Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Ben Masada

Things God Did Not Create

1,940 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

White Crane Feather
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

Yours is one school of metaphysical assumption. do you think our spirit is made of energy?

yes

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Masada
If God created the universe does this mean he also 'must be matter' and therefore part of the universe?

I have explained to you even more than several times that according to Logic some thing cannot have caused itself to exist. If God was matter He would be part of the universe. Since matter cannot have caused itself to exist, God was not part of the universe but a Spiritual entity Who preceded the universe. Why is this so hard to understand?

If he doesn't have to be but gremlins must be, then explain why. If you don't explain why, the only answer I can think of is that you are special pleading (you can look up that term on wiki if you don't understand what it means). If you can presume that God is not matter and outside of the universe then provide the reason why you can't presume that gremlins cannot also be non-matter and outside of the universe?

I have explained to you many times even just now above but it seems that nothing hits the bottom of your skull.

I've provided a logical answer to your question multiple times: we, including you, do not know what caused this universe nor what is necessary to create universes. Without that information, I don't know why you think a god is a more likely answer than anything else we can just dream up

Not a god, but the "Boreh Haolam" aka the Creator of the universe is the most likely answer because you have provided nothing logical to stand against the logical statement that the universe could not have caused itself to exist.

I have considered an outside entity that caused the universe to exist, I've considered that the outside entity is God. I've also considered that there is no evidence or reasoning that makes a god a more likely cause of the creation of the universe than any other 'hypothetical balderdash' you or I can dream up. I can presume all manners of things, that I've laid out for you multiple times, that might have caused the universe. The reason I can presume all manners of things that can create universe is because we have no information on what is required to create universes or how that is done, so there's no way to differentiate currently between all these hypotheses. If you have some information on this, your mere opinions don't count, please provide it.

Wait a moment, have you considered that the outside-the-universe Entity that caused the universe to exist is God as you state above? If you are not joking I apologize and I have nothing more to say than that I agree with you. But that's too easy to come out of an atheist. Hence my suspicion that you are joking.

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Masada

If you are trying to convince us of this definition of "God" you might as well also try to convince us that sometimes 1+1=3.

No, but 1+1 could equal 11. By the way, do you have any idea how many times 7 is found within 77? Believe it or not, some people do not know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Masada
You don't know if the universe was caused to exist. You are basing your whole entire argument on an opinion/belief that you have, but that is not backed up by anything substantial.

As I can see, Logic is not for you something substantial.

I never said that the 'primal cause' is impossible- only that there is not enough evidence to make that claim, or to make the reverse claim. At this point in human history we simply do not know, and to make that claim that you know means that the burden of proof is on you. I make no such claims, because I acknowledge that I do not know.

IMHO, Logic is an evidence. I understand that the burden of proof is upon me and IMHO, I have proved my assertion with the help of Logic. I understand too that you do not know and that's only natural. My problem with atheists is that they claim to know that God does not exist as if they know what caused the universe to exist. That's the point.

Look at it this way. Say that you grow up inside of a house with no windows and you are not allowed outside. You learn all there is to know about that house, all the intricate details about its inner structure, all the different colors and textures. You start to make theories about how the house came to be, you theorize that God must have built it because "there has to be a primal cause!" but really you simply just have no knowledge about the outside world. To you- the outside world does not exist. You would not know that people from the outside world built the house, you do not even know that there are outside people. You do not even know how to define 'outside'. You have no concept of it.

I don't think the allegory applies because it does not pertain to our case here since the person in the house was not aware of the logic that the house could not have caused itself to exist as I am that the universe couldn't.

Take that person, and do you think their beliefs and theories about what 'caused' the house to exist are going to be accurate? Because that person is you, and that house is the universe. We humans are unable to look outside of it, unable to even understand if there is an 'outside' or what that 'outside' might be like. Our observations are limited to the inside, and so since we have absolutely no concept of 'outside' any theory or belief we have about that 'outside' or how/why the universe came to be is going to be extremely inaccurate. Now that, my friend, is practical logic.

Again, this last paragraph of yours did not help because the fact is that I am logically aware that the universe could not have caused itself to exist which becomes obvious that an outside Entity did that job. And that does not imply that an outside concept is needed to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Masada

God created every "thing," and that includes byproducts because they are a part of the order of "things." It's like a finished story: Once you know the ending, you know every single detail about it. He did not, however, create all unknown realities. For example, I believe He can't create knowledge that has never entered His mind in the first place. God knows every "thing" because He conceived the universe.

"Every THING is fixed and you can't change it" Jesus Christ Superstar

Is free will a thing?? Peace.

Tell me something. Were the parents of Hitler to blame for his crimes? No they were not and for that matter they were not liable to punishment albeit that Hitler's crimes could be considered the by-product of Hitler's parents. God created man but He is not responsible for the crimes of man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Masada

My logic tells me the universe wasn't created, but was born as part of a natural system, birth, death and rebirth of many universes. I can't say if is true, but It is what makes the most sense to me.

You have all the right in the world to find sense in whatever you please. The universe cannot be born of nowhere as if out of the "hat of the magician". Even if it could, the magician brought it out of his hat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Masada

Energy is an accident of matter? You truly have no concept of what Energy is...or isn't. There is no space...there is no time...there is no God. The only thing that Does exist...the only thing that has EVER existed..the only thing that ever WILL exist is Energy. Infinite Energy, manifesting in an infinite number of forms, for an infinite number of reasons, none of which I am privy to.

You know you have upon your shoulders the burden of proof and I can hardly wait.

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens

Wait a moment, have you considered that the outside-the-universe Entity that caused the universe to exist is God as you state above? If you are not joking I apologize and I have nothing more to say than that I agree with you. But that's too easy to come out of an atheist. Hence my suspicion that you are joking.

Yes, I have considered that God is the creator of the universe; I don't know who has not and I've seen absolutely no one here say, including atheists, that is not a possibility. But I don't think you've been arguing about possibilities, I thought you had been arguing about what the most likely possibility is; if you haven't then we've been talking past each other. You say in your post:

Not a god, but the "Boreh Haolam" aka the Creator of the universe is the most likely answer because you have provided nothing logical to stand against the logical statement that the universe could not have caused itself to exist

I don't know what 'Boreh Haolam" is, especially if it is not a god, and I can't find a definition of what that specifically means with a quick search, so it's tough to know to what extent I disagree with you. I'll try to explain my disagreement again just using 'God' instead. Fine, let's say that the universe required something to create it; I don't necessarily agree, the universe could have always existed in some form or another eternally, but let's set that aside, the universe needs a creator. God is a possible contender for being this creator. So are many, many other things that I've listed multiple times: gods plural, aliens, gremlins, a natural law of some sort operating outside our universe. So no, God is not 'the most likely answer because I have provided nothing stating how the universe could have caused itself to exist', the 'because' in that statement is not valid. The only two options are not 'God created the universe' and 'the universe caused itself to exist'; the two options at this level are "the universe was created by something' and 'the universe caused itself to exist' (again, we're excluding the third option, 'the universe has always existed in some form'). When you say God or Boreh Haolam likely created the universe, that is only talking about that first question, of who the creator is. Now I've already seen that we don't use the words the same way so I may be misreading you, but when you say the words 'most likely answer' I interpret that to mean that of all these possibilities, God has the highest probability of being the correct answer, it is the favored and best explanation. If you don't mean that and are truly just arguing that God is a possibility, of course he is, he's just no better of an explanation than anything else we can imagine, and I'll just give you a heads-up that many people are not going to interpret 'most likely' as just meaning, 'just a possibility'.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

You know you have upon your shoulders the burden of proof and I can hardly wait.

I have no such burden on my shoulders. Energy is not a 'byproduct' of matter...Matter is a by-product of Energy...Matter changes...Energy doesn't. Go get a physics book or something...geez.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

I have no such burden on my shoulders. Energy is not a 'byproduct' of matter...Matter is a by-product of Energy...Matter changes...Energy doesn't. Go get a physics book or something...geez.

I'm not a physicist, but I would argue that Einstein's famous theory indicates a co-dependency and "co-evolution." Matter and energy require each other to exist.

Energy actually does change form, in several senses. The big bang was a very spectacular example of a change in relationship between energy and matter, but both existed at this time.

I do agree, however, that Ben has fitted his understanding of physics to his religious beliefs, in the same way he makes everything else fit them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

I'm not a physicist, but I would argue that Einstein's famous theory indicates a co-dependency and "co-evolution." Matter and energy require each other to exist.

I am not a physicist either...

I disagree that matter and energy require each other to exist. Matter certainly requires Energy..however...can you really describe Outer Space as Matter? And yet...It is held in place by Energy. Well, wait a second though, because...I do believe that Physicists consider Space to be Dark Matter...but only because...of the famous theory of Einstien...I think...hmmm...no...yes...wait...

okay

I do agree...on a 'physical' level...perhaps I am confusing my MetaPhysical Reality with my Physical Reality (I'm sure I do that often) Consider the Energy of numbers or colors...yeah...but...then again...what about thought? Electrical impulses in our brain... Nevermind...I guess one must have a brain to have thought..so...nevermind...

Energy actually does change form, in several senses. The big bang was a very spectacular example of a change in relationship between energy and matter, but both existed at this time.

Energy cannot change form because Energy has no form...The Energy of a baseball is the same Energy of a MotorCycle...the same Energy as in a Nuclear Explosion...Energy has no Mass...but all Mass has Energy...but wait...If, as I say, Energy manifests itself in an infinite number of forms, on an infinite number of levels, for an infinite number of reasons...again, I think my MetaPhysical reality overlaps with my understanding of the Physical Reality.

I do agree, however, that Ben has fitted his understanding of physics to his religious beliefs, in the same way he makes everything else fit them.

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grandpa Greenman

You have all the right in the world to find sense in whatever you please. The universe cannot be born of nowhere as if out of the "hat of the magician". Even if it could, the magician brought it out of his hat.

You're seeing the Universe as single. I am seeing the Universe as one of many in a multi-verse, giving birth as life gives birth. No outside magician, just an entity of many other entities doing what nature does over deep time. You say the Universe can't come from nowhere, but that leaves us with the conundrum where did God come from? Your "logic" falls kind of short IMO, but then I had a class in logic.

Edited by GreenmansGod
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Einsteinium

I'm not a physicist, but I would argue that Einstein's famous theory indicates a co-dependency and "co-evolution." Matter and energy require each other to exist.

Energy actually does change form, in several senses. The big bang was a very spectacular example of a change in relationship between energy and matter, but both existed at this time.

I do agree, however, that Ben has fitted his understanding of physics to his religious beliefs, in the same way he makes everything else fit them.

Please understand that matter IS energy, and energy IS matter. They are simply different forms OF THE SAME THING. Matter decays slowly over time into energy. When nuclear reactions take place a small amount of matter is lost, being converted directly into energy. There are many different forms that energy exists in, just as there are many different forms that matter exists in. Energy=matter, simple as that. We do not observe energy changing into matter, but it may be that the universe has huge cycles where energy reverts back to matter (big bang could be how this happens) and then that matter slowly decays back into energy, then again, and again, and again. We just do not know! But God is just one explanation of many, no more logically valid than the theory I just mentioned.

Edited by Einsteinium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Please understand that matter IS energy, and energy IS matter. They are simply different forms OF THE SAME THING. Matter decays slowly over time into energy. When nuclear reactions take place a small amount of matter is lost, being converted directly into energy. There are many different forms that energy exists in, just as there are many different forms that matter exists in. Energy=matter, simple as that. We do not observe energy changing into matter, but it may be that the universe has huge cycles where energy reverts back to matter (big bang could be how this happens) and then that matter slowly decays back into energy, then again, and again, and again. We just do not know! But God is just one explanation of many, no more logically valid than the theory I just mentioned.

I THINK this is what I was trying to say, while keeping it simple. Even a basic understanding of potential and kinetic energy illustrates this. Energy also expresses itself in different forms from wave to particle form, so we can have radiant heat and convected heat.

When the big bang occurred the latest theory is that every where at once, in an "area" much smaller than the present universe, but much larger than a single point, there was a significant change in the relationship and connection between energy and matter.

A tree growing from a grain of mustard seed into a might oak, illustrates how energy can become matter (using process) and so does the growth and development of any living being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Id3al Experience

My thoughts: Qauntum fluxuation is the primal cause.

Ben you claim logic yet are commiting a informal fallacy: Agrument from ignorance. This rule states: assuming that a claim is true because it has not been proven false or cannot be proven false.

Also:

Argument from silence This rule States: where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.

And a couple more, You also break the most simple rule: Consistency.

You cannot stop logical thinking at the outside of the universe. Your answer cannot start from Logic and end in an illogical response and call the conclusion logic, or correct.

But hey, im only studying, logic, havent passed yet! :)

Edited by The Id3al Experience
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

My thoughts: Qauntum fluxuation is the primal cause.

Ben you claim logic yet are commiting a informal fallacy: Agrument from ignorance. This rule states: assuming that a claim is true because it has not been proven false or cannot be proven false.

Also:

Argument from silence This rule States: where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.

And a couple more, You also break the most simple rule: Consistency.

You cannot stop logical thinking at the outside of the universe. Your answer cannot start from Logic and end in an illogical response and call the conclusion logic, or correct.

But hey, im only studying, logic, havent passed yet! :)

If A is true...it is always true. If B is false, it is always false. That's pretty much the state of Logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

If A is true...it is always true. If B is false, it is always false. That's pretty much the state of Logic.

Logic is a process, not a premise. For example, before the discovery of a spherical earth, the world was believed to be flat. Logically, if you fall off the edge of the earth, you die. Therefore it is logical not to get too close to the edge. A sailing ship departed and never returned to shore, logically something happened. Logically it may have hit a reef, developed a leak, was destroyed by pirates, or fell off the edge of the world.

The premise is faulty and led to faulty conclusions, but the logic is sound. But even if the premise were sound (let's say we change the premise to a spherical earth), two different people can use logic to arrive at two completely different responses.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redhen

No, God did not create natural evil. Natural events of Nature are not evil. We tend to think so only when there are casualties.

natural evil is a term used in theodicy to talk about those natural events that cause harm, not just to humans but every other sentient being.

Therefore, it becomes a creation of man for being found on the wrong place at the wrong time. Even in the case of cancer it is the result either of a wrong style of life or unprotected exposure to radiation.

Cancer has little to do with "wrong" choices of lifestyle. Cancer is a direct by-product of evolution. God could have created the world and everything in it in six days, but chose to use hundreds of millions of years of unnecessary pain, suffering and death.

To deny natural evil puts you in the minority of theologians. Most assent to it but explain it away with arguments for the greater good, whatever that might be. Others argue for nomic regularity, a fancy way of saying "that's just the way it is", in effect, denying God's omnipotence.

All these and other justifications are woefully inadequate. So it remains "a mystery", the final argument, which of course is no answer at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Almagest

Logic is a process, not a premise. For example, before the discovery of a spherical earth, the world was believed to be flat. Logically, if you fall off the edge of the earth, you die. Therefore it is logical not to get too close to the edge. A sailing ship departed and never returned to shore, logically something happened. Logically it may have hit a reef, developed a leak, was destroyed by pirates, or fell off the edge of the world.

The premise is faulty and led to faulty conclusions, but the logic is sound. But even if the premise were sound (let's say we change the premise to a spherical earth), two different people can use logic to arrive at two completely different responses.

Exactly. Logic has to do with argumentation, and sometimes the most flawless logical argument can be wrong because information is missing. I think you've demonstrated it well with the flat/spherical Earth example, but I'd like to add one I heard recently from either Lawrence Krauss or Neill DeGrasse Tyson.

The Universe is expanding at a rate faster than the speed of light. This means that there are things too far away for us to ever see - essentially a cosmic horizon. But picture the Universe billions of years in the future, where the Universe has expanded to the point where all of the Galaxies are too far apart for their light to ever reach one another, they're all going to be over the cosmic horizon. It is theorized that Star formation will still be continuing at that point, and I see no reason why it wouldn't but I am a layman, and extraterrestrial intelligences could evolve on worlds surrounding those stars. They'll be able to figure out evolution, biology, chemistry, physics etcetera, however when they peer into deep space they will see nothing. To them their Galaxy will be all there is to the Universe. One of the major pieces of evidence for the Big Bang will be concealed to them by the cosmic horizon and they may never figure it out. Their logical thinking on the matter would produce a description of the Universe which is wrong.

Ideas like that only reinforce the idea that there isn't an intellect behind the Universe. If we somehow manage to survive the demise of Earth, we have to look forward to billions and billions of years of darkness, cold and entropy. Not exactly my idea of an intelligent design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

Logic is a process, not a premise. For example, before the discovery of a spherical earth, the world was believed to be flat. Logically, if you fall off the edge of the earth, you die. Therefore it is logical not to get too close to the edge. A sailing ship departed and never returned to shore, logically something happened. Logically it may have hit a reef, developed a leak, was destroyed by pirates, or fell off the edge of the world.

The premise is faulty and led to faulty conclusions, but the logic is sound. But even if the premise were sound (let's say we change the premise to a spherical earth), two different people can use logic to arrive at two completely different responses.

Yes, logic is a process. Belief is a premise. Logic is an avenue...a process...for determining truth. A ship never returns...if the belief (premise) is faulty, then all logic surrounding that premise will also be faulty. So, If A is true: the world is flat....and a ship never returns, then the ship went over the edge...logical within the premise...but...the premise isn't true...so, logic will not bring one closer to the truth unless the premise is abandonded and Logic is used to ascertain the truth. One might say, if the ship goes over the edge, isn't it logical therefore to think that the water itself would be going over the edge, since the ship is in the water...and if that is true then, wouldn't it also be logical to think that eventually all the water would disappear over the edge?

Yes PA...Logic is a process. A process that leads one to a closer view of that which is true...but only if one is able to abandon the premise as absolute.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sundew

I'll defer to scripture for this: John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2. He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

While this might sound like God is therefore the creator of evil, it is a bit more complicated than that. According to scripture God gave his created intelligences free will, to worship and obey him or not, rather than making them robots. With the creation of free will, there was always the possibility of sin (going against God's perfect will). Apparently Satan sinned first, and convinced 1/3 or so of the angels (see Rev. 12:4) to follow him in a failed rebellion. Then since he could not attack God directly, he influenced His creation (man) to do evil and commit sin. And thus the bloody history of man's inhumanity to man began. This brings up back to the Gospel of John, the whole purpose of Jesus' death and resurrection was to reconcile us to God: John 1:12 "[Yet] to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God- 13. children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God."

I liken God's creation to Him making the basic raw material in a sense, what man does with them is another matter. God did not originally make houses for man, or cars, or skyscrapers, or some of the new elements on the Periodic Table. He did however He did create the raw materials and human intelligence to make such things possible. And if I am not mistaken, man has not brought a single new atom into existence from nothing since the universe began. He has split and combined them into new elements (like Plutonium) to be sure, but again that is a by product of using existing raw materials to create something new, not creation ex nihilo.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Almagest

And who created Satan? And was omniscient and knew beforehand that Satan would rebel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

And who created Satan? And was omniscient and knew beforehand that Satan would rebel?

The Prophets created God and the Prophets created Satan. It has always been a 'control' issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

Yes, logic is a process. Belief is a premise. Logic is an avenue...a process...for determining truth. A ship never returns...if the belief (premise) is faulty, then all logic surrounding that premise will also be faulty. So, If A is true: the world is flat....and a ship never returns, then the ship went over the edge...logical within the premise...but...the premise isn't true...so, logic will not bring one closer to the truth unless the premise is abandonded and Logic is used to ascertain the truth. One might say, if the ship goes over the edge, isn't it logical therefore to think that the water itself would be going over the edge, since the ship is in the water...and if that is true then, wouldn't it also be logical to think that eventually all the water would disappear over the edge?

Yes PA...Logic is a process. A process that leads one to a closer view of that which is true...but only if one is able to abandon the premise as absolute.

So let's use logic (and I'm unashamedly stealing a premise from an episode of Star Trek I watched several years ago), and see if we can arrive at a single logical position. So the scenario - you're a space vessel stranded many years from home. You encounter a species that has the technology to instantly take you home. But they don't want to share that technology. Being an enlightened culture, you have a non-interference policy in place. Someone on the black market approaches you to sell the required technology. Your morals say no, but 60+ years is not something to ignore.

Now put yourself in the shoes of a First Officer. The Captain has taken the official policy route and ignored the offer of help. Now depending on the logic of the First Officer several options present themselves. Let's take just two as a case in point:

* Logical premise - the captain is bound to non-interference: therefore we should adhere to the Captain's wishes and follow orders!

* Logical premise - the captain is bound to non-interference: as such they had to follow procedure or else abandon their enlightened philosophy. The logical alternative is that the First Officer disobeys commands, and covertly steals the required technology by accepting help from the Black Market. The Captain can claim no knowledge of the event and maintain the status quo, worst case scenario discipline the underlings!

Two scenarios! Two different responses! Both logical, within the point of view of those who hold it. Which is more (or less) logical? What is your basis for such a position? It depends on the Captain, it depends on the First Officer, but both are logical extensions of the same premise.

So where does "truth" fit into such?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.