Scientists - How was everything created from nothing? (Satan, proof, power)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
cell phones, computers, cars, children (and that's just the letter C)
Perhaps this answer gives an indication as to why no conversations with you get anywhere.
These things are not 'creations' the same as the way you say your god created the universe... they are simply re-organizations of existing materials.
Existing on a higher plane, like a watchmaker>watch.
Not what I mean at all. I am not talking about god. I am talking about your general assertion that the creator is always "greater" than the created.
Firstly this assumes a creator. So you are engaged in circular argument.
Secondly though I am questioning what you mean by "greater" as clearly this is a value judgement. I could create a bulldozer tomorrow. Which one of us is "greater"? Me or the bulldozer? Surely this depends entirely on my definition of "greater". If I judge it on, say, pure raw strength, the bulldozer wins hands down. But the point is that we are the only "creating" entity we know of. So your generalization of "The creator is always greater than the created" is based on a sample set of ONE. That is not enough to assert a rule.
Thirdly you are conflating too many meanings of "create" here. When I "create" a watch I am merely reassembling already existing matter into a new form. That is not the same kind of "creation" that you are talking about with your god hypothesis. So you are making a generalized rule, based off a sample set of ONE, about one meaning of "create" and then simply copy-and-paste porting it over to a different meaning of the word "create" and hoping no one will notice because it is the same _word_ in each case even if the meaning is different.
But as I said that is not the bigger fail in your reasoning. The circular argument is. You are assuming a creator in order to use your made up "rule" to make comments evidencing the existence of that creator. That does not work.
Perhaps this answer gives an indication as to why no conversations with you get anywhere.
These things are not 'creations' the same as the way you say your god created the universe... they are simply re-organizations of existing materials.
How have we eliminated the possibility that God didn't "create" the universe but rather, re-organized existing materials?
And that therefore, "creation" is really the same process across the board - whether "Godly" or earthly?
Which would of course therefore include the possibility that a god didn't "create" the universe - that it has simply been an ongoing process of the reorganization of materials that have just always been there...whether "intelligently" or by accident of proximity (i.e. the interaction of chemicals).
How have you eliminated the possibility that God didn't "create" the universe but rather, re-organized existing materials?
That is kind of where things keep going in the scientific discourse though, is it not? What this "god" actually had to do to bring us to where we are now, keeps receding. The old apocryphal story of Laplace saying "Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là ."
That is what keeps happening, from planetary orbits to evolutionary theory.... the role of god is receding and receding. The most recent Media Quote coming from Stephen Hawking who is now declaring no god was required for the creation of the universe either.
So now if we were to declare that god was not even needed to "create" the universe and it's material either, but just to re-organize, then the steady back track of theistic thought has just taken _another_ step.
The question at this time for me is whether there is anything in our universe, including its existence, that we can say actually needs or needed a god to operate. And so far the answer is not. Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là .
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold
Of course, except for the fact that the question would still remain as to where did the materials come from.
A very human question. But the assumption is they "came from" anywhere at all...... rather than assuming they were simply always there, in SOME form or other. The whole "How did something come from nothing" question for me assumes "nothing" as it's default and I am not sure we are in a position at this time for that assumption to be warranted.
Perhaps this answer gives an indication as to why no conversations with you get anywhere.
These things are not 'creations' the same as the way you say your god created the universe... they are simply re-organizations of existing materials.
That doesn't negate the creator. Perhaps that what our creator did.
Secondly though I am questioning what you mean by "greater" as clearly this is a value judgement.
This has been my question too. When I asked previously (was that on this thread? I actually can't remember now, but I think it was) what was meant by "greater," I got that vague "on a higher plane" answer (so what exactly does THAT mean? Was Ghandi on a "higher plane" than Jesus Christ because Ghandi had never been known to storm through a temple overturning tables and screaming at people? Did Ghandi start out at a "lower plane" because he had a less spiritual existence for his first 30 years or so than the latter remainder, but then later was on a "higher plane" due to a change in his nature...?), plus the example of a parent being "greater" than a child because the parent was "physically bigger and more intelligent." I then asked if, therefore, Hitler at age 25 was "greater" than Jesus at 18 months and the response was crickets. Obviously the answer couldn't have been "no, because Jesus had the potential to develop into a 'smarter' (and physically bigger??? Remember, these were not MY parameters, LOL) individual than Hitler" - since my question as to whether a child who would eventually have a higher IQ than either of his/her parents was "greater" than the parents, was given a "no."
So what the hell is a "higher plane"? Haven't heard any explanation yet, except for the "physically bigger" (???) and "smarter" (if Himler had a higher IQ than the person down the street who is kind, gentle and helps others, was Himler therefore "on a higher plane" than the gentle person?) examples.
If we can't define what "greater" means, and we can't define what a "higher plane" is, then how on earth could this argument of a creator being "greater" than its creation have any basis at all?
Of course, except for the fact that the question would still remain as to where did the materials come from.
Well, of course it would, and I have that question too, and so do most reputable scientists of any given subset of that very very general, gigantic field (people tend to say "scientists" as if it's one isolated group of like-minded robots or something) - but how does "where did the materials come from?" mean that God must have done it?
If a person is able to accept "well, maybe God is just eternal" then why wouldn't a person also be able to entertain "well, maybe the materials are just eternal" - since by saying "maybe God is just eternal" shows that the person doesn't believe everything has to have a "creator"?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.