[quote=NoCapo;30505977]
Quote:
First off you are still assuming something was created. If you assume that energy and matter matter exist and have always existed, then you have removed creation from the picture entirely. Nothing has been created, merely reshaped.
If we toss the idea of "creator", since we have established that you are asserting that nothing is created ex nihilo, but is simply matter and energy in various changing forms, then we con move to the next piece. If we take the sum total of all the matter and energy that exist and have existed, you are correct that covers everything. That doesn't mean that matter and energy control everything, that means they are everything. We don't really know that anything is controlled or sustained either, just that it is.
|
I'm not assuming something was created. As matter/energy are "reshaped", things are created...No?
All the galaxies with all their stars...and all the solar systems for each of those jillions of stars. The life here on Earth is created and evolves...the energy and force of volcanos and the shifting of the crust layer of this planet create mountains, etc, etc, etc.
This is all done by and through the matter/energy that exists and/or has existed...which would necessarily include matter and the energy of any forces we haven't yet discovered.
It is in this way that all that has been created, has been created by and through the matter/energy that exists and/or has existed.
Quote:
|
On top of that, as I already mentioned, create, sustain and control are loaded words that imply a level of separation between creator and created, controller and controlled, sustainer and sustained. My point is these words and concepts don't seem to apply to a system that is everything, they are external concepts that deal in causality. In the same way that outside of time there is no before or after there only is, if matter and energy are everything, then there is no cause sustain, control, there just is.
|
AGAIN: I wasn't implying anything...you are
Quote:
As an idea, sure. In the sense of definitions 1 and 2 , there is no evidence of this. The atheist/Theist divide is not over the idea or concept of god, it is whether one actually exists outside the realm of an idea someone (or multiple someones) dreamed up.
To elaborate further, the definition you are using is, as I said before a metaphoric usage. To use it literally is to misconstrue the English language.
|
NOW we are getting somewhere!
The concept and idea of "God" exists.
"God", unlike other entities, is defined to be able to exist solely as the idea and concept that someone/something is, "a person or thing of supreme value"...and thus, "GOD".
As per the definition of "God"...ANYTHING or ANYONE, separately or in totality, can be "God"...not as a metaphor, but **GOD**.
I didn't make the definition of "God"...I just have knowledge of it.