I'm not sure whether I'm agnostic or an atheist. Maybe you can tell me. Also, I want to find out if you can find a flaw in my reasoning.

My proposal is that God has limitations and could not have created the universe. (I also don't know if God exists.)

Definition:

The universe is everything that exists. (This includes the new-fangled multiverse theory. Simply put, the universe represents the totality of existence.)

Since the universe is everything that exists, God is a part of the universe. In order for God to have created the universe, His existence would have been mandatory prior to creation. I would imagine that it is within God's powers to duplicate himself, but not create himself. In order for God to have created the universe, he would have to exist outside of everything that exists, which means the definition of the universe is not everything that exists.

God has another limitation. He can't be me or be you.

This is simply because neither you nor I are omnipotent.

When people define a deity (God) as omnipotent, there are plenty of fallacies that can be drawn up, including the age old "can God make a rock so heavy that he can't pick it up?" question.

"Since the universe is everything that exists, God is a part of the universe."

One could easily do away with this statement by saying "God doesn't exist," and is thus not part of the universe. That's one solution.

"In order for God to have created the universe, His existence would have been mandatory prior to creation."

Most monotheists look at that statement, say "correct," and then claim that everything before the beginning of the universe (the big bang, whatever) is merely a "mystery" to us. When we say "before," it makes no sense if time was part of what was created. Perhaps there is an *eternal*, *outside-of-time* source for the creation (which one may identify as "God" in the sort of deist sense that physicists like Paul Davies acknowledges). I don't know what you think of higher-dimensional-theories, but what if the source for the creation of the universe is self-contained...like, after all the black holes suck up all the matter, ALL THAT MATTER is the source for the big bang...not a bigbang/bigcrunch cycle, but one self-contained cycle (like what Wilhelm proposed as "eternal recurrence" in Xenosaga III). If this were how the universe functioned, could "God" (whoever/whatever metaphysical intelligent being he/she is), be behind all of it? Maybe...if there is such a possibility as "disembodied intellect."

If I were to find "a" flaw, I would say the flaw is that you're working only with what you know, and we humans DON'T know a whole lot about the nature of the universe. we have some pretty fancy guesses (some of which are more plausible than others), but it's simply too difficult to make decent, logical statements about God and the nature of the universe when we *absolutely* know little to nothing about it.

Ramza

PS - I remember years ago when I was a more fervent, standard-Evangelical-Protestant type and I had an argument with you about God and Jesus and all that stuff. You Pwned me hard. I think I'm finally starting to grasp the sort of things you approached me with, and though I'm still Christian (in the "accepting the theology" sort of way), I promise not to be a douche bag like I was back then and tell you "accept Jesus and then it'll all make perfect sense!"

The flaw is that you're simply redefining the word "universe" such that it means something different from what it usually means when people say that God created the universe. Usually the word is meant to refer to everything except for God. "God created everything, including God" is absurd. "God created everything except for God" is an internally consistent, albeit arbitrary, claim.

So proclaiming that God either does or does not exist are indecent and illogical statements?

One could say that God created the universe, man created God...

God cannot be proven to exist or to not exist.  That's the paradox of all religion.

However, the "universe" may be inclusive of all that currently exists, not necessarily everything that had ever existed.  If there was nothing before God, he could have created the universe, which subsequently contained everything, including God.  If an asteroid falls to Earth, it wasn't part of our planet before, but now it is.

How about, God IS the Universe.

He can't be you or I, because we're PART of the Universe, and not the Universe itself. We're all little pieces of God.

That is actually one theory floating about.

Anyway, his omnipotency is such that he does not "exist outside" of the universe. Simply put, he does not exist "the same way" that the universe "exists".

You cannot beat the theists.

With that thought in mind, have you ever thought that God needs to be redefined? Obviously, He's not omnipotent.
He could accidentally produce a thought that could nullify His existence. That would be a very big problem. Just imagine being omnipotent and casually thinking, "I wish I was dead." Shit. Game over.

He can't exist outside of the universe. If he did, then the universe would have to be redefined. That's the point I'm driving at. What I mean is, even if a thumbtack were found outside of the universe, then it would have to be redefined.
Well, something has to be redefined. God and the universe are currently incompatible, by my simple reasoning.

Mathematically, the higher dimensions exist. It's easy to represent the 4th dimension, for instance. We did that in calculus III by drawing slices of 3 dimensional space. Trying to draw anything higher than the 4th dimension would be possible, but look really messy. So they do exist, in an abstract sense, and have no choice but to be a part of the universe. For example, you don't have to leave the universe to understand the 4th dimension. You can do that right here. However, to accurately visualize the 4th dimension - I don't know. I haven't decided what that would mean if a life form could visualize and move around in 4 dimensional space. You already know that 3 dimensions have a hell of a lot more space than 2 dimensions. Just imagine the jump from 3rd to 4th. I have read once that some people think God may be 4 dimensional (spatially). I'm not using the 4th dimension in the traditional sense of representing time.

I recognize that problem as well. But I do have intuition and Einstein regarded that as higher than knowledge. Somehow, you can know things without knowing them. That's my take on intuition. (The trick is to trust your intuition. You might be wrong, but you need something to work with when lacking knowledge. I don't recommend this course of action, but I feel it's safe in this situation as the stakes are very low. If my intuition is wrong, then no big deal. If my intuition tells me there is no bear in that cave, then the stakes are too high. I'd prefer a flashlight and a shotgun over intuition.)

I remember that conversation. I've had many opportunities to accept Jesus, since I was forced to attend bible school and go to Sunday mass when I was younger. My mind derives no pleasure from religion other than the fact that it's fun to think about. For some (most) people, it's fun to practice it. I'm merely an observer. I've always been that way. If religion suddenly explained why the human race exists in such a way that no one could question it, I still would not be religious. That wouldn't be good enough. Reading about it would be sufficient. Being an active member in a church just disturbs me.

I've thought about that stuff and it makes my head spin. Resolving details like that would require a finer understanding of reality. For starters, 'existence' would need to be redefined. For something to exist in a different way suggests that existence is not understood. That's my point in this matter.

  As for being part of God, well, we're all part of each other. We're all made of atoms (I could have some of Abraham Lincoln's atoms, as an example). So this idea has some credence to it. However, if God isn't made of atoms, then we have a problem. I'm not going this way right now as I'm tired....

Out of curiosity, what brought this on? I normally hate to read religion debates because there are never any new arguments brought into them, but I'm just wondering.

The finer gray levels of "existence" is easily revealed when we move into more abstract concepts.

In what way does the number "5" exist? In what way what does a process like "evolution" exist? In what way does something like "gravity" exist? Obviously these three "exist" very differently from the way an atom "exists". It's not unthinkable that God can "exist" in a similarly different way.

How could any of this make one's head spin?  It's not that complicated.

Maybe you're not bright enough to see the complexities.

I'm with Ryu. It's pseudoprofundity.

I like to think of the universe as a sphere, with the outermost "shell" being an objective, unchanging force that could be called God. Anything outside of this outer layer would simply not exist. Everything inside is the universe, which began as simply masses of potential energy. This God-force exerts its inherent nature and laws on everything within, though it is not an active force, but an unconscious one, so asking questions like "Can God do this?" etc. doesn't have a point to me. I guess you could say, it set the universe in motion but now simply "sleeps." God just supplies the potential, sort of like what the Zohar modifier draws from in Xenosaga. We humans fulfill its potential according to its rules. In this sense I see humans/souls as conscious offshoots of this God-force, so the "we are pieces of God" thing makes the most sense to me.

More on this here, the only spiritual concept I've found to be satisfactory to my intellect and my desire for a spiritual existence.

I don't remember the quote precisely or even who said it (maybe Niels Bohr?), but it went something like this...

  "Anyone who is not disturbed by quantum mechanics does not understand it."

  That quote can be extended to reality in general. As you can see, I'm not sure what God is, how the universe was created, etc. I'm not changing the thread to a discussion of physics; it's just that I needed to pull that quote out to make an analogy. This doesn't mean I understand reality. I understand the problems associated with defining reality.

I know. I've thought about that as well. And this is where we lack good definitions, which has led me to invent my own. This type of stuff isn't covered in school in a precise manner or even mentioned, unless you purposely take philosophy courses. There should be a way to categorize the things (all things) that exist, so there is no confusion. Clearly, the number 5 is different from a piece of paper with "FIVE" written on it. FIVE can not be used in addition, while 5 can. 5 can not be used in Roman numerals, but V can. They are all the same thing, but not precisely. I have never found a formal explanation of the levels or different types of existence. And I believe it can be done without catering to opinion. I believe it is possible to explain reality in such a way that everyone would agree, simply because it would be correct. For instance, no one could come along and modify it. It would have to be a complete definition. I'm probably losing you by now, but I have to get to work...

Regarding the original topic question, the flaw is you think you actually have a chance of figuring some or all of this out. And while you stew over this, I'm having a perfectly fine time watching football.

Merry Christmas everyone!

That quote could be extended, however that quote is nothing more than someone's opinion based on their own limited perception and mental capacity; it's adaptability is based on the premise that the one saying it has issues that the other to whom it is addressed lacks so a presumption about the mental capacity is made on the one without the issue to attempt to justify the one having the issue.  This reply, however, can extend to h3 because he felt compelled to make a similar allegation as you.  So while I see that this thread is now discussing the type of nonsense Plato spent with making up his Forms to make up for his lack of knowledge on reality I'm left to see exactly why you'd use such a quote.  It's similar to the Intelligent Design cabal attempting to give validity to their invalid position.  Oddly enough, in your case you claim that you don't even know if you are agnostic or atheist and yet you waste time discussing something in which you don't even know you believe if you did reach a satisfactory explanation.  That's the flaw; well, that and you admit to equivocation because current definitions aren't "good" enough for you.  What's next---are you going to argue into existence a place for Santa, assuming you don't believe in him?  The Easter Bunny?  Try and find a place both for the historical Jew Jesus and the more common Aryan Jesus to exist?

Don't get me wrong; I'm all for mental exercises thinking about silly shit.  You just shouldn't get disappointed that others find what baffles you to be elementary---even if you wish to defy Ockham's Razor and spruce it up with faux complications.  You lack justification to attack one's 'brightness'.

Happy Holidays to you all!

You hardly understand Occam's Razor and the will to use it. The justification of using OR carries itself many many assumptions. It's not a priori. I am a philosophy student and have cut this topic.

You shouldn't be looking for "formal explanations".. it's just too tricky. For a treatment of numbers though, Gottlob Frege has one that alot of modern analytic philosophers and logicians still avidly discuss. But even then it really crosses to the metaphysical plane. It'll take you a year to cover substantial literature about numbers, metaphysics and then apply it adequately to stuff like God and intercut that with philosophy of science methodology.

My advice is still to follow the trails of philosophy though, for some solid discussion.

Happy New Year and Happy Easter!

(Seriously though, why so early?)

Uh huh, ok, sure.  Whatever.  You've given no proof to the contrary, so I don't really care what you claim.  I'll just think of you what I wish since you have no trouble doing the same to me.

Yap yap yap.

I am amused. Intangibly, Santa and the Easter Bunny exist. Tangibly, simulacra of them exist as well. As h3 pointed out, they merely exist in a different way. So, Ryu, I hope you can see why this is so complicated now. Maybe there's something wrong with me. But of course, there isn't. I'm not trying to sell you anything; there are no membership forms. It's those that peddle their beliefs that have problems.

Here's something from a PKD novel that I feel is relevant:

"But you're still in the secret-service."
"Yes", Cussick stated. "I still am. And I probably will be for the rest of my life."
Nina hesitated. "Why?"
"Because Security is the lesser of two evils. I say evils. Of course, you and I know there's no such thing as evil. A glass of beer is evil at six in the morning. A dish of mush looks like hell around eight o'clock at night. To me, the spectacle of demagogues sending millions of people to their deaths, wrecking the world with holy wars and bloodshed, tearing down whole nations to put over some religious or political 'truth' is-" He shrugged. "Obscene. Filthy. Communism, Fascism, Zionism - they're the opinions of absolutist individuals forced on whole continents. And it has nothing to do with the sincerity of the leader. Or the followers. The fact that they believe it makes it even more obscene. The fact that they could kill each other and die voluntarily over meaningless verbalisms..." He broke off. "You see the reconstruction crews; you know we'll be lucky if we ever rebuild."
"But secret police...it seems so sort of ruthless and - well, and cynical."
He nodded. "I suppose Relativism is cynical. It surely isn't idealistic. It's the result of being killed and injured and made poor and working hard for empty words. It's the outgrowth of generations of shouting slogans, marching with spades and guns, singing patriotic hymns, chanting, and saluting flags."
"But you put them into prison. These people who don't agree with you - you won't let them disagree with you...like this Minister Jones."
"Jones can disagree with us. Jones can believe anything he wants; he can believe the Earth is flat, that God is an onion, that babies are born in cellophane bags. He can have any opinion he wants; but once he starts peddling it as Absolute Truth-"
"Then you put him in prison," Nina said tightly.
"No," Cussick corrected. "Then we put out our hand; we say simply: Put up or shut up. Prove what you're saying. If you want to say the Jews are the root of all evil- prove it. You can say it - if you can back it up. Otherwise, into the work camp."

The above is pretty inspiring, in my opinion. A future government might outlaw freedom of religion, which I believe would make the world much safer. In other words, before a religion can be formed, it must first be proved that the religion is correct. Christianity, of course, would fall flat on its (His) face. The world is getting better, however. In the past, people like myself would've been killed. But the internet didn't exist back then and I would have been clever enough to act religious to continue my existence....

No, I don't see how this is complicated in the least.  Perhaps you somehow converted Brandon, who agreed with me earlier, and he can explain it to me how this is supposed to be baffling.  All h3 pointed out that really made me cock my head to the side was when she barked like a dog---but that only confirmed my suspicion of what she is.

"Maybe"?

I've not peddled a thing, so who is this straw man supposed to be?

What's PKA?  Seems like an interesting read; outside of reading about the ilk of whom Ahmadinejad is a member I rarely get to read about mean ol' Zionism.  Is the PKA novel the basis of what prompts the following?

It is quite possible that a future government might outlaw freedom of religion; I believe a past one did it, so why not?  Of course, I don't believe that past government had much success.  Banning all religions should be just as easy as when you ban all but one religion---history has shown how successful that has gone.  Regardless, my only issue with you and the barking she-dog was that my not being baffled by what you were discussing somehow necessitated my not being "bright" enough.

People are nice.

'Tis the season.

That's PKD, for Philip K. Dick. He's my favorite author. Heinlein used to be my favorite.

You aren't supposed to be baffled (I take 'baffled' as a very strong sense of confusion; heads only spin so long) and neither am I. As I pointed out, I have made up some definitions. So I have made progress. You should recognize that reality (and existence) is not simple; that is all.

   So, do you simply accept reality? I've been told that there are people who see the world "the way it is". You might possibly be one of those people. I see the world the way it could be. So I am often very frustrated. It must be nice to see the world the way it is. I have no understanding of such things.

   BTW, I'm neither agnostic nor an atheist. My decision has been made. I am simply "not religious". It will have to suffice until I invent a new word or I find a better way to put it. (I carefully read the definitions for atheism and agnosticism - I fit neither.)

I did that on PURPOSE. To illustrate an absurdity. It's merely obvious to you (and you found the flaw, obviously).

  If one accepts the scientific definition of the universe, then God would have needed to create himself, which is impossible, since he didn't exist prior to the existence of the universe. Creating himself is impossible in any scenario; he can merely duplicate himself. Something would have needed to create God. There is a way to remove God and the notion of creation entirely, but I'm not going to mention it here (you can figure it out - it's not that hard.) I will say that having read what Einstein and Godel worked on together, I am convinced that physics has barely started. I mean - we know very close to nothing.

I'll admit to accepting the following reality:  I consistently remain unimpressed with your threads and posts like these.  They have not been remotely thought-provoking or eye-opening.  I will, however, in light of what was just revealed, recognize what I want as I want in spite of your absolutist suggestions and useless concept of progress.  Perhaps you can speak with the religious folk about how they attempt to reconcile what they want reality to be with what actually is so as to aid you with that frustration you often endure.

Congratulations on finally deciding what you aren't, btw.  I'm certain that breakthrough helps to narrow the field of the words and definitions that do exist, although I cannot speak for the definitions you have yet to conjure or new words you have yet to devise.

I see every one person to have a special talent deep within - everyone has something they're particularly good at or have a passion for. For some, it takes a long time to discover this talent. For those who have one, their life goal is to harness it. So then everyone was put here to become something and make a contribution to the world.

Nature is near perfect; the sun rises, then sets, four seasons always come (every year, but that's a man-made measurement). Couldn't have been created by man (and man is fallable and imperfect).

Some of this is just evidence that there is some higher architect or at least begs questioning of sorts before condemnation that nothing is or was there.

So "God", it can be a person or maybe Nature itself.

It's a philosophy I subscribe to because it seems to be the evidence for someone or something to have created us or this world as it is.

I think Atheists spend too much time being close-minded and vehemetly anti-religion or establishment (when in fact Atheism is a religion in itself). The most repugnant despots of our time were Atheists (Hitler, Stalin, Mao)... well I wonder why? Because they thought they were God.

By just acknowledging that there is something that we just don't know or cannot explain makes you neither - you don't have to practice an organized religion to question these things (like myself). Agnostics, to me, are the arrogant ones who claim they *know* there is no God or higher being or power of some sort.

Fair enough, but I say, why not just acknowledge that there is nothing at all?
No higher being or such nonsense, just what you see is what you get?

It seems a lot of people are not able to accept the possibility that there might not be anything at all (although it seems pretty obvious to me), and that not everything happens for a reason, and that just maybe there is absolutely no purpose to us being here whatsoever.

It's what I live by, and I have made perfect peace with it.

Seems fine to me, but what's the harm in believing in something? Maybe what you believe creates an afterlife. If there's something else, fantastic. If not, who cares? You're dead. I call it Hope. Or else, it's just [humanly] frightening to imagine nothing at the end.

There is no harm in believing in something, typically harm is found in action.  You can be delusional all you wish, although I don't really share in your one-sided 'evidence' of an 'architect', of course when you said "Agnostics, to me, are the arrogant ones who claim they *know* there is no God or higher being or power of some sort" you might wish to believe in a dictionary.  From Princeton, agnosticism is "a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God; agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence; the disbelief in any claims of ultimate knowledge."  http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=agnosticism

As for Hitler the so-called Christian atheist:  http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhi … stian.html

It appears that I have disturbed you. This is often the case and I've gotten quite used to it. Anything else new?