Thread: Who created God?

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

You haven't asked me a damn question. Ask them now, and I will answer each one of them. I haven't read many of your posts not replying to me, and we haven't directly argued..

No, seriously forget about it. It's not that hard to go back one page and look at my replies to you and see the questions. I really do not like repeating myself. So you can do one of two things. (1)Quote my questions to you and provide your logical response or (2)continued to evade them. The choice is yours my friend, all yours.

Why would something as eternal require an explanation?

In science we question things. Also both of us have no idea what eternal feels like, because our conscious has a beginning, and an end.

Dreamworld first- point out where I said I don't believe in evolution.

What are you arguing then?

Proof of Darwinian's evolutionary model? Because I believe if we had proof and that much evidence it would no longer hold the title as just a "Theory" now would it?

Almost everything is a theory because we do not know 100% how natural processes works. The bible is a theory, just like evolution. Global warming is a theory even though we can see the ice caps melting.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Okay this is what get’s me. Now correct me if I’m wrong, Evolution promotes the belief that mutations and natural selection result in one kind of creature changing into a totally different kind over long periods of time. Am I pretty much on the right track here?

Well, from Darwin's perspective 150 years ago observing small, relatively homogeneous populations in the Galapagos with a view of species influenced primarily by Noah's Ark--sorta. Not so much from our perspective now, given a more complete fossil record and DNA info on surviving species, most notably ourselves, as well as an improved understanding of the chemistry of reproduction. With the expanded data sets Darwin's theory has helped us to unearth, we find that sexual reproduction alone provides substantial diversity of traits as populations increase, only augmented by outright mutation. Recognizable traits are not simply passed along or discarded intact; they are synthesized and reconstituted through recombination of disparate elements, resulting in a continuous compounding of expressed traits which, in the presence of selection pressures which thin the herd and/or isolate reproductive populations, can lead to future generations which bear startlingly different resemblances to their ancestors (for instance, reptiles and humanity).

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

So what exactly is the purpose for pointing out speciation if it doesn’t show an any example of completely new additional information from a naturally occurring mutation or selection?

Okay, that doesn't make a lot of sense, but I suspect I covered it above.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

And as far as weight, let me just put it to you this way. You can go to any secular anthropologist and ask him to provide you with the most ancient evidence for spirit expression. They will confess that the most ancient evidence dates back to only 8,000 to 24,000 years ago. In the form of a moral code or religious relics, the most ancient finds have been primitive Venus Idol figurines from 10,000 years ago.

My 10,000 PLUS years compared to your 6 plus generations, you do the math.

Like I said "not much weight".

If you were addressing someone who discarded what you call "spirit expression" or saw it as somehow insulated from scientific inquiry, your argument might hold a thimblefull of water, but as I see Genesis, the Upanishads, the Dreamtime, the Twelvefold Chain of Interdependent Origination et al. as arising from the same impulse and fairly corroborating Darwin's theory, I've got your 10,000 years PLUS(111) my six odd generations.

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

In science we question things. Also both of us have no idea what eternal feels like, because our conscious has a beginning, and an end.
What are you arguing then?

Almost everything is a theory because we do not know 100% how natural processes works. The bible is a theory, just like evolution. Global warming is a theory even though we can see the ice caps melting.

See, now was that hard?

Btw my original argument is not against evolution as a whole, just parts of Darwin's absurbed theory of evolution.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Well, from Darwin's perspective 150 years ago observing small, relatively homogeneous populations in the Galapagos with a view of species influenced primarily by Noah's Ark--sorta. Not so much from our perspective now, given a more complete fossil record and DNA info on surviving species, most notably ourselves, as well as an improved understanding of the chemistry of reproduction. With the expanded data sets Darwin's theory has helped us to unearth, we find that sexual reproduction alone provides substantial diversity of traits as populations increase, only augmented by outright mutation. Recognizable traits are not simply passed along or discarded intact; they are synthesized and reconstituted through recombination of disparate elements, resulting in a continuous compounding of expressed traits which, in the presence of selection pressures which thin the herd and/or isolate reproductive populations, can lead to future generations which bear startlingly different resemblances to their ancestors (for instance, reptiles and humanity).

You are pretty much saying the same thing I just said up there. You could've saved all the extra typing by just saying yes.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Okay, that doesn't make a lot of sense, but I suspect I covered it above.

No you didn't cover it. Try again.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

If you were addressing someone who discarded what you call "spirit expression" or saw it as somehow insulated from scientific inquiry, your argument might hold a thimblefull of water, but as I see Genesis, the Upanishads, the Dreamtime, the Twelvefold Chain of Interdependent Origination et al. as arising from the same impulse and fairly corroborating Darwin's theory, I've got your 10,000 years PLUS(111) my six odd generations.

You just went comletely over my head, I have not the slightest idea what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

In science we question things. Also both of us have no idea what eternal feels like, because our conscious has a beginning, and an end.
What are you arguing then?

Almost everything is a theory because we do not know 100% how natural processes works. The bible is a theory, just like evolution. Global warming is a theory even though we can see the ice caps melting.

This is a gross misinterpretation of the word theory.

Originally Posted by Sandform

This is a gross misinterpretation of the word theory.

LOL

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

You are pretty much saying the same thing I just said up there. You could've saved all the extra typing by just saying yes.

Do you then accept that reptiles and humans have common ancestry? If not, do you believe that all species that have ever existed on earth were placed here more or less in their final form? If neither of these two, what is your position?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

No you didn't cover it. Try again.

I can't "try again" unless you can state what you were saying more clearly.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

You just went comletely over my head, I have not the slightest idea what you are talking about.

You seemed to be arguing that human history of "spirit expression" is somehow at odds with evolutionary theory. I find that same history remarkably consistent with evolutionary theory.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Do you then accept that reptiles and humans have common ancestry?

No I do not. However I'm curious about something, who/what is this common ancestor?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

If not, do you believe that all species that have ever existed on earth were placed here more or less in their final form? If neither of these two, what is your position?

No I do not believe that all species were placed on Earth in their final form. I believe that some species has derived from their kind.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I can't "try again" unless you can state what you were saying more clearly.

Okay in short, I'm inquiring where is the new genetic information as a result of speciation?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

You seemed to be arguing that human history of "spirit expression" is somehow at odds with evolutionary theory. I find that same history remarkably consistent with evolutionary theory.

Consistent? How so?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

No. He would not have been able to use his infinite power if he did not exist.

I don't think you missed the point "omnipotent", I think you're just ignoring it.

Originally Posted by psychology student

I don't think you missed the point "omnipotent", I think you're just ignoring it.

How can something that does not exist be omnipotent? God could not use omnipotence to create himself when he did not exist. Please explain what you are talking about.

The whole 'omnipotent' argument is a strawman.

As is the argument made in the video.

How can something that does not exist be omnipotent? God could not use omnipotence to create himself when he did not exist.

An omnipotent god can do anything. Including not existing and still be omnipotent, and existing at the same time, since anything would be possible for an omnipotent god. This proves the limited idea of a non existent omnipotent god unable to create itself inferior.

Say an omnipotent god does not exist and it was true. That still does not limit the omnipotent god from anything of it's existence anyway because both would be possible in the face of omnipotence it does not present a problem. Nothing presents a problem with omnipotence. The only way you can accept a limited non existence only is to make omnipotence less than itself.

The real issue we are discussing as you say is how such a thing exists already not if it could.

Okay, this is just getting silly now.

Paddle back to the shallow end of the pool. Quick.

You mean this isn't the shallow end?

Originally Posted by The Enterer

You mean this isn't the shallow end?

Of the gene pool, certainly.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

An omnipotent god can do anything. Including not existing and still be omnipotent, and existing at the same time, since anything would be possible for an omnipotent god. This proves the limited idea of a non existent omnipotent god unable to create itself inferior.

Say an omnipotent god does not exist and it was true. That still does not limit the omnipotent god from anything of it's existence anyway because both would be possible in the face of omnipotence it does not present a problem. Nothing presents a problem with omnipotence. The only way you can accept a limited non existence only is to make omnipotence less than itself.

The real issue we are discussing as you say is how such a thing exists already not if it could.

So even if an omnipotent God does not exist, which seems to be the case in reality, an omnipotent God does exist? By that argument, an omnipotent Mickey Mouse exists, an omnipotent Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, an omnipotent this guy exists, and an omnipotent George W. Bush exists. An infinite number of omnipotent characters exist even though they do not exist since they are all omnipotent.

Now, an omnipotent being that existed in the first place would be able to make itself not exist while still existing, if omnipotence were actually a possibility, which it is not. However, it makes no sense to say that an omnipotent being that never existed, like the omnipotent dancing banana , exists because it is infinitely powerful and has the ability to not exist while existing.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

I have considered a way to express this better. Mathematically. Some people don't seem to believe or comprehend in the essence of philosophy and what it is capable of or what it even involves. So maybe using mathematics philosophically will be something more easily and readily understood? It's worth a try.


T=Reality
X= The omnipotent
Y= non existence of a god
C=existence of God
D=Impossibility
E=Possibility


X+Y+C+D+E = T.
Therefore T contains X
Given X=Y X=C X=D X=E
When Y+D = C+E
When Y+E = C+D
X = Y+D = C+E
X= Y+E=C+D
Therefore Y+D=C+E and Y+E=C+D = X
When T contains X T = Y+D=C+E and Y+E=C+D.

Can you back that assertion up with anything? You can start by explaining where you get the idea that omnipotence is a necessary component of reality.

I would also be interested in seeing a counterargument to what I said in my last post.

Here I edited it again. Trying to simplify it.

T=Reality
X= The omnipotent
Y= non existence of a god
C=existence of God
D=Impossibility
E=Possibility


X+Y+C+D+E = T.
Therefore T contains X
Given X=Y X=C X=D X=E
When Y+D = C+E Then C+E=C
When Y+E = C+D Then Y+E=Y
When T contains X
T=C
T=Y

Omnipotent is the only thing that can explain Original Cause so it's a component of reality. You should know that you have already demonstrated that with your statement existence always existed. That means an infinite cause. Which is Omnipotent. Why are you trying to be difficult? Are you arguing just to be difficult or something? You demonstrated this understanding and then you take it back now? What for? That is not consistent?!

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Omnipotent is the only thing that can explain Original Cause so it's a component of reality. You should know that you have already demonstrated that with your statement existence always existed. That means an infinite cause. Which is Omnipotent. Why are you trying to be difficult? Are you arguing just to be difficult or something? You demonstrate understanding and then you take it back? What for? That is not consistent. You have already proven you understood it before. now your pretending you don't understand.

I am being difficult by asking where you get the idea that omnipotence can just be assumed? I demonstrated understanding of that and then took it back? Uh, yeah.

Eternal existence is not synonymous with omnipotence. You made that up.

Your trolling is kind of amusing, but you said that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is eternal and omnipotent. Then you said it is not. Why are you saying that it is? Earlier you said that he hid the WMD's.

Eternal existence is not synonymous with omnipotence. You made that up.

I'd really loved to hear your attempt to tell me how existence can happen with no beginning without an Omnipotent cause backing it up. Your the one making things up here.

Earlier you said that he hid the WMD's.

What? I never said that why are you being a liar for? How am I 'trolling'. What does that even mean and how do I qualify for that? Do you not understand the equation written above or just don't want to look at it because you know it's the answer.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Okay in short, I'm inquiring where is the new genetic information as a result of speciation?

Errr... It's the other way around. Speciation is a result of new genetic information.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

I'd really loved to hear your attempt to tell me how existence can happen with no beginning without an Omnipotent cause backing it up. Your the one making things up here.

Minerva Logical Fallacy #umpteen+1: Burden of Proof

The onus is on the person making the claim to prove the claim, not the person who disbelieves the claim.

That's three logical fallacies of yours I've found on the boards in just the last 10 minutes. I can keep this up forever... By all means, keep going. It's excellent practice for my psych class I don't take.