mployer:

The Op has hidden agenda for creating this thread.

He knew Bible creation started with 'let there be light'. He intends to ask how light could be recognised if there were no eyes.

Answer: God alone was present at said time and He doesn't need eyes to see.

So god has no eyes. good.
what other organ is he lacking?

mployer:

He created You in His own image doesn't mean You look like Him physically. He is a Spirit, He has no physical form.

Being in His image is having émotions and reasoning like Him

You are contradicting your bible.

AlfaSeltzer:
You are contradicting your bible.

Your Premise..??

I'm so loving this Religion section.. It's way too interesting...

debosky:

Sounds like contrived non-starter to me - the bible says light was created before humans so on the subject of which came first, both evolution and the bible agree.

To put it differently, there's no point in God creating eyes if there was no light for it to process.

OK. But which came first, light/energy or God?

BossTtdiamonds:
Your Premise..??

I'm so loving this Religion section.. It's way too interesting...

Genesis 32:22-32

wiegraf:

OK. But which came first, light/energy or God?

the chicken, I think.

AlfaSeltzer:

Genesis 32:22-32

This is quite a solid foundation to base your argument but the @mployer could still be right as God is a spirit and has no physical form.
Though sometimes he manifests himself in the form of man, this however doesn't mean he has a physical form.
Here's using water as an analogy, water could take the shape of whatever container it placed in; this however does not conclude that water does have a shape.

I hope I have not derailed the purpose of the thread.

Back to thread "Light came first".

wiegraf:

OK. But which came first, light/energy or God?

If God, by definition, is the creator of everything, then the answer is obvious - unless of course light/energy is excluded from 'everything'.

I don't see how that serves the presumed purpose of this thread though.

debosky:

If God, by definition, is the creator of everything, then the answer is obvious - unless of course light/energy is excluded from 'everything'.

I don't see how that serves the presumed purpose of this thread though.

The proposition that God created everything is a knotty one for believers to handle. It implies that he also designed Ebola and HIV, just to name a few. Those viruses didn't exist before everything was created.

AlfaSeltzer:

the chicken, I think.

there were eggs long before chickens evolved, but we may not be speaking literal here, true

debosky:

If God, by definition, is the creator of everything, then the answer is obvious - unless of course light/energy is excluded from 'everything'.

I don't see how that serves the presumed purpose of this thread though.

then let's take a simple concept like 'being'. if 'being' did not exist before god created it, then how did god come to be?


the presumed purpose of this thread may need explicit stating, but it's all very related. it is essentially about how things come to be, in a sense.

light basically existed long before eyes,so also other physical phenomena existed long before light itself....gravity is older than light if you consider the inflation singularity model a.k.a "the big bang" but what i find very amusing is that if you claim light was "created" by "god"(to be more precise the basic christian folklore of one)... then you have to ask yourself what "god" was ruling under...for you see the christian folklore describes the mythical being as being ruler of "light" and inhabiting in it(if mythical beings can inhabit things such as spectrums lol )...and given the folklore of the christian "god" itself it can't inhabit "darkness" not even merely because of the perceived "magical" character given to it but because by christian mythological logic a.k.a "the bible" that too would be in need of "creation".....conundrum 101...christian theists can you divulge more on this....

wiegraf:
then let's take a simple concept like 'being'. if 'being' did not exist before god created it, then how did god come to be?

My answer would be that the concept of 'coming to be' is only applicable to those things that have been created, therefore not applicable to God.

the presumed purpose of this thread may need explicit stating, but it's all very related. it is essentially about how things come to be, in a sense.

Fine - feel free to expand it as you please. If it's about how things came to be then, in my view, God is beyond that discussion as I've said above - God did not come to be because God has always been.

Weah96:
The proposition that God created everything is a knotty one for believers to handle. It implies that he also designed Ebola and HIV, just to name a few. Those viruses didn't exist before everything was created.

It's not a knotty one at all - creating everything (or more aptly the process by which all things 'come to be') is not the same as creating each and everything.

debosky:

My answer would be that the concept of 'coming to be' is only applicable to those things that have been created, therefore not applicable to God.



Fine - feel free to expand it as you please. If it's about how things came to be then, in my view, God is beyond that discussion as I've said above - God did not come to be because God has always been.

the point of this is to confront this. why the special pleading? why is your god exempt from natural laws?

all things need to come to be, but your god just skipped a couple of steps and already is? why?

wiegraf:

the point of this is to confront this. why the special pleading? why is your god exempt from natural laws?

all things need to come to be, but your god just skipped a couple of steps and already is? why?

There is no special pleading - by definition, God is 'special' - the 'uncreated', self-existent one who created everything. God didn't skip steps because there were no steps to skip - there was no process of 'coming to be'.

All things in this context should read all created things.

To make an analogy, everything produced in a given factory are subject to the conditions in that factory, imposed by its owner or the one who built it. It is unreasonable to expect the owner to be subject to the restrictions imposed on items produced in his factory.

debosky:

There is no special pleading - by definition, God is 'special' - the 'uncreated', self-existent one who created everything. God didn't skip steps because there were no steps to skip - there was no process of 'coming to be'.

All things in this context should read all created things.

To make an analogy, everything produced in a given factory are subject to the conditions in that factory, imposed by its owner or the one who built it. It is unreasonable to expect the owner to be subject to the restrictions imposed on items produced in his factory.

and that owner is subject to laws, laws he cannot overcome. he cannot just, for instance, declare he produces garri when clearly he's making indomie.

there's no magic about it. there are natural laws. there are also logical, objective laws. 1 + 1 cannot be anything other 2. label it how ever one may want, it is still '2'

one of these laws is that things come into being. steps are followed. so why is god exempt? just because?

wiegraf:
and that owner is subject to laws, laws he cannot overcome. he cannot just, for instance, declare he produces garri when clearly he's making indomie.

Stay on subject - the aim of the analogy is to point out that there is no special pleading going on per se - mobile phones that lose functionality after say 3 years cannot ask their manufacturer 'why don't you become obsolete every 3 years?'

there's no magic about it. there are natural laws. there are also logical, objective laws. 1 + 1 cannot be anything other 2. label it how ever one may want, it is still '2'

one of these laws is that things come into being. steps are followed. so why is god exempt? just because?

God is exempt because God was already in existence before the law itself came into being.

debosky:
Stay on subject - the aim of the analogy is to point out that there is no special pleading going on per se - mobile phones that lose functionality after say 3 years cannot ask their manufacturer 'why don't you become obsolete every 3 years?'

If the self aware mobile phone knew of entropy, or assuming a biological lifeform as the creator, the simple fact that biological lifeforms tend to die way before entropy kicks in, there would be nothing wrong with its asking its manufacturer when will it die. When was it born or created? etc etc. That would indeed be a very logical thing to do.

The manufacturer can not just wave away natural laws and more pertinently, simple logical ones. Though, of course, if you can show how or even why, I'm all ears.

debosky:
God is exempt because God was already in existence before the law itself came into being.

Special exempt status without justification is exactly that; special pleading.

For instance, it cannot have been eternal. Nothing has been shown to be eternal and it will likely remain that way. Infinities have no place in the natural world as they simply do not compute. For instance, when would God have say, had it's first thought? Do you appreciate how universal that is, how that problem exists regardless of physical constants or laws, eg entropy, etc? (Actually, entropy would likely exist in one form or the other in any conceivable universe, but that's another story).

Space, time etc are likely some form of closed loops, but of course that remains to be verified (assuming it's possible to do so ie, some things may be impossible to confirm)

Btw, did God exist before 1 + 1 = 2? God couldn't have done that as well, no?

Insisting God is beyond such laws, etc is exactly that; special pleading

Note on the op, even if it is stating the obvious, he may have been focusing solely on evolution though he did not elaborate, in which case your immediate argument may hold sway under certain (special) conditions. Ultimately though, as I hope to show, even in those conditions you aren't exactly home free. Step back and look at the broader picture and you notice glaring problems that are simply being relegated constantly. I doubt you accept even those conditions anyways.

wiegraf:
If the self aware mobile phone knew of entropy, or assuming a biological lifeform as the creator, the simple fact that biological lifeforms tend to die way before entropy kicks in, there would be nothing wrong with its asking its manufacturer when will it die. When was it born or created? etc etc. That would indeed be a very logical thing to do.

Again you miss the point - the analogy is that the 'law' obsolescence after 3 years of a mobile phone does not apply to its manufacturer. A battery typically loses the ability to recharge after 3 years, but the human heart does not stop working in such a short period i.e. different 'rules' or 'laws' apply. Yes when entropy is considered the human heart will also eventually wear out, but that duration is well beyond the time frame applicable to the mobile phone that to all intents and purposes is a different 'law'.

The manufacturer can not just wave away natural laws and more pertinently, simple logical ones. Though, of course, if you can show how or even why, I'm all ears.

That was never the point - the point was to highlight that a 'law' (e.g. obsolescence after 3 years) does not necessarily applicable to both.

Special exempt status without justification is exactly that; special pleading.
For instance, it cannot have been eternal. Nothing has been shown to be eternal and it will likely remain that way. Infinities have no place in the natural world as they simply do not compute. For instance, when would God have say, had it's first thought? Do you appreciate how universal that is, how that problem exists regardless of physical constants or laws, eg entropy, etc? (Actually, entropy would likely exist in one form or the other in any conceivable universe, but that's another story).
Space, time etc are likely some form of closed loops, but of course that remains to be verified (assuming it's possible to do so ie, some things may be impossible to confirm)

Well I've given you justification - God existed prior to the said laws coming into existence. If you don't accept that God precedes the existence of those laws that's your prerogative.

Btw, did God exist before 1 + 1 = 2? God couldn't have done that as well, no?

When did 1+1 = 2 come into existence?

Insisting God is beyond such laws, etc is exactly that; special pleading
Note on the op, even if it is stating the obvious, he may have been focusing solely on evolution though he did not elaborate, in which case your immediate argument may hold sway under certain (special) conditions. Ultimately though, as I hope to show, even in those conditions you aren't exactly home free. Step back and look at the broader picture and you notice glaring problems that are simply being relegated constantly. I doubt you accept even those conditions anyways.

There's no special pleading at all - let's get back to where this started from - If God has always existed and 'everything' has to come to being, then clearly 'everything' here refers excludes God. If you still insist it's special pleading then so be it.

debosky:

Again you miss the point - the analogy is that the 'law' obsolescence after 3 years of a mobile phone does not apply to its manufacturer. A battery typically loses the ability to recharge after 3 years, but the human heart does not stop working in such a short period i.e. different 'rules' or 'laws' apply. Yes when entropy is considered the human heart will also eventually wear out, but that duration is well beyond the time frame applicable to the mobile phone that to all intents and purposes is a different 'law'.



That was never the point - the point was to highlight that a 'law' (e.g. obsolescence after 3 years) does not necessarily applicable to both.



Well I've given you justification - God existed prior to the said laws coming into existence. If you don't accept that God precedes the existence of those laws that's your prerogative.



When did 1+1 = 2 come into existence?



There's no special pleading at all - let's get back to where this started from - If God has always existed and 'everything' has to come to being, then clearly 'everything' here refers excludes God. If you still insist it's special pleading then so be it.

actually, I think thou art the one without comprehendeth~~

I've already made allowances for most of these. I do state that physical constants, etc, may differ, no?

natural laws though, once established ie, and more pertinently, again, logical laws, do not. you are even attempting to use these logical laws to state your case, no?

god is responsible for all our natural laws, therefore it follows that it need not be bound by our laws, no? eg a programmer could write a program in which the universe is 2d, that does not necessarily mean the programmer lives in a 2d universe as well. you're using simple logic to state your case, no?

goot, I'm using same simple logic to point out another simple fact; things come into being.

soooo, why is your god exempt again?

as for the very relevant 1+1=2, all such logic and abstract concepts exist by default, obviously. do they manifest without matter/energy though? no. that would be juju. juju does not exist. 'nothing', in a sense, does not exist.

I could also say 1+1 has existed through eternity. but, like I've already stated, eternity is likely a closed loop with a definite starting point; the big bang. there would likely be a definite end as well, but I'll avoid nitty gritty

and saying god is exempt from being part of everything looks to be simply bad logic from my lofty perch. physical, natural laws would apply to everything that manifests, even if not our exact laws. logical laws would apply to everything, gods including. a programmer cannot change the fact that 1+1=2

wiegraf:

actually, I think thou art the one without comprehendeth~~

I've already made allowances for most of these. I do state that physical constants, etc, may differ, no?

natural laws though, once established ie, and more pertinently, again, logical laws, do not. you are even attempting to use these logical laws to state your case, no?

Once established being key - who established them? In my view God did therefore God does not have to be subject to such laws.

god is responsible for all our natural laws, therefore it follows that it need not be bound by our laws, no? eg a programmer could write a program in which the universe is 2d, that does not necessarily mean the programmer lives in a 2d universe as well. you're using simple logic to state your case, no?

goot, I'm using same simple logic to point out another simple fact; things come into being.

soooo, why is your god exempt again?

Your logic is different from mine - my view is that created things come into being, therefore excludes God by definition.

as for the very relevant 1+1=2, all such logic and abstract concepts exist by default, obviously. do they manifest without matter/energy though? no. that would be juju. juju does not exist. 'nothing', in a sense, does not exist.

I could also say 1+1 has existed through eternity. but, like I've already stated, eternity is likely a closed loop with a definite starting point; the big bang. there would likely be a definite end as well, but I'll avoid nitty gritty

[quote]
and saying god is exempt from being part of everything looks to be simply bad logic from my lofty perch. physical, natural laws would apply to everything that manifests, even if not our exact laws. logical laws would apply to everything, gods including. a programmer cannot change the fact that 1+1=2

That's your prerogative - whenever everything is mentioned, I regard that as every created thing, from which God is, of course, exempt.

A programmer didn't create 1+1 = 2 and came to be after the logic of 1+1 came into being, so he can hardly change what preceded him.

I haven't even argued that God is exempt from all 'natural laws' (however you may define that) - all I have said is that God did not come to be as the very attribute of God is the self-existent, eternal one with no end nor beginning.

debosky:

Once established being key - who established them? In my view God did therefore God does not have to be subject to such laws.

Already concurred. Just pointing out God must be subject to some natural laws as well, even if not necessarily ours.

And must be subject to abstract, objective, logical laws, eg our 1+1. Which we use to try to determine these things. ie a god's properties, xtics, nature's as well, etc etc

debosky:
Your logic is different from mine - my view is that created things come into being, therefore excludes God by definition.

My point being all things that manifest are created. So if your God exists, takes actions and what not, then it was created. There is no way around it, unless you can show how it will deal with simple time, etc related conundrums. All the problems that infinities entail.

Only abstract concepts exist by default. They don't manifest physically, at least on their own. That is jazz....

debosky:
That's your prerogative - whenever everything is mentioned, I regard that as every created thing, from which God is, of course, exempt.

Not so much a prerogative, simple logic unless you claim stuff like 1 + 1 =2 does not apply to God. In which case we're wasting our time, as anything goes.

So, once more, God is part of 'everything' so long as it manifests and takes actions, simple. Excluding it is just that; special pleading.

debosky:

A programmer didn't create 1+1 = 2 and came to be after the logic of 1+1 came into being, so he can hardly change what preceded him.

That logic exists exists by default. Do you really mean to say God existed before 'existence' existed? Really? Does one really have to point out the problems there??

debosky:
I haven't even argued that God is exempt from all 'natural laws' (however you may define that) - all I have said is that God did not come to be as the very attribute of God is the self-existent, eternal one with no end nor beginning.

By natural laws I mean physical laws. The laws of nature, eg gravity, physical constants like the strength of the forces, speed of light etc. These need not necessarily be the same across universes (assuming a multiverse ie).

Assuming a god created this particular universe and even others, it will still be subject to it's own physical laws, it's own restrictions, it's environments causal laws etc etc. Unavoidable as stuff begins; a logical law. A 1+1 that god couldn't have created. etc etc blah blah (said it already many times)

In this case the god in question would be little more than some sort of alien. Simple. A bit like some flavors of a deist god. That does not seem to be what you're describing, as you seem to be describing some sort magical being that supersedes 1+1. One that even created it. If it can supersede 1+1, if it created 1+1 through it's whargarble juju, then anything goes. There's no reason for it to bend to logical laws, let alone natural laws, at all. It would be capable of being an omnipotent that can build a rock it cannot lift and all the other such whargarbl absurdities. It will be capable of nonsense.

Nonsense is not possible (excepting of course the unmatched human folly)

Anyways I'll leave it at that. As we're now just repeating stuff. Kudos likely
(also, though needless perhaps, enjoy your faith. It's your prerogative. You don't seem to shove it down others' throats, important to me ie so meh)

Nice one debo enjoyed all the way.

Image123:
Nice one debo enjoyed all the way.

Best of the season to you bro.
hmm, this topic.

sonOfLucifer:

Best of the season to you bro.
hmm, this topic.

Thanks very much. hmmmm, this one muskee is hailing me, sufficient to say we are in the end time for real.lol