Where Did God Come From?

[disillusioned]

Yes, if the conversation included those additional claims in the theist's first statement, then the question would be not relevant or meaningful in response to those assertions.  That conversation, started by the skeptic, would go something like this:

 

Skeptic:  Where did the universe come from?

 

A question.

 

Theist:  Everything requires a cause (except God) and God created the universe.  God is an uncaused cause and an uncreated creator.

 

There are three (or four) mere assertions here, with a side salad of special pleading, none of which is necessarily an agreed upon premise.

 

Skeptic:  Says you, aka just not in any way you can demonstrate.

 

The theist's fallacies are rejected.

 

So, yes, in this example, the question, "Who created God?" aka "Who caused God?", would not be asked by the skeptic and the end of the conversation because the theist had already positively asserted that (i) God is excepted from the claim that all things are caused, (ii) God is an uncaused cause and (iii) God is an uncreated creator.

 

As to your Jack and the Beanstalk analogy, it is quite like this second conversation example and not like my first conversation example at all.  This is because the story declares that the beans are magical beans before they grew to the sky (implying they don't need fertilizer at all) and the question, "[W]hat kind of fertilizer did Jack use to make the beanstalk grow so tall?", being in the past tense, indicates that the question was asked (i) after the information that the beans were magical beans was disclosed and (ii) after the beanstalk grew into the sky.

 

I think we're more or less on the same page here. I would contend, however, that even in your first example the skeptic would do better to simply point out that the theists' assertion that God created everything need not be accepted. This assertion is not helpful, and there is really no reason to think that it is true. I think this is a much more sound approach than to ask "who created God?" because, even in this first conversation, the theist will likely just reply "God is not created, He is eternal". Thus, I still think that the question "who created God?" fails to do anything useful. No thinking theist will be troubled by this question, so why should we bother with it?

[2PhiloVoid]

 

 

 

 

Maybe this is just the contrarian in me, but I have never been happy with the argument "who created God?". To me this seems intellectually lazy. God is posited to be eternal. Hence the question does not apply. It seems to me that if we wish to combat the notion of God we must (and certainly can) do better than this.

 

Good perception on this issue, Disillusioned. I'm very inclined to agree with you. Kudos to you!!! (I always thought that argument was a cheap ontological shot, one that ignores a whole bunch of conceptual and theological meanings and analytical connotations. But, many people want an easy answer...)

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

 

Please identify these "conceptual and theological meanings" (your words) as well as these "analytical connotations" (again, your words).  Afterwards, you, I and others can categorize each as mere assertion without evidentiary support, philosophical woo woo, semantic nonsense, world salad, theological proclamation, the world according to you (or others) or something else.  Please keep your focus on the narrow topic of the linear question, "Who created God?"  And, why you are at it, please explain how the linear question, "Who created God?" is an argument (your word).

 

 

Ok, Sdelsolray

 

Yes, you are correct. I referred to the question at hand, “Who created God?” as a form of argument, but I did so initially to signify my recognition that Disillusioned had already done the same.

 

However, despite the fact that the question is syntactically a question, it can be used with alternate intentions (as an alternative “speech-act”), that is, other than as a bona-fide inquiry. Because of the semantic nature of the question, it can imply an aspersion of denial upon the nature and/or meaning of the term ‘God,’ without requiring an answer and often without being recognized as such. I’d say that it almost qualifies as a rhetorical device, by which a ‘cheap, ontological shot’ may be delivered to the recipients of its locution, paralleling Disillusioned’s suggestion that the question is a thought fit for a “lazy-man.” As Disillusioned also states in another post, there are better arguments that can be used to ‘kill’ God.

 

The use of the question can also qualify as a fallacy, one involving the misuse of religious language.

 

 

 

Nonsense!  Our ancestors created God.  The truth is obvious.  Your favorite God was created the same way as Zeus, Odin and Ra.

 

 

Which part is "nonsense," MM? Remember, my last post above was contextualized by Sdelsolray's request that I narrow my focus to discussion of the question itself. The El/Yahweh distinction is a separate, although not completely unrelated, issue. I'm only addressing Sdelsolray's request here.

 

Of course, the Hebraic conceptualization of God may have been created in the same way as other cultures of the time, although I will differ with you in that I don't think it is  explicitly 'obvious.' Sensible, perhaps, but not overtly obvious.

 

(By the way, in reference to an earlier post, I apologize if I 'sounded' like I was being condescending to you. I actually was not intending to be...If we were talking about this in 'real time,' it would probably be over some lunch at Panara Bread. Unfortunately, attitudinal queues get lost in this format of communication.)

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

[sdelsolray]

 

Yes, if the conversation included those additional claims in the theist's first statement, then the question would be not relevant or meaningful in response to those assertions.  That conversation, started by the skeptic, would go something like this:

 

Skeptic:  Where did the universe come from?

 

A question.

 

Theist:  Everything requires a cause (except God) and God created the universe.  God is an uncaused cause and an uncreated creator.

 

There are three (or four) mere assertions here, with a side salad of special pleading, none of which is necessarily an agreed upon premise.

 

Skeptic:  Says you, aka just not in any way you can demonstrate.

 

The theist's fallacies are rejected.

 

So, yes, in this example, the question, "Who created God?" aka "Who caused God?", would not be asked by the skeptic and the end of the conversation because the theist had already positively asserted that (i) God is excepted from the claim that all things are caused, (ii) God is an uncaused cause and (iii) God is an uncreated creator.

 

As to your Jack and the Beanstalk analogy, it is quite like this second conversation example and not like my first conversation example at all.  This is because the story declares that the beans are magical beans before they grew to the sky (implying they don't need fertilizer at all) and the question, "[W]hat kind of fertilizer did Jack use to make the beanstalk grow so tall?", being in the past tense, indicates that the question was asked (i) after the information that the beans were magical beans was disclosed and (ii) after the beanstalk grew into the sky.

 

I think we're more or less on the same page here. I would contend, however, that even in your first example the skeptic would do better to simply point out that the theists' assertion that God created everything need not be accepted. This assertion is not helpful, and there is really no reason to think that it is true. I think this is a much more sound approach than to ask "who created God?" because, even in this first conversation, the theist will likely just reply "God is not created, He is eternal". Thus, I still think that the question "who created God?" fails to do anything useful. No thinking theist will be troubled by this question, so why should we bother with it?

 

The question may be necessary to force the theist to make the claim that their god is eternal, is uncaused, etc. (assuming that claim had not yet been positively made or necessarily implied from earlier claims).  And yes, if the only claim is, "God created everything", and nothing more is positively asserted or necessarily implied by the theist, then it is probably best to demand evidentiary support for that single bald assertion or to reject it out of hand.  But, taking this a bit further, why wouldn't the initial question (in my second example), "Where did the universe come from?", asked by the skeptic, or the OP's original question in this thread, "Where did God come from?", also be not useful, if asked of the theist?

[sdelsolray]

 

 

 

Maybe this is just the contrarian in me, but I have never been happy with the argument "who created God?". To me this seems intellectually lazy. God is posited to be eternal. Hence the question does not apply. It seems to me that if we wish to combat the notion of God we must (and certainly can) do better than this.

 

Good perception on this issue, Disillusioned. I'm very inclined to agree with you. Kudos to you!!! (I always thought that argument was a cheap ontological shot, one that ignores a whole bunch of conceptual and theological meanings and analytical connotations. But, many people want an easy answer...)

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

 

Please identify these "conceptual and theological meanings" (your words) as well as these "analytical connotations" (again, your words).  Afterwards, you, I and others can categorize each as mere assertion without evidentiary support, philosophical woo woo, semantic nonsense, world salad, theological proclamation, the world according to you (or others) or something else.  Please keep your focus on the narrow topic of the linear question, "Who created God?"  And, why you are at it, please explain how the linear question, "Who created God?" is an argument (your word).

 

 

Ok, Sdelsolray

 

Yes, you are correct. I referred to the question at hand, “Who created God?” as a form of argument, but I did so initially to signify my recognition that Disillusioned had already done the same.

 

However, despite the fact that the question is syntactically a question, it can be used with alternate intentions (as an alternative “speech-act”), that is, other than as a bona-fide inquiry. Because of the semantic nature of the question, it can imply an aspersion of denial upon the nature and/or meaning of the term ‘God,’ without requiring an answer and often without being recognized as such. I’d say that it almost qualifies as a rhetorical device, by which a ‘cheap, ontological shot’ may be delivered to the recipients of its locution, paralleling Disillusioned’s suggestion that the question is a thought fit for a “lazy-man.” As Disillusioned also states in another post, there are better arguments that can be used to ‘kill’ God.

 

The use of the question can also qualify as a fallacy, one involving the misuse of religious language.

 

Peace,

2PhiloVoid

 

Whether the question, "Who created God?", is something other than a simple inquiry, implies a denial of (someone else's) nature and/or meaning of the term ;God", or is a rhetorical device, is speculative and subjective.  I asked you to treat the question in a linear fashion, by which I meant to take it literally without infusing such speculation and subjectivity.

 

As I pointed out in earlier posts in this thread, the content and flow of the conversation between a theist and skeptic objectively demonstrates that the question, "Who created God?" may be probative, and it may not.  Here's another example:

 

Theist:  God created everything.

 

A mere assertion.

 

Skeptic:  Who created God?

 

A question.

 

Theist:  I don't know.  I believe all things are caused and I believe God is uncaused, but I am aware that holding those two beliefs simultaneously creates a contradiction, and may be criticized as special pleading.  Since I do not have sufficient evidence to support one belief over the other, the only honest and rational answer to your question, "Who created God?", is, "I don't know."

 

A rational response.

 

More importantly, I'm interested in this "fallacy of misuse of religious language" you mention at the end of your post and how the question, "Who created God?", is (or could be) an example of this fallacy.  I'm familiar with some fallacies of language, such as misuse of metaphor or equivocation, but I've never heard of "fallacy of misuse of religious language".  Do certain religions have superior rights to the use of certain language?  Please enlighten me.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

Maybe this is just the contrarian in me, but I have never been happy with the argument "who created God?". To me this seems intellectually lazy. God is posited to be eternal. Hence the question does not apply. It seems to me that if we wish to combat the notion of God we must (and certainly can) do better than this.

 

Good perception on this issue, Disillusioned. I'm very inclined to agree with you. Kudos to you!!! (I always thought that argument was a cheap ontological shot, one that ignores a whole bunch of conceptual and theological meanings and analytical connotations. But, many people want an easy answer...)

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

 

Please identify these "conceptual and theological meanings" (your words) as well as these "analytical connotations" (again, your words).  Afterwards, you, I and others can categorize each as mere assertion without evidentiary support, philosophical woo woo, semantic nonsense, world salad, theological proclamation, the world according to you (or others) or something else.  Please keep your focus on the narrow topic of the linear question, "Who created God?"  And, why you are at it, please explain how the linear question, "Who created God?" is an argument (your word).

 

 

Ok, Sdelsolray

 

Yes, you are correct. I referred to the question at hand, “Who created God?” as a form of argument, but I did so initially to signify my recognition that Disillusioned had already done the same.

 

However, despite the fact that the question is syntactically a question, it can be used with alternate intentions (as an alternative “speech-act”), that is, other than as a bona-fide inquiry. Because of the semantic nature of the question, it can imply an aspersion of denial upon the nature and/or meaning of the term ‘God,’ without requiring an answer and often without being recognized as such. I’d say that it almost qualifies as a rhetorical device, by which a ‘cheap, ontological shot’ may be delivered to the recipients of its locution, paralleling Disillusioned’s suggestion that the question is a thought fit for a “lazy-man.” As Disillusioned also states in another post, there are better arguments that can be used to ‘kill’ God.

 

The use of the question can also qualify as a fallacy, one involving the misuse of religious language.

 

Peace,

2PhiloVoid

 

 

Shortly after you arrived in this forum 2P, you explained that one of the reasons you were here was to improve your writing style.

.

.

.

Clarity and brevity.

.

.

.

Those three words are the constructive criticism I now offer to you to improve your writing style.

As a worked example of clarity and brevity in action - did you note that I was able to send exactly the message I wanted to you in another thread without the use of a single word?  So when you post, can you say what you mean using the simplest possible language and in the fewest possible words?

 

And if not, why not?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

If you can't see it 2P, it's the image of an olive branch.

[mymistake]

(By the way, in reference to an earlier post, I apologize if I 'sounded' like I was being condescending to you. I actually was not intending to be...If we were talking about this in 'real time,' it would probably be over some lunch at Panara Bread. Unfortunately, attitudinal queues get lost in this format of communication.)

 

 

Relax.  I was not offended.  I'm not looking for an apology.  Rather, I wish you would deal with the problem confronting your side of the debate: Your religion is no better off than any of the thousands of other religions.  They can't all be right but they can all be wrong.

 

 

 

 

Which part is "nonsense," MM?

 

I strongly disagree with the statements:   

"The use of the question can also qualify as a fallacy, one involving the misuse of religious language."

and

"I’d say that it almost qualifies as a rhetorical device, by which a ‘cheap, ontological shot’ may be delivered to the recipients of its locution . . . "

 

 

Of course, the Hebraic conceptualization of God may have been created in the same way as other cultures of the time, although I will differ with you in that I don't think it is  explicitly 'obvious.' Sensible, perhaps, but not overtly obvious.

 

Billions of people have been tricked into believing delusions.  To a mind blinded by such indoctrination the obvious is elusive.  But you would not make such arguments if we were discussing "Where comic book characters come from?" or "Where cinema films come from?".  The difference is that nobody was raised to believe that Wonder Woman is real, existed for all eternity and created our entire universe.

 

Where does Santa Clause come from?  The answer is obvious to those who do not believe in Santa.  Where does the Easter Bunny come from?  Again it is obvious to non-believers and it's the same place Santa comes from.  Wonder Woman, Superman and Jesus Christ came from the same place too.  Of course you won't believe me about Christ but you do agree that Zeus, Odin, Ra, Krishna are obviously all man made. 

[2PhiloVoid]

 

 

 

 

Maybe this is just the contrarian in me, but I have never been happy with the argument "who created God?". To me this seems intellectually lazy. God is posited to be eternal. Hence the question does not apply. It seems to me that if we wish to combat the notion of God we must (and certainly can) do better than this.

 

Good perception on this issue, Disillusioned. I'm very inclined to agree with you. Kudos to you!!! (I always thought that argument was a cheap ontological shot, one that ignores a whole bunch of conceptual and theological meanings and analytical connotations. But, many people want an easy answer...)

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

 

Please identify these "conceptual and theological meanings" (your words) as well as these "analytical connotations" (again, your words).  Afterwards, you, I and others can categorize each as mere assertion without evidentiary support, philosophical woo woo, semantic nonsense, world salad, theological proclamation, the world according to you (or others) or something else.  Please keep your focus on the narrow topic of the linear question, "Who created God?"  And, why you are at it, please explain how the linear question, "Who created God?" is an argument (your word).

 

 

Ok, Sdelsolray

 

Yes, you are correct. I referred to the question at hand, “Who created God?” as a form of argument, but I did so initially to signify my recognition that Disillusioned had already done the same.

 

However, despite the fact that the question is syntactically a question, it can be used with alternate intentions (as an alternative “speech-act”), that is, other than as a bona-fide inquiry. Because of the semantic nature of the question, it can imply an aspersion of denial upon the nature and/or meaning of the term ‘God,’ without requiring an answer and often without being recognized as such. I’d say that it almost qualifies as a rhetorical device, by which a ‘cheap, ontological shot’ may be delivered to the recipients of its locution, paralleling Disillusioned’s suggestion that the question is a thought fit for a “lazy-man.” As Disillusioned also states in another post, there are better arguments that can be used to ‘kill’ God.

 

The use of the question can also qualify as a fallacy, one involving the misuse of religious language.

 

Peace,

2PhiloVoid

 

 

Shortly after you arrived in this forum 2P, you explained that one of the reasons you were here was to improve your writing style.

.

.

.

Clarity and brevity.

.

.

.

Those three words are the constructive criticism I now offer to you to improve your writing style.

As a worked example of clarity and brevity in action - did you note that I was able to send exactly the message I wanted to you in another thread without the use of a single word?  So when you post, can you say what you mean using the simplest possible language and in the fewest possible words?

 

And if not, why not?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe this is just the contrarian in me, but I have never been happy with the argument "who created God?". To me this seems intellectually lazy. God is posited to be eternal. Hence the question does not apply. It seems to me that if we wish to combat the notion of God we must (and certainly can) do better than this.

 

Good perception on this issue, Disillusioned. I'm very inclined to agree with you. Kudos to you!!! (I always thought that argument was a cheap ontological shot, one that ignores a whole bunch of conceptual and theological meanings and analytical connotations. But, many people want an easy answer...)

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

 

Please identify these "conceptual and theological meanings" (your words) as well as these "analytical connotations" (again, your words).  Afterwards, you, I and others can categorize each as mere assertion without evidentiary support, philosophical woo woo, semantic nonsense, world salad, theological proclamation, the world according to you (or others) or something else.  Please keep your focus on the narrow topic of the linear question, "Who created God?"  And, why you are at it, please explain how the linear question, "Who created God?" is an argument (your word).

 

 

Ok, Sdelsolray

 

Yes, you are correct. I referred to the question at hand, “Who created God?” as a form of argument, but I did so initially to signify my recognition that Disillusioned had already done the same.

 

However, despite the fact that the question is syntactically a question, it can be used with alternate intentions (as an alternative “speech-act”), that is, other than as a bona-fide inquiry. Because of the semantic nature of the question, it can imply an aspersion of denial upon the nature and/or meaning of the term ‘God,’ without requiring an answer and often without being recognized as such. I’d say that it almost qualifies as a rhetorical device, by which a ‘cheap, ontological shot’ may be delivered to the recipients of its locution, paralleling Disillusioned’s suggestion that the question is a thought fit for a “lazy-man.” As Disillusioned also states in another post, there are better arguments that can be used to ‘kill’ God.

 

The use of the question can also qualify as a fallacy, one involving the misuse of religious language.

 

Peace,

2PhiloVoid

 

 

Shortly after you arrived in this forum 2P, you explained that one of the reasons you were here was to improve your writing style.

.

.

.

Clarity and brevity.

.

.

.

Those three words are the constructive criticism I now offer to you to improve your writing style.

As a worked example of clarity and brevity in action - did you note that I was able to send exactly the message I wanted to you in another thread without the use of a single word?  So when you post, can you say what you mean using the simplest possible language and in the fewest possible words?

 

And if not, why not?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

"If not, why not?"  Good question, BAA. I guess the simple answer is that I don't feel comfortable with claims of simplicity. My experiences growing up always seemed so complicated emotionally, and that in turn may have affected the way in which I communicate. In addition to that, I'm just not that good of a writer, and I realize that.

 

Anyway, I appreciate your clarity in communicating your feelings as to my presence here over the past several weeks. I think I understand now...this isn't just your 'safe harbor,' it is a kind of sanctuary, and I've apparently walked in a violated that. Ok, then....

 

Respectfully and simply.....

 

" " POOF ! " "

 

p.s. thank you for the Olive Branch gesture... ...and if you have the authority to remove my account here, you may do so.

 

Peace

[ironhorse]

God is God precisely because He does not have a Creator.

[disillusioned]

God is God precisely because He does not have a Creator.

 

Ok, but this leaves us knowing nothing at all about God. Perhaps one day the universe will be demonstrated to be uncreated. Would it then become God? Or is being uncreated a necessary but insufficient condition of Godhood? To say "something must be uncreated and we call that something 'God'" does not really solve any problems. At the risk of sounding too much like an ignostic, I must insist that you define what you mean by "God". Then we can have this conversation.

[sdelsolray]

God is God precisely because He does not have a Creator.

Is this a personal belief, an assertive claim, a proposed definition for purposes of discussion or something else?

[mymistake]

God is God precisely because He does not have a Creator.

 

Just like Zeus, right?  Zeus had no creator.

 

Just like Ra, right?  Ra had no creator.

 

Just like Odin, right?  Odin had no creator.

 

Just like Krishna, right?  Krishna had no creator.

 

Oh wait, those are false gods.  But not your God.  Your God is the real God.

[♦ ficino ♦]

God is God precisely because He does not have a Creator.

There exists an X such that X is named "God" and X does not have a creator and

it is not the case that there exists a Y such that Y is named "God" and Y does not have a creator... etc.

 

Now we're waiting for you to give some evidence that X is distributed over anything that exists.

[sdelsolray]

Looks like 2PhiloVoid is leaving.

 

Pippin (calling to Frodo across the path):  "Over here!  Over here!"

Frodo shakes his head

Merry:  "He's leaving!"

[bornagainathiest]

God is God precisely because He does not have a Creator.

 

An eternally-existing multiverse does not require a creator.

[Jedah]

I love the philosophy behind infinite regression. It's probably the number one thing that religious people fail to grasp. Placing a God as the kickstarter of cause and effect really doesn't solve anything.

[bornagainathiest]

I love the philosophy behind infinite regression. It's probably the number one thing that religious people fail to grasp. Placing a God as the kickstarter of cause and effect really doesn't solve anything.

 

And let's not forget the Infinite Replication Paradox!

 

"Imagine living in a universe where nothing is original. Everything is a fake. No ideas are ever new. There is no novelty, no originality. Nothing is ever done for the first time and nothing will ever be done for the last time. Nothing is unique. Everyone possesses not just one double but an unlimited number of them.

This unusual state of affairs exists if the universe is infinite in spatial extent (volume) and the probability that life can develop is not equal to zero. It occurs because of the remarkable way in which infinity is quite different from any large finite number, no matter how large the number might be.

In a universe of infinite size, anything that has a non-zero probability of occurring must occur infinitely often. Thus at any instant of time—for example, the present moment—there must be an infinite number of identical copies of each of us doing precisely what each of us is now doing. There are also infinite numbers of identical copies of each one of us doing something other than what we are doing at this moment. Indeed, an infinite number of copies of each of us could be found at this moment doing anything that it was possible for us to do with a non-zero probability at this moment.

It is widely believed that the replication paradox was first discussed explicitly by the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in 'The Will to Strength' (1886). He realises that

 

'the universe must go through a calculable number of combinations in the great game of chance which constitutes its existence … In infinity, at some moment or other, every possible combination must once have been realized; not only this, but it must also have been realized an infinite number of times.'

…

The spatial replication paradox has all sorts of odd consequences aside from the psychological unease it creates. We believe that the evolution of life is possible with non-zero probability because it has happened on Earth by natural means. Hence, in an infinite universe there must exist an infinite number of living civilisations. Within them will exist copies of ourselves of all possible ages. When each of us dies, there will always exist elsewhere an infinite number of copies of ourselves, possessing all the same memories and experiences of our past lives but who will live on to the future. This succession will continue indefinitely into the future and so in some sense each of us 'lives' forever." 

 

(Barrow, John D. The Infinite Book: A Short Guide to the Boundless, Timeless and Endless. London: Vintage, 2005. pp. 156-58)

 

Which means that if Jesus is crucified only once (here on this Earth) then you can have salvation, but an infinite number of your duplicates on all the other duplicate Earths are doomed and destined to eternal hellfire!

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

And let's not forget the Infinite Replication Paradox!

When I first saw, this, I thought you had written "the Infinite Republican Paradox." Egad!

 

"Imagine living in a universe where nothing is original. Everything is a fake. No ideas are ever new. There is no novelty, no originality. Nothing is ever done for the first time and nothing will ever be done for the last time. Nothing is unique. Everyone possesses not just one double but an unlimited number of them.

This unusual state of affairs exists if the universe is infinite in spatial extent (volume) and the probability that life can develop is not equal to zero. It occurs because of the remarkable way in which infinity is quite different from any large finite number, no matter how large the number might be.

In a universe of infinite size, anything that has a non-zero probability of occurring must occur infinitely often. Thus at any instant of time—for example, the present moment—there must be an infinite number of identical copies of each of us doing precisely what each of us is now doing. There are also infinite numbers of identical copies of each one of us doing something other than what we are doing at this moment. Indeed, an infinite number of copies of each of us could be found at this moment doing anything that it was possible for us to do with a non-zero probability at this moment.

It is widely believed that the replication paradox was first discussed explicitly by the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in 'The Will to Strength' (1886). He realises that

 

'the universe must go through a calculable number of combinations in the great game of chance which constitutes its existence … In infinity, at some moment or other, every possible combination must once have been realized; not only this, but it must also have been realized an infinite number of times.'

…

The spatial replication paradox has all sorts of odd consequences aside from the psychological unease it creates. We believe that the evolution of life is possible with non-zero probability because it has happened on Earth by natural means. Hence, in an infinite universe there must exist an infinite number of living civilisations. Within them will exist copies of ourselves of all possible ages. When each of us dies, there will always exist elsewhere an infinite number of copies of ourselves, possessing all the same memories and experiences of our past lives but who will live on to the future. This succession will continue indefinitely into the future and so in some sense each of us 'lives' forever."[/size]

 

 [/size]

 

(Barrow, John D. [/size]The Infinite Book: A Short Guide to the Boundless, Timeless and Endless.[/size] London: Vintage, 2005. pp. 156-58)[/size]

 

Which means that if Jesus is crucified only once (here on this Earth) then you can have salvation, but an infinite number of your duplicates on all the other duplicate Earths are doomed and destined to eternal hellfire!

 

Very cool, thanks, BAA.

[♦ ficino ♦]

To push the ball a bit further downfield:

 

what if the theist divides all entities into two groups: 1 - entities whose existence depends on something other than themselves, i.e. contingent entities, and 2 - entities that exist necessarily?

 

Each entity in group 1, contingent entities, may pass out of existence at some point. The entities in group 2 cannot by definition pass out of existence.

 

Given infinite time back into the past, there is a time T at which every contingent entity will have passed out of existence at once.

 

But if there were no necessary entity, then no entities would remain in existence after time T.

 

But we have contingent entities in existence now.

 

Therefore, at least one of two premises must be false:

 

a - that contingent entities have existed for infinite time back into the past

or

b - that there exists no necessary entity.

 

The negation of either a or b implies theism.

 

 

Based on what BAA quoted, perhaps a problem with the above argument is that it ignores the infinite extent of a (multi?)verse, and, I am supposing, it ignores the fact that the number of entities is infinite. So perhaps it's impossible that, given an infinity of entities, all of them would pop out of existence at the same time. For if that could happen, we'd have to have an actual infinite. But on the Aristotelian/Thomistic assumptions behind the above theistic argument, there can never be an actual infinite.

 

In other words, for an entity to undergo an event like passing out of existence, it must exist actually. But if it exists actually, it can be counted. So the set of all contingent entities that can pass out of existence is a set of entities that can be counted. So it's not an infinite set. So the theist who concedes that the universe contains an infinite number of contingent entities can't make that set of entities an actual infinite. But in a potential infinite, by definition all the members of the set cannot undergo an actual event. So the theist's supposition, that all the members of an infinite set could pop out of existence at once, leads to contradictions.

 

I'm basically just pulling stuff out of my ass here.

-------------------------------

 

there's also the difference between matter (loosely speaking) and things composed of matter. We might imagine a "death of the universe," in which all things lose their form and are destroyed. It need not follow that all matter would poof out of existence.

[EyesOpened]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ODetOE6cbbc

[Guest Furball]

 

After reading the comments on here I realize that I lack knowledge and just learned a few new things, amazing.

 

This place will do that to you, Sweets. It does it to me almost every day.

 

It is amazing isn't it. The bible seeks to keep us in the dark. When the bible is put down, and left behind, a whole world of knowledge opens up to us, especially on a wonderful website like this, that has really smart people to help us learn and grow as humans. 

[Justus]

Since the universe is a finite body of light and mass, [if it expands then it can't be infinite]

so maybe He came from the other side

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJQwnAhXnBk

[duderonomy]

Since the universe is a finite body of light and mass, [if it expands then it can't be infinite]

 

 

What if what the universe is expanding into is part of the universe? 

[Justus]

you just blew my mind dude...

[Brother Jeff]

After reading the comments on here I realize that I lack knowledge and just learned a few new things, amazing.

 

Bless the Lard, Sister! This glorious place is awesome! Glory!