Theli

Yes, I know... Maybe I formulated it wrong. What I was getting at was that if a first cause were to be established than it wouldn't necessarily be "god".

But I don't think that a cause is needed either. Since the cause would have a certain value of energy, wich would mean that it must have been created also. But the universe, in one theory, has a total of zero energy and could therefore have been created out of complete void. Like I said... "Nothing created from nothing".

CodeMason

They don't seem to understand that logic is not a rule of time and space, just as it is not a rule of time and space that 2+2=4. If they try to use this nonsense on me, I ask them if 2+2=4 would hold true everywhere, and tell them that a God "beyond" logic would be both existent and nonexistent, good and evil, etc. They seem to pull out of the debate after that.

CodeMason

Theli: Time only exists in reference to space, just as something existing in space but with 0 time would not really exist at all. That's why we must call it spacetime, it's a full package, as realised by Einstein. Either something exists in spacetime or it doesn't, so if God does, he exists in space (a concept repulsive to most theists, and contradictory to the idea of "non-physical"), and if he doesn't then he is timeless.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Code Mason,
You argue:


What you call "ridiculous" is the Truth. Science teaches us, but evidentially not you, that it is ridiculous to put any stock in the notion of the ridiculous.

God is "causing the same event forever." That's the classic definition of creation. It's not conceived as something finished as the Deists presume. If God created this world, He is creating this world, i.e., there is no past tense in the notion of theistic creation. Far from being ridiculous, it is a necessity of God's nature. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

CodeMason

Albert: So are you admitting that the only state that God can be in is Universal Creator state?

Doesn't that undermine the concept of God being able to think and chose, and participate in the matters of his Creations, because he would be forever confined to only doing the same singular event, because of the problem of no change without time? Doesn't that mean God has no freewill, and could not have chosen not to create the universe? Doesn't that mean that it would be forever the big bang? Doesn't that mean that the universe would have to be infinitely old? The list goes on...

Theli

Did I contradict this in any way?
You use the word "non-physical"... Would you mind explaining what that word mean?
And don't say "not physical".

Theli

Nice work!!! I must say I'm impressed!
If god had a free will, he must be able to change his mind, and therefore must be bound by time, since he can "change". And anything bound by time can't be eternal, can it?
Only void can be eternal, and void is lack of existance (even god's existance). Therefore god can't exist. We might have to call you "Einstein II" after this.

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

CodeMason

Theli: Non-physical would be that which is beyond the boundaries of the perceivable universe and scientific enquiry.

Theli

But it still exists... And therefore should be bound by the same logic as physical energy. Could you call "dark matter" for non physical?

CodeMason

Theli: My ego didn't need such a big inflation at this time of the morning (for me anyway).