Where Did God Come From?

[Brother Jeff]

My 50 cents worth...

 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/parsimony

 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Occam's-razor

 

According to the Bible, God is spirit and not physical matter.  

Positing an eternal God means positing an uncaused eternal spiritual state of existence, whereas positing an eternal multiverse means positing an uncaused eternal physical state of existence.

 

Q.  Which one of the above is the more parsimonious option?

A.  The second.

 

Q.  Why?

A.  The physical existence of matter is not in question, whereas the existence of spirit is.  Therefore, it is more parsimonious (in science and philosophy) to reject what is in question and to retain what is not.

 

Thus the two-tier explanation (eternal spirit causing non-eternal physical matter) is rejected in favor of the singular, simpler and more parsimonious explanation of eternally-existing matter.

 

Ockham therefore prefers an eternal multiverse over God.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Thanks for this, BAA. It helps a bit in grasping the concept of an eternal multiverse. Glory!

 

And yes, God is a Spook! His Word says so!

 

The Holy Farter is a Spook: and they that worship him must worship him in the Spook and in truth. (John 4:24 BJV)

 

 

Bless the Lard! Glory!

[bornagainathiest]

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

 

Please justify your claim Justus. (that the universe cannot be infinite)

 

To do this you will need to define what you mean by the words...

 

Universe

Finite

Body

Light

Mass

Expands

Infinite

 

There are proper and correct scientific definitions of these words.

 

There are also proper and correct ways of constructing a logical argument.

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

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. 

 

 

[Brother Jeff]

Brother Justus,

 

I found this glorious quote in David Mill's excellent book "Atheist Universe".

 

If mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed, and if the universe is entirely composed of mass-energy, then the law of the conservation of mass-energy may be extrapolated to this startling conclusion: the universe, in one form or another, in one density or another, always existed. There was never a time when the mass-energy comprising our universe did not exist, if only in the form of an empty oscillating vacuum or an infinitely dense theoretical point called a singularity, consisting of no volume whatsoever. At the Big Bang, the universe was incredibly dense and unimaginably hot. The elementary particles, which now constitute the chemical elements, could not exist under such extreme conditions. Immediately following the Big Bang, therefore, the rapidly expanding universe is believed to have been composed solely of energy, with matter condensing later, after further expansion allowed for cooler temperatures. Regardless of its form, however, the universe—which is the sum of all mass-energy—could not, according to the mass-energy conservation law, come into existence ex nihilo in the way demanded by creationism. According to this well-confirmed scientific principle, our universe of mass-energy was never created, and cannot be annihilated. To believe in “scientific” creationism, therefore, is to overlook or dismiss the law of the conservation of mass-energy. If creationists possess empirical evidence to contradict the law of the conservation of mass-energy, let them share such information with the general scientific community. Otherwise, the fundamental doctrine of creationism—that the universe was created by God out of literally and absolutely nothing—must be recognized as theological rather than scientific. The term “Creation science” is therefore a self-contained contradiction in terms.

 

 

Care to share your thoughts on it? Thanks. Glory!

[bornagainathiest]

One infinity can be larger than another infinity, Justus.

 

And one infinity can become larger than it was and still be infinite.

 

The set of numbers that runs 1,2,3,4,5 can go on forever.  This is an infinite set of numbers.  Call this set A

The set of numbers that runs 2,4,6,8,10 can go on forever.  This is another infinite set of numbers.  Call this set B.

The set of numbers that runs 1,3,5,7,9 can go on forever.  This is another infinite set of numbers.  Call this set C.

 

Set A is 50% larger than set B or C, yet all three sets are infinite in value.

 

If set B (infinity) and C (infinity) are added together they equal set A (also infinity).

 

The act of adding B (infinity) to C (infinity) increases the value of their sum so that they now equal set A (infinity).

 

So infinities can expand/increase/enlarge, Justus.

[Blood]

The question to ask is, if the Biblical writers were "redacting"/rewriting their holy texts to reflect a strict monotheism, why did they leave in all those "we" and "us" passages in Genesis? 

 

And we should note that "monotheism" is a recent, 16th century word. Any attempt to use anachronistic words and concepts to understand the thought horizons of ancient mystics is always going to be tenuous at best. 

 

Check out "The Origins of Biblical Monotheism" by Mark Smith. Genesis is just a very late, rationalizing iteration of earlier West Semitic/Canaanite religion. 

[StillLooking]

Wow, I learn a lot from this thread. Thank you ex-Cs!

 

A question to any ex-C, which of the following book is a good book to learn about early Christians / history of Christianity: Ehrman's How Jesus Became God, someone's recommendation above Mark Smith's The Origins of Biblical Monotheism or Karen Armstrong's A History of God?

[Blood]

Wow, I learn a lot from this thread. Thank you ex-Cs!

 

A question to any ex-C, which of the following book is a good book to learn about early Christians / history of Christianity: Ehrman's How Jesus Became God, someone's recommendation above Mark Smith's The Origins of Biblical Monotheism or Karen Armstrong's A History of God?

 

The Smith book is strictly about the origins of the Yahweh character. 

 

A good book to learn about early Christians is "Who Wrote the New Testament" by Burton Mack. 

[StillLooking]

 

Wow, I learn a lot from this thread. Thank you ex-Cs!

 

A question to any ex-C, which of the following book is a good book to learn about early Christians / history of Christianity: Ehrman's How Jesus Became God, someone's recommendation above Mark Smith's The Origins of Biblical Monotheism or Karen Armstrong's A History of God?

 

The Smith book is strictly about the origins of the Yahweh character. 

 

A good book to learn about early Christians is "Who Wrote the New Testament" by Burton Mack. 

 

Thank you! I will check that book out.

[Justus]

Brother Justus,

 

I found this glorious quote in David Mill's excellent book "Atheist Universe".

 

If mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed, and if the universe is entirely composed of mass-energy, then the law of the conservation of mass-energy may be extrapolated to this startling conclusion: the universe, in one form or another, in one density or another, always existed. There was never a time when the mass-energy comprising our universe did not exist, if only in the form of an empty oscillating vacuum or an infinitely dense theoretical point called a singularity, consisting of no volume whatsoever. At the Big Bang, the universe was incredibly dense and unimaginably hot. The elementary particles, which now constitute the chemical elements, could not exist under such extreme conditions. Immediately following the Big Bang, therefore, the rapidly expanding universe is believed to have been composed solely of energy, with matter condensing later, after further expansion allowed for cooler temperatures. Regardless of its form, however, the universe—which is the sum of all mass-energy—could not, according to the mass-energy conservation law, come into existence ex nihilo in the way demanded by creationism. According to this well-confirmed scientific principle, our universe of mass-energy was never created, and cannot be annihilated. To believe in “scientific” creationism, therefore, is to overlook or dismiss the law of the conservation of mass-energy. If creationists possess empirical evidence to contradict the law of the conservation of mass-energy, let them share such information with the general scientific community. Otherwise, the fundamental doctrine of creationism—that the universe was created by God out of literally and absolutely nothing—must be recognized as theological rather than scientific. The term “Creation science” is therefore a self-contained contradiction in terms.

 

Care to share your thoughts on it? Thanks. Glory!

 

 

 

 

Thank you for the offer to comment Brother Jeff.

 

The monkey also wanted to say he hoped there were no hard feelings, he has a joke he wanted to share with you,  but I told him he better just give you  a link to let you decide whether or not you wanted to hear it.  LINK

 

If creationists possess empirical evidence to contradict the law of the conservation of mass-energy, let them share such information with the general scientific community. Otherwise, the fundamental doctrine of creationism—that the universe was created by God out of literally and absolutely nothing—must be recognized as theological rather than scientific.

 

.    As a Procreationist who doesn't 'f' around with the truth due to the nature of its implication and effect on humanity, then let be begin by stating that I consider the MIUAYG [Make it up as you go] doctrine of Creationist, being those who use the Bible or Evolution to support the idea that something just 'poofed' into existence by some magic force as silly.

.    And the process of intelligence reveals that we all play the part of a fool during that process, but if not mistaken the Creationist who evolved rejects the precept of revealed knowledge.  

.   Yet if the only one true and eternal God, who no man can see nor seen the form of, at any time, is believed as to have made man he had made a living soul by breathing into his nostrils the breath of air, thus instantly become a living soul then the man would have seen the face of their eternal God.  However, since it states that no face has seen his face, it leaves little room for the interpretation of where that 'wind' came.

.    And in such, that would have resulted in the man seeing the face of the eternal God.  After it is written,"And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen." [Ex 33:23]  Likewise, those Creationist who hold in evolution should be able to identify that substance from which they evolved from as well, seeing that one is the visible form, while the other being the invisible form of "poof".

.    But there is no 'poof' in the Eternal, however the fact you see the Biblical Creationist as 'poof' then that in itself should prove that this universe is not Eternal.  Since anything which is Eternal is a form whose substance has no beginning of existence nor end, neither can it can change its nature of being 'poof-free".    

 

BUT IN BRIEF, if energy can not be created nor destroyed.  [Which is obvious true because energy is just an abstract concept that really has no actual physical existence] then using a tank full of gasoline as an example, the physical matter of the gasoline is depleted by the operation of a car which uses the gas to produce momentum.  Now is the volume of the matter [gas] which is used to produce momentum result in the same volume of matter after it is used its transformation?    

 

Now I say the answer is No.  It increases in volume.  However, can that matter then produce the same amount of energy than it did in its previous form and IMO the answer to that question is No.  Thus the energy of matter can be depleted.  And in such, the Universe [One body] yet two [Lights] kinda like a male and female, which not not just magically appear but manifested  on this wise.  Here is one dissertation on the subject: AutoHalen 

 

[sdelsolray]

Justus the Scientist speaks.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

BUT IN BRIEF, if energy can not be created nor destroyed.  [Which is obvious true because energy is just an abstract concept that really has no actual physical existence]

 

Nope!  Energy is physically real.  

Don't believe me?  Disbelieve the kinetic energy of the car that creams you when you jay walk.  Disbelieve the thermal energy of a red hot bar b q when you put your hand in it.  Disbelieve the electromagnetic energy of the Sun's UV and get skin cancer.  Disbelieve the electrical energy of the hairdryer you drop into the bathwater you're sitting in.

 

Electrocution, 3rd degree burns, melanomas and broken bones aren't just abstract concepts, Justus.

 

Unless you'd like to test this out for yourself and report back to us from your hospital bed?

 

then using a tank full of gasoline as an example, the physical matter of the gasoline is depleted by the operation of a car which uses the gas to produce momentum.  Now is the volume of the matter [gas] which is used to produce momentum result in the same volume of matter after it is used its transformation?  

 

Matter (gas) has been transformed into kinetic energy (momentum), but neither has been created, destroyed, reduced or increased - only changed.

 

Now I say the answer is No.  

 

Wrong!   It's obviously true to you that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

 

It increases in volume.  However, can that matter then produce the same amount of energy than it did in its previous form and IMO the answer to that question is No.  

 

Wrong!   It's obviously true to you that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

 

Thus the energy of matter can be depleted.  

 

Wrong!    It's obviously true to you that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

 

And in such, the Universe [One body] yet two [Lights] kinda like a male and female, which not not just magically appear but manifested  on this wise.  Here is one dissertation on the subject: AutoHalen 

 

[mymistake]

  [Which is obvious true because energy is just an abstract concept that really has no actual physical existence] 

 

    

 

 

Turn off your air conditioning if energy has no actual physical existence.

[DoubtingNate]

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

 

Also this!

 

[ironhorse]

"An eternal-existing multiverse does not require a creator." ~BAA

 

Is that just your belief or do you support it with evidence (proof).

 

 

Have you read what Carl Sagan said about trying to prove any of this?

[RogueScholar]

Justus, have you had any course work in thermodynamics and kinetics? If so, you would realise that the energy of matter is in fact not depleted. The combustion reaction you describe above is what we call an exothermic reaction. It is true that the reactants (the gasoline and Oxygen) can be seen as a system with a certain amount of internal energy, a thermodynamic term symbolised by a capital U. The internal energy is a concept that includes both potential and kinetic energy.  In the case you cited, it is probably easier to just focus on the potential energy stored in the chemical bonds of the molecules. It is also true that following the combustion reaction, the products, mainly Carbon dioxide, water and Carbon monoxide have less available energy. In thermodynamic terms we say that the enthalpy of the reaction is negative. Enthalpy is a state function (sometimes) that goes by the symbol H or because we talk about enthalpy changing, Delta H. A super simple way of looking at enthalpy is an ideal situation where Delta H = Delta U + Delta Pressure multiplied by Delta Volume or Delta H = Delta U + Delta P Delta V.

 

Following the combustion, you are correct that the Delta H is negative. Why is this? Well, there is in essence a "release" of potential energy. Yes, you are correct that this release of energy results in products that have less internal energy that the reactants. However, you have completely failed to account for the fact that the total amount of energy is still conserved. The energy was simply transformed into other forms, mainly heat energy. This energy is not lost however. It is dispersed into the surrounding environment.  Much of the energy does work (applies a force over a distance in essence) on molecules in the surrounding environment and some of the energy performs work on a piston within the engine. So, when looking at the substances that are having work done to them, it becomes obvious that the Delta H of these reactions will be positive as work is being done to them as opposed to them doing work; as was the case with the gasoline combustion.

 

In other words, the total amount of energy is conserved; it is not lost, just transferred to other molecules.

 

Now, what I have stated is highly idealised and highly simplified and I have intentionally neglected concepts such as Gibbs free energy and what we do when P and V are highly dynamic in order to at least give you a sense of how this stuff works in a quantatitive sense.  Bottom line being, energy is not lost, it is just shuffled around and we can use concepts such as enthalpy, pressure, volume to understand how that energy will be transferred.

[sdelsolray]

"An eternal-existing multiverse does not require a creator." ~BAA

 

Is that just your belief or do you support it with evidence (proof).

 

 

Have you read what Carl Sagan said about trying to prove any of this?

Pot kettle black.  That's a joke.

 

More seriously, BAA is simply reciting a scientific hypothesis and the fact that the hypothesis does not invoke, require or predict any supernatural entities or forces.  Put another way, there is actual relevant evidence for his statement.

 

Again, it appears you do not understand the burden of proof and you seem to be unable to distinguish between a mere assertion and a hypothesis.

 

Study hard.

[bornagainathiest]

"An eternal-existing multiverse does not require a creator." ~BAA

 

Is that just your belief or do you support it with evidence (proof).

 

 

Have you read what Carl Sagan said about trying to prove any of this?

 

This is the proper context of my words, Ironhorse.

 

Posted 19 April 2015 - 01:32 PM

ironhorse, on 19 Apr 2015 - 6:34 PM, said:

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

An eternally-existing multiverse does not require a creator.

.

.

.

You seem to have taken my words to mean that I believe we exist in an eternally-existing multiverse.

 

That is a false conclusion on your part. 

 

If you re-read my words, I make no such claim.

 

I merely state that such a cosmos would require no creator.

 

I did not express this as a belief, nor as a statement based upon evidence - I was making a logical argument.

 

That which has always existed requires no act of creation nor a creating agency. 

[Justus]

    

 

 

Turn off your air conditioning if energy has no actual physical existence.

 

If I turn off my air conditioner then I would then I be stopping the electric charge that flows in the electric current.  The electric charge is not energy.

 

What next, air conditioners cool by creating cold air?

 

 

Nope!  Energy is physically real.  

 

 Quote: "Energy is a mathematical abstraction that has no existence apart from its functional relationship to other variables or coordinates that do have a physical interpretation and which can be measured. For example, the kinetic energy of a given mass of material is a function of its velocity, and it has no other reality."

Theory and Problems of Thermodynamics, by M.M. Abbott, H.C. Van Ness

 

Quote: Energy, "is an abstract concept invented by physical scientists in the nineteenth century to describe quantitatively a wide variety of natural phenomena."

Source: Energies, by Vaclav Smil 

 

 Quote: "It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is."

Source:  Lectures on Physics by Richard Feynman

 

So if energy is physically real, then does it exist by itself, if it does then what is the atomic weight for 'energy' ?   

[mymistake]

 

    

 

 

Turn off your air conditioning if energy has no actual physical existence.

 

If I turn off my air conditioner then I would then I be stopping the electric charge that flows in the electric current.  The electric charge is not energy.

 

 

 

 

You are just pretending to be dense, right?  Not everything that physically exists has an atomic weight.  Did Christianity prevent you from understanding the basics of science?

 

 

You have seen an egg get cooked in a frying pan . . . right?

 

You can see that there is a physical difference between a hot, cooked egg and a cold raw egg?

 

Do you think a frying pan uses magic?    

[bornagainathiest]

 

    

 

 

Turn off your air conditioning if energy has no actual physical existence.

 

If I turn off my air conditioner then I would then I be stopping the electric charge that flows in the electric current.  The electric charge is not energy.

 

What next, air conditioners cool by creating cold air?

 

 

Nope!  Energy is physically real.  

 

 Quote: "Energy is a mathematical abstraction that has no existence apart from its functional relationship to other variables or coordinates that do have a physical interpretation and which can be measured. For example, the kinetic energy of a given mass of material is a function of its velocity, and it has no other reality."

Theory and Problems of Thermodynamics, by M.M. Abbott, H.C. Van Ness

 

Quote: Energy, "is an abstract concept invented by physical scientists in the nineteenth century to describe quantitatively a wide variety of natural phenomena."

Source: Energies, by Vaclav Smil 

 

 Quote: "It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is."

Source:  Lectures on Physics by Richard Feynman

 

So if energy is physically real, then does it exist by itself, if it does then what is the atomic weight for 'energy' ?   

 

 

According to Einstein's famous formula E=mc² matter and energy are equivalent and interchangeable.

 

According to your take on this Justus, if energy is just a mathematical abstraction and isn't physically real, then neither is matter.

 

Are you sure that Van Ness, Smil and Feynman are actually saying that matter is an abstraction?

 

That matter isn't physically real, just like energy?

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

    

 

 

Turn off your air conditioning if energy has no actual physical existence.

 

If I turn off my air conditioner then I would then I be stopping the electric charge that flows in the electric current.  The electric charge is not energy.

 

What next, air conditioners cool by creating cold air?

 

 

Nope!  Energy is physically real.  

 

 Quote: "Energy is a mathematical abstraction that has no existence apart from its functional relationship to other variables or coordinates that do have a physical interpretation and which can be measured. For example, the kinetic energy of a given mass of material is a function of its velocity, and it has no other reality."

Theory and Problems of Thermodynamics, by M.M. Abbott, H.C. Van Ness

 

Quote: Energy, "is an abstract concept invented by physical scientists in the nineteenth century to describe quantitatively a wide variety of natural phenomena."

Source: Energies, by Vaclav Smil 

 

 Quote: "It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is."

Source:  Lectures on Physics by Richard Feynman

 

So if energy is physically real, then does it exist by itself, if it does then what is the atomic weight for 'energy' ?   

 

 

According to Einstein's famous formula E=mc² matter mass and energy are equivalent and interchangeable.

 

According to your take on this Justus, if energy is just a mathematical abstraction and isn't physically real, then neither is matter mass.

 

Are you sure that Van Ness, Smil and Feynman are actually saying that matter mass is an abstraction?

 

That matter mass isn't physically real, just like energy?

 

 

Correction, Justus!

 

My bad for the sloppy terminology.  I wrote 'matter', when I should have written, mass.

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME/

 

2.1 Misconceptions about E = mc2

Although it is far less common today, one still sometimes hears of Einstein's equation entailing that matter can be converted into energy. Strictly speaking, this constitutes an elementary category mistake. In relativistic physics, as in classical physics, mass and energy are both regarded as properties of physical systems or properties of the constituents of physical systems. If one wishes to talk about the physical stuff that is the bearer of such properties, then one typically talks about either “matter” or “fields.” The distinction between “matter” and “fields” in modern physics is itself rather subtle in no small part because of the equivalence of mass and energy. Nevertheless, we can assert that whatever sense of “conversion” seems compelling between mass and energy, it will have to be a “conversion” between mass and energy, and not between matter and energy. Finally, our observation obtains even in so-called “annihilation” reactions where the entire mass of the incoming particles seems to “disappear” (see, for example, Baierlein (p. 323, 2007). Of course, the older terminology of “matter” and “anti-matter” does not really help our philosophical understanding of mass-energy equivalence and is perhaps partly to blame for misconceptions surrounding E = mc2.

.

.

Some other relevant links for you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence

http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/relativity/equivalent-1.html

http://www.1728.org/einstein.htm

.

.

But my point still stands, btw.

If energy is just an abstract concept with no actual physical existence, then mass has no actual physical existence either and is just an abstract concept too.

 

Is this what you're saying... that mass and energy have no physical existence?

That they're just abstract concepts?

[Justus]

You are just pretending to be dense, right?

That is an profound observation!   

  

Not everything that physically exists has an atomic weight.

Like a Spirit?      

 

So a proton and electron by themselves have no mass, right?  Thus no atomic weight, kinda like two photons of light huh?  

 

Yet when joined together the two become one particle of mass, right?

 

Did Christianity prevent you from understanding the basics of science?

[mymistake]

 

You are just pretending to be dense, right?

That is an profound observation!   

  

Not everything that physically exists has an atomic weight.

Like a Spirit?     

 

So a proton and electron by themselves have no mass, right?  Thus no atomic weight, kinda like two photons of light huh?  

 

Yet when joined together the two become one particle of mass, right?

 

Did Christianity prevent you from understanding the basics of science?

 

 

 

 

Asking you a question isn't an observation.  I'm guessing the answer to my question would be that

 

you are not pretending.  Protons and electrons both have mass.

 

What a hot frying pan does to an egg, Christianity does to the human mind.

[Justus]

Asking you a question isn't an observation.

 

Yet responding to a question is an answer.

 

I'm guessing the answer to my question would be that you are not pretending.

 

And I would agree with the fact that you lack sufficient evidence to make a definite judgment.

 

What a hot frying pan does to an egg, Christianity does to the human mind.

 

So as an ex-Christian are you making an admission of faith in ‘divine healing’?