₦airaland Forum

ScepticalPyrrho:
Which God do you worship as a theist?

The maker of the universe....

Simple thing

CoolUsername:
Maybe God killed himself to create the Universe? I think they call that pandeism. An interesting concept in my opinion, Scott Adams, maker of the newspaper cartoon, Dilbert wrote about in his piece, God's Debris. The guy believes that self-destruction is the only worthwhile challenge for an omnipotent being, causing God to kill himself with our Universe being a byproduct.

Obviously, this is very unlikely due to argument of God being unnecessary which I always make but it is still a nice concept to consider.

So an ETERNAL BEING killed himself? Pure undiluted crock.

CatfishBilly:
Creatio ex materia already said that the universe can exist separate from god, it just needs the continuous intervention from god in order the sustain it's existence.

I think adding that caveat is some sort of ad hoc hypothesis to make the argument make sense.

Going by the logic of creatio ex materia, god can go off in one direction dancing outside the universe and generally having fun, while the universe can go off on it's own to develop into the universe as we know and never the twain shall meet.

Why does the universe need god for its sustainability?

Because God is a pure mind , infinite intelligence, consciousness while the universe is matter, unresponsive .

It's like asking why a book needs an author or why a program needs a programmer . The author is the mind behind the book , the programmer is the mind behind the program .

spacetacular:
You still do not get it. The cyclical multiverse begins with a Big Bang and ends with a big crunch and propagates the theory of the universe coming from NOTHING.

The cyclic model is highly regarded among many physicists partly because it allows them to avoid the question about the origin of the Universe.

The start of each cycle is caused by the end of the previous one, but according to the model this process lasts forever, whereby it goes silent when it comes to the very first cycle.

Do you not see the obvious error and vacuity?

If a creator being can exist without the need for a first cause or creation and is simply eternal then why is the model of the cyclic universal wrong. Similar to your argument for an uncaused creator being the first cause the cyclical universe is eternal and it's existence is not contingent on anything, if you assume the existence of one non-contingent being or thing you cannot deny an assumption of the existence of any other.

JackBizzle:
One of his arguments for the ressurection of Christ is that there were witnesses and they could not have been mass hallucinating when they saw him.


As if magicians don't have audiences to fool with illusions

whenever I hear apologists use 4 eyewitness account of the book of the new testament, I always reply that Eight "eye-witnesses" say they saw and handled the golden plates that Joseph Smith translated into the Book of Mormon. That history is far more recent than Jesus' four witnesses who they also know nothing about, so using their logic the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints wins on eye-witness numbers and proximity of time. I then ask them why they aren't mormons

CoolUsername:
Maybe God killed himself to create the Universe? I think they call that pandeism. An interesting concept in my opinion, Scott Adams, maker of the newspaper cartoon, Dilbert wrote about in his piece, God's Debris. The guy believes that self-destruction is the only worthwhile challenge for an omnipotent being, causing God to kill himself with our Universe being a byproduct.

Obviously, this is very unlikely due to argument of God being unnecessary which I always make but it is still a nice concept to consider.

God transformed into the universe not that it killed itself , God became the universe. There is no reason to even posit that because there is no intelligence or consciousness orchestrating the evolution of the universe since God supposedly gave that up .

LightandDarkness:
If a creator being can exist without the need for a first cause or creation and is simply eternal then why is the model of the cyclic universal wrong. Similar to your argument for an uncaused creator being the first cause the cyclical universe is eternal and it's existence is not contingent on anything, if you assume the existence of one non-contingent being or thing you cannot deny an assumption of the existence of any other.

The problem of this cyclical multiverse is in the 2nd law of Thermodynamics which is saying that the entropy of any given system can in no way stay constant. It instead always increases with time. The value of entropy determines how long a given cycle would last.

The higher the value of entropy the more erratically moving particles will be squeezed in the process of collapse which will lead to a more intense bang afterwards.

Hence, the following Universe would expand more rapidly and the cycle will therefore last longer than the previous one. In this sense, each previous cycle must be shorter; thus we must conclude that in a certain moment in the past there should have been a starting cycle.

Note: this is applicable to our realm of perception. God does not fit into our realm of perception.

I hope my brief explanation above helps you out of this quagmire.

KingEbukasBlog:
Because God is a pure mind , infinite intelligence, consciousness while the universe is matter, unresponsive .

It's like asking why a book needs an author or why a program needs a programmer . The author is the mind behind the book , the programmer is the mind behind the program .

And we are now in the realm of pseudo philosophical talk.
Okay, thanks though. At least I learned something.

Heading out to attend to an emergency now guys. Do not miss me too much.

spacetacular:
Heading out to attend to an emergency now guys. Do not miss me too much.

Hehehehe
Nice duty....

spacetacular:
The problem of this cyclical multiverse is in the 2nd law of Thermodynamics which is saying that the entropy of any given system can in no way stay constant. It instead always increases with time.

.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can only increase over time. It can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state (equilibrium). If the universes begin with a series of blackholes which draws in matter and light and a white hole which releases matter and light, entropy would remain constant. Furthermore each universe would not be an isolated system and therefore the law would not apply.

felixomor:
The maker of the universe....

Simple thing

then you are not a theist.

ScepticalPyrrho:
then you are not a theist.

Theist - (Merriam Webster Dictionary)

Full Definition
: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world...

------
Please go and get a dictionary.

LightandDarkness:
.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can only increase over time. It can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state (equilibrium). If the universes begin with a series of blackholes which draws in matter and light and a white hole which releases matter and light, entropy would remain constant. Furthermore each universe would not be an isolated system and therefore the law would not apply.

The simple rebuttal is that entropy is applicable to a closed system (the universe is not closed) as you have already noted.

The issue here is that the entropy argument is usually misused by religious apologists. It has been also misused against evolution

JackBizzle:
One of his arguments for the ressurection of Christ is that there were witnesses and they could not have been mass hallucinating when they saw him.


As if magicians don't have audiences to fool with illusions

Craig's entire premise for the ressurectuion is false. He has stories and then tries to say that the story is a fact. There is no such thing. We don't know if there were witnesses, we only have a story that say there were witnesses. The autheticity of the story is what we need to know and determine not the rigmarole and lies Craig loves spewing always.

KingEbukasBlog:
A we talking of Christianity or theism? What concerns the scripture now because it does not even say the universe came from nothing.

Created out of the being of God is somewhat like panentheism, whereby the universe is the material manifestation and God interprenates in it but the immaterial being is yet distinct and greater than its material manifestation.

Ephesians 4:6 King James Version (KJV)
One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

I think this verse gives the greatest hint that everything was created from the being of God .

Chai. From theism, to deism, to panentheism. How do you like a kick to the face, bro? Stay in one camp jare!

felixomor:
Theist - (Merriam Webster Dictionary)

Full Definition
: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends [color=darkgreen]yet IMMANENT[/color] in the world...

------
Please go and get a dictionary.

I helped you with the rest. Stop it with the half-truths.

felixomor:
Theist - (Merriam Webster Dictionary)

Full Definition
: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world...

------
Please go and get a dictionary.

How can something transcend and yet be immanent?
These word salads are getting too much.
Too much mental gymnastics.

TLuzzie:
I helped you with the rest. Stop it with the half-truths.

You are never on point.

Read what the person I was replying wrote
And then work out why I replied him with a dictionary quote.

Besides, the part you added was never missing.

CatfishBilly:
How can something transcend and yet be immanent?
These word salads are getting too much.
Too much mental gymnastics.

Thats direct from dictionary,
Go and fight with it.

I always knew you had English problem.

felixomor:
You are never on point.

Read what the person I was replying wrote
And then work out why I replied him with a dictionary quote.

Besides, the part you added was never missing.

Don't get pissed now, mr. I only helped you to embolden the other important part, in case he misses it.

The part you emboldened only describes a deist God. I did nothing wrong.

CatfishBilly:
How can something transcend and yet be immanent?
These word salads are getting too much.
Too much mental gymnastics.

Hahaha. Double think and Paradoxes are the trademarks of Abrahamists. They carry mutually exclusive ideas in their heads all the time.

TLuzzie:
Don't get pissed now, mr. I only helped you to embolden the other important part, in case he misses it.

The part you emboldened only describes a deist God. I did nothing wrong.

You are never on point.
Immanent means "indwelling" or built "in"

Exactly what Colossians in the bible says...

And yet its "deism" in your mind?
Abeg just rest, my dear.

felixomor:
You are never on point.
Immanent means "indwelling" or built "in"

Exactly what Colossians in the bible says...

And yet its "deism" in your mind?
Abeg just rest, my dear.

I swear, your brain should be removed and sold to suya and nama sellers. I said the EMBOLDENED PART [read that a hundred times] decribes only a deist God, and I helped you make the "IMMANENT" just as bold 'in case he misses it'.

Something is not right with you, daddy. How do you like a cold bottle of cow piss? It should calm the turbulence in your brain o. This one that you just dey "miss point" and redifining what it means to be "off point".

---

That guy told you that you're NOT a theist because you said you believe that God is the maker of the universe and THAT'S ALL. You should have added ".....and transcendent yet immanent", nah. Had it been you did, he wouldn't have accused you of that to make you angry.

TLuzzie:
I [s]swear, your brain should be removed and sold to suya and nama sellers. I said the EMBOLDENED PART [read that a hundred times] decribes only a deist God, and I helped you make the "IMMANENT" just as bold 'in case he misses it'.

Something is not right with you, daddy. How do you like a cold bottle of cow piss? It should calm the turbulence in your brain o. This one that you just they "miss point" and redifining what it means to be "off point". [/s]

---

That guy told you that you're NOT a theist because you said you believe that God is the maker of the universe and THAT'S ALL. You should have added transcendent and immanent, nah. Had it been you did, he wouldn't have accused you of that to make you angry.

Olodo,
Read the first part of dictionary meaning which highlights creation again....
And then come back and see the foolishness in this your comment.

And Immanent doesnt describe a deist God.
You were just being foolish. Trying to be right at all cost,

Learn to absorb knowledge without teenage tantrums....

felixomor:
Olodo,
Read the first part of dictionary meaning which highlights creation again....
And then come back and see the foolishness in this your comment.

And Immanent doesnt describe a deist God.
You were just being foolish. Trying to be right at all cost,

Learn to absorb knowledge without teenage tantrums....

Baba, no offence, this is just a question, have you become functionally retarded_? Show me where I said immanence describes a deist God, after telling you in the post you just replied that I never said so. Show me, please.

TLuzzie:
Don't get pissed now, mr. I only helped you to embolden the other important part, in case he misses it.

The part you emboldened only describes a deist God. I did nothing wrong.

Olodo, the part I bolded doesn't only describe a deist God.
There is a final clause (God doesnt interfere) which must be added to make it deism.

You are the one on a retarded run, still.

TLuzzie:
Hahaha. Double think and Paradoxes are the trademarks of Abrahamists. They carry mutually exclusive ideas in their heads all the time.

Theists come up with the most bizzare adjectives to describe their god.

felixomor:
Olodo, the part I bolded doesn't only describe a deist God.
There is a final clause (God doesnt interfere) which must be added to make it deism.

You are the one on a retarded run, still.

Ani something is wrong with you se. So if you posit a creator of the universe without adding that it communicates with humanity, and manifests his presence in the physical universe, you aren't talking about a deist God? Haba, felixomor...... why you dey do me like this....

TLuzzie:
Ani something is wrong with you se. So if you posit a creator of the universe without adding that it communicates with humanity, and manifests his presence in the physical universe, you aren't talking about a deist God? Haba, felixomor...... why you dey do me like this....

Mumudeen......
Let me make it as simple as ABC for you,
2 sentences,

The boy created a car
The boy created a car, but he doesn't drive it

God Created
God Created, but God doesnt interfere

Please juxtapose those statement pairs.
If you still cant grab it at this level,
With that "boy" analogy,
Then you dont belong to this level of discussion.

felixomor:
Mumudeen......
Let me make it as simple as ABC for you,
2 sentences,

The boy created a car
The boy created a car, but he doesn't drive it

God Created
God Created, but God doesnt interfere

Please juxtapose those statement pairs.
If you still cant grab it at this level,
With that "boy" analogy,
Then you dont belong to this level of discussion.

Hey, I like your tactic, but e no go work. Make I show you my own.

1. The boy built the car - no further assertion made. THAT IS ALL. This is deism. No information is known about the nature of the boy or whether he does anything with the car.

2. The boy built the car and drives it in so so way for so so purpose - THEISM.

You com dey try too hard to "outsmart yourself".

---

Why are you yet to show me where I said IMMANENCE is a quality of the deist God?

LightandDarkness:
.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can only increase over time. It can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state (equilibrium). If the universes begin with a series of blackholes which draws in matter and light and a white hole which releases matter and light, entropy would remain constant. Furthermore each universe would not be an isolated system and therefore the law would not apply.

IF is the key word there. So your whole premise is simply a presupposition so does not apply.

The entire universe is an isolated system. The observable universe is an open system.

There are 3 main types of thermodynamic systems, defined by what the system can exchange with its surroundings.

1. An open system can exchange both energy and matter.

2. A closed system can exchange only energy.

3. An isolated system cannot exchange anything.

The entire universe, meaning everything there is, including things we cannot see, is an isolated system because it has no "surroundings"; it's literally everything there is. Obviously, a system cannot exchange energy or matter with "surroundings" that do not exist.

The observable universe, meaning only the part of the universe that we can see, is an open system, because the "boundary" of our observable universe is not actually a physical "boundary" in any possible meaning of the word, and both matter and energy can freely pass through it.

What I mean is that our observable universe has a "boundary" because if something is beyond this "boundary", the light from it has not had time to reach us yet (and may never will). If there was life on the "boundary" of our observable universe they would have their own definition of "observable universe" and it will not be the same as our definition, because there are things in the universe they can see that we can't, and vice versa.

The Multiverse is hypothetical Although there are many speculative theories hypothesizing some kind of multiverse, none of them have been verified experimentally and they are not considered to be scientific fact, just pure speculation.

However, if some day we establish the existence of some kind of multiverse as scientific fact, we will have to rethink if our universe is indeed an isolated system. This will, of course, depend on the exact nature of this multiverse and, in particular, how the different universes interact.

So when I talk about a universe I talk about the entire universe both observable and not observable. I hope this explains in detail what you did not quite understand.