because I don't have any holy book to throw away.

Btw I can't find the word "period" out of your article.

that's the way you view it and i would argue you are wrong. most people today don't really try to understand the origin of religion, because of how the catholic church persecuted science but religion actually grew out of a mix of ancient science and faith. ancient religion embraced science and cosmology much more than modern religion. look at the jews and how they have been able to marry the two for centuries. ancient christianity did as well. it was only when the catholic church started persecuting gnostic christians, jews and pagans that religion became separated from cosmology.

religion and science came from the same bag. they are two sides of the same coin; the human brain = intuition + rationality. as i said, ancient religion was very much based on the stars and the observable universe.

There are plenty of examples of science disputing religious assertions, such as the debate over a heliocentric universe, or the modern debate of evolution. When you get down to it, many, if not most world religions declares that a being, or group of beings, are the cause of creation and natural phenomenon; with no evidence to back this claim. Were the origins of Hinduism founded by observation of the spiritual world, or did someone make up an elaborate system to help explain things and maintain order and people's place in the caste system? How do they know that people get reincarnated, and its about following Dharma and the laws of Karma? Someone made it up. (Again, my POV.)

i'm not avoiding the central issue. first, i'm arguing that the set of (scientific) rules we've created to try to explain the universe is very far from being perfect. this is clear when you realise that quantum physics and relativity are not compatible (from what i hear) and they are the main theories in place, as far as i know.

Not being a quantum physicist, I'm not sure how to respond to that. However, logic is pretty simple, and logically, you can't have a domino effect without something causing the first domino to topple over.

I see where you are trying to get... but what I mean is that we cannot observe what is "behind (in time)" of the birth of the universe, since it precedes our own existence. therefore, like you said, we can only apply the same set of rules we already know, to try to second guess it. that set of rules tells us categorically that what generally precedes existence is a male and a female...

Now that's just a jump in logic that is strangely baffling; How does not knowing what is behind the birth of the universe tell us categorically that generally what precedes existence is a male and a female? Even if you look at the universe as a result of reproduction (and I'm not sure why you do), reproduction isn't relegated to split-sex species alone; let's not forget single-cell reproduction. Why are we talking about male/female existence prior to 'existence' at all?

well, i am not arguing the universe is eternally cyclical, even if there is a growing body of evidence that there is a cyclical nature to it, nor that it was always here (i do believe it had a beginning)... our set of rules tells us that everything lives and dies, begins and ends.

So we're back at square one; something came from nothing, which defies logic.

first, that depends on how you define God. my definition of God is not an entity sitting in a golden throne, even if i feel that i have no way to discard completely that possibility. i rather think of God as the Law that rules the universe, which is nothing more than what scientists (and religion) have been looking for...

I'm agnostic, if not atheist. If I think of God at all, I think of 'God as Everything', and we are but one aspect of It.

i think you worded it just right when you said "conventional logic". what is conventional logic today wasn't 100 years ago (but it could have been 2,000 years ago ironically). if we are made exactly of the same chemical components of the stars and ruled by the same laws of physics (some of which i feel we don't yet understand), then the origin of everything could be right under our eyes; a male and a female (beyond visible astronomical proportions). a child is a universe of atoms and molecules, which didn't "exist" before conception. in the same way, the matter that today makes our universe could have belonged to another universe.

I'm not sure if logic has really changed over the years. Logic is logic. And again, you're coming back to male/female relationships when there needn't be any, and there is no conclusive evidence to support it. (This is how religions start, by 'making it up'.)

The matter that today makes our universe could have belonged to another universe, but still doesn't answer the seeming lack of logic in something coming from nothing.

only because we don't accept stars and planets as life forms. instead we have chosen to label them as non-living matter, which certainly isn't. dead matter decomposes...

Another strange jump in reasoning. Why is suddenly all matter living? How is this provable and demonstrable or logical? It's an assumption without any proof; how religions start.

i rather believe that what fails is our comprehension, not the logic of the universe, the Law, God or Nature (whatever you choose to call it)

I agree that obviously, the universe 'exists' so therefore it must have came into being somehow. It just can't be defined by the philosophy of 'logic'. The entirety of 'everything', is too immense for the rational mind to comprehend. But what religion does, is suddenly make up a reason without any base in fact to explain this. Science explains what we know, and creates theories, but doesn't suddenly decide that, since we don't know how one particular thing works, it must be <insert crazy proposition here>.

that cannot explain the beginning, since an explosion implies pre-existing matter...Explosion is your word. I said an omni-directional expansion. Regardles, you defined the question as "how the universe came about" (paraphrasing slightly). That theory explains it. The expansion is the universe, so you can't say it doesn't explain how. It just doesn't explain why.first, you should never read genesis literally. second, you have to allow for different terminology, since science moved on a bit from the ancient wording of the old testament. third, if you read the very beginning of genesis carefully, it's not so distant of scientific belief.How do did you choose? What made you decide the Biblical genesis is more correct than that of Norse Mythos, or the one I personally wrote?

Also, how do you decide which bits of the Biblical genesis are correct & which ones aren't?

Meh.
says it all, doesn't it?...

Whichever number goes, five, six or 23. When I read mass extinctions in college, our prof only covered in detail the two more severe ones, late Permian and late Cretaceous I think. If improved evidence shows more or less mass extinction events I won't have to cry because I don't have any holy book to throw away.
don't worry, i won't be crying either and i will still be reading the bible and the tao and the torah and many other religious scriptures... the connection between the 6th day and the 6th "period" of life (between major extinctions) was my interpretation and i may be wrong...

Btw I can't find the word "period" out of your article.
but it was good enough for you to understand what i meant; the point that the bbc article puts forth: we are going through the 6th major wave of extinction...

so - according to this article - we're going through the 6th major "period" of life/evolution...

snip*don't worry, i won't be crying either and i will still be reading the bible and the tao and the torah and many other religious scriptures... the connection between the 6th day and the 6th "period" of life (between major extinctions) was my interpretation and i may be wrong...*

Well, if you're that widely read, I have no bone with that. Cheerio.

but it was good enough for you to understand what i meant; the point that the bbc article puts forth: we are going through the 6th major wave of extinction...

so - according to this article - we're going through the 6th major "period" of life/evolution...

Alright. Fair enough.

There are plenty of examples of science disputing religious assertions, such as the debate over a heliocentric universe, or the modern debate of evolution.
again, you're talking about the religion you have grown to know but religion was very different 2,000 years ago. i can point you to a gnostic christian scripture that goes against both these views and is much modern. amazingly, it could actually match very recent scientific observations, if you allow for different wording.

When you get down to it, many, if not most world religions declares that a being, or group of beings, are the cause of creation and natural phenomenon; with no evidence to back this claim.
aren't two parents the cause of creation of a child? have you ever considered that ancient religions and prophets (including Jesus) considered planets and stars as part of creation, if not the creators of the visible world? aren't we created by the "actions" of the stars? it's a matter of POV and our modern view of God is very different from what it was 2,000 years ago; much more backwards than it was then.

Were the origins of Hinduism founded by observation of the spiritual world, or did someone make up an elaborate system to help explain things and maintain order and people's place in the caste system? How do they know that people get reincarnated, and its about following Dharma and the laws of Karma? Someone made it up. (Again, my POV.)
i haven't studied hinduism yet, so i won't comment. the only thing i can say to you is that i actually feel that all major religions came from the same source and mutated as they were absorbed by different cultures. i say this because i've been devouring them and found amazing links, particularly in symbology.

Not being a quantum physicist, I'm not sure how to respond to that. However, logic is pretty simple, and logically, you can't have a domino effect without something causing the first domino to topple over.
just like you cannot have a child without having a mother and a father (or a life form that is assexual).

Now that's just a jump in logic that is strangely baffling; How does not knowing what is behind the birth of the universe tell us categorically that generally what precedes existence is a male and a female? Even if you look at the universe as a result of reproduction (and I'm not sure why you do), reproduction isn't relegated to split-sex species alone; let's not forget single-cell reproduction. Why are we talking about male/female existence prior to 'existence' at all?
i didn't say that behind the universe there is categorically a male and a female. i said that is categorically the set of rules we observe. obviously i do mean the animal kingdom. the male/female applied to the universe is an illustration. it's just a representation of two parts that complement each other to give birth to existence. some animals have both "sides", so it's possible that what precedes the universe also has these two complementary parts (even if within the same body). it's an hypothesis that we'll most likely never be able to prove or disprove, since we cannot observe behind our own existence.

do you know the jewish kaballah? it's a very interesting instrument that seems to bring science and religion together... i've wandered if this was what Jesus refered to when he accused the pharisees of "hiding the keys of knowledge" but this is speculation (i don't know if it existed then and i wouldn't take the word of a rabbi either, since it would likely be biased, so i'll never find out)...

So we're back at square one; something came from nothing, which defies logic.
again, does a baby come from nothing? yet, it was 'nothing' before it existed... i believe this universe may have been born from another universe, or even two universes, because that is the set of rules we observe. don't think we'll ever be able to find out.

I'm agnostic, if not atheist. If I think of God at all, I think of 'God as Everything', and we are but one aspect of It.
same here... i was atheist until i reached 30, when i suddenly became agnostic. i realised i knew nothing about religion because i judged it from what i heard during weddings, which is just a tiny fraction of what religion really is (the part that i don't like or conform to). there's a much bigger and fascinating story than the vast majority of people realise.

I'm not sure if logic has really changed over the years. Logic is logic. And again, you're coming back to male/female relationships when there needn't be any, and there is no conclusive evidence to support it. (This is how religions start, by 'making it up'.)
i would argue that human logic is always changing, what doesn't change are the Laws of the universe (don't take my word for it though...:D )

Another strange jump in reasoning. Why is suddenly all matter living? How is this provable and demonstrable or logical? It's an assumption without any proof; how religions start.
scientists are happy to say that stars die, but they won't say that they live. it's a POV; i believe that all matter "lives", because i have a different POV on what life means. i believe that everything that dies must live. also, consciousness is not intrinsic to life. if cells live and they are non-conscious living matter, what makes stars different, if not the scale? stars are born in stellar nurseries and stars in stellar nurseries create other stars, so does the energy of a nearby black-hole "fertilise" stellar nurseries and causes stars to evolve. the way i see it, stars are born, they live, they reproduce and they die; as i said, it's my POV.

I agree that obviously, the universe 'exists' so therefore it must have came into being somehow. It just can't be defined by the philosophy of 'logic'. The entirety of 'everything', is too immense for the rational mind to comprehend. But what religion does, is suddenly make up a reason without any base in fact to explain this. Science explains what we know, and creates theories, but doesn't suddenly decide that, since we don't know how one particular thing works, it must be <insert crazy proposition here>.
again, you forget that the origins of religion lie on the same bed of science. in the past they were lovers, now we want them to divorce. this is why science and religion were so rich in the past, because one fed off the other. rationality usually only accepts what it can see, religion (or faith) can believe (or consider the possibility of existence) of things which we cannot see. many of the brightest scientists of our past were religious or had some level of religious influence. religion never stopped science, until the more dogmatic catholics started persecuting it, since it posed a threat to their authority.