The Forbidden Question - Did God Create Himself?

[mymistake]

3 hours ago, Justus said:

                                                                                                      

Jesus 

 

 

Pics or it didn't happen.

 

 

[Justus]

6 hours ago, mymistake said:

 

 

Pics or it didn't happen.

 

 

It takes forever for a pic of nothing to develop, so if you don't have the time to wait then at least check out the pic of all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, unless you don't believe you can still see them today.  But the best picture is yet to come.

Spoiler

  Smile believer.       Don't click on link if you believe you have to see to have saw.

one 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

[mymistake]

6 hours ago, Justus said:

It takes forever for a pic of nothing to develop, so if you don't have the time to wait then at least check out the pic of all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, unless you don't believe you can still see them today.  But the best picture is yet to come

 

The Bible says that when Thomas the disciple would not believe that Jesus showed up a few days later so that Thomas could see for himself with his very own eyes.  All I ask is for the same thing for everybody else who doesn't believe.  It should take no effort at all for an all-powerful being.  If it doesn't happen then perhaps the Bible is made up.

 

And don't give me that crap excuse of free-will.  If it didn't violate Thomas' free will then everything should be fine.

[Joshpantera]

On 12/24/2017 at 1:50 PM, midniterider said:

Has science discovered everything?

Does science have the capability of discovering everything?

If something that exists has not yet been discovered by science (no evidence,) is it then false? Or just not-yet-discovered? (Logically speaking)

Can something exist without humanity being aware of it? (Logically speaking)

Are all scientific theories falsifiable?

 

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25322

 

As for God, I'll just say "I don't know." Unless he makes an appearance I'll probably lump him into the same category as invisible pink unicorns.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FYI, which means that you're an agnostic atheist like myself and the rest. lol

 

Gotcha!

[LogicalFallacy]

On ‎25‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 7:50 AM, midniterider said:

As for God, I'll just say "I don't know." Unless he makes an appearance I'll probably lump him into the same category as invisible pink unicorns.

 

Hey! My invisible pink unicorn DOES exist.

 

How wude of you!

[midniterider]

10 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

FYI, which means that you're an agnostic atheist like myself and the rest. lol

 

Gotcha!

 

Doh! Checkmate!

[florduh]

It's amazing what somebody else's belief in a god makes us go through for simply not believing!

 

MOAR LABELS!!!!!! I'm sure we can find more, like for people who don't believe in gods because their copy of the Bible had a misprint. People who really don't believe but are afraid to admit it. People who don't believe because they like coffee too much. Come on, let's get creative in breaking down and complicating the simple fact one doesn't have a god belief. 

[midniterider]

3 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Hey! My invisible pink unicorn DOES exist.

 

How wude of you!

 

You and Florduh are making Atheisus angry. (haha)

 

Hmmm, does Allah mean 'without llah?"

[LogicalFallacy]

2 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

You and Florduh are making Atheisus angry. (haha)

 

Hmmm, does Allah mean 'without llah?"

 

[duderonomy]

On 2/13/2018 at 4:24 PM, Justus said:

On 2/12/2018 at 3:23 PM, florduh said:

Try this one on........

 

There was never "nothing." By definition, nothing does not exist. There always was only "something." There is no reason to label "something" as the Bible God.

 

Then why is it in the dictionary? 

 

It's in "the dictionary" so we can define the word and all be on the same page when we are talking about it.

 

Justus, you'll get more respect and be taken more seriously if you stay serious on a topic once in a while. You have some very good points and questions, but the hidden contents stuff and the goofiness doesn't help your argument.

If we do it that's one thing because we are free to do that, but aren't you bound by the Word of God to be serious in matters like this? As a Christian, you have many rules and admonitions to follow concerning your speech and demeanor. If you don't follow the rules of the book you claim to live by, you can't be expected to be taken seriously by those you are trying to convince.

If you make arguments based on philosophy or a God hypothesis in general, that's fine too and worth discussing, but you shouldn't conflate those arguments with Christianity because Christians have strict parameters they must follow.

 

You should ask yourself: Am I a real Christian representing my risen Lord and Savior, or do I just want to have fun and try to win a pissing contest on the internet?

 

What say you, Justus?

[mwc]

On 2/12/2018 at 12:09 AM, Justus said:

 

No maybe's about it; you make an excellent point,  so how does something originate into existence which wasn't created*? 

 

Think of the LORD like your check from the Government ever month, in the known and observed world people provide a service or labor in order to obtain the money they need to provide for their general health and welfare needs.   Since the law of nature demonstrates that which has the ability to provide for its own needs would survive while those who were unable to provide for themselves would be left to perish.   Maybe you know of a plant which returns water to ground which it had gathered and stored for its own benefit so that another plant which might otherwise might perish could survive.  Likewise, to elaborate further would be like giving water to the ground when the living matter in danger of perishing lacks the ability to absorb what is given.  

 

So if evolutionary science is founded upon the principles derived from the known and observed universe then doesn't nature itself teach you that living matter does not evolve from non-living matter but rather evolves into non-living matter?   (There is not one example of non-living matter evolving into living matter but I am sure one of your members could provide you with an example of living matter evolving into non-living matter.)                                                                           

 

(By created, I mean the act by which something is brought into existence which had never existed before in either substance or form )                                                 

     Yeah.  I think you're trying to say "begotten, not made" but went the long way around here.  Most of us memorized the Nicene Creed.  Creeds solve everything.  Stupid Arians.

 

     But what of god?  How did that thing manage to just wish itself into existence if it already didn't exist at some point?  If there was literally quite nothing at all?  So literally nothing, not some energy of any sort anywhere in any shape or form in any "realm" or supernatural things like spirits, then *poof* god (not a jesus, the holy spirit, angels or any of that)?  Now, since there's literally nothing there is no time. No space.  No quantum physics.  No heaven.  No supernatural domains or dimensions that might work differently given our imagination.  No miracles.  No magic.  Just nothing.

 

          mwc

 

[pantheory]

8 hours ago, mwc said:

   ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, If there was literally quite nothing at all?  So literally nothing, not some energy of any sort anywhere in any shape or form in any "realm" or supernatural things like spirits, then *poof* god (not a jesus, the holy spirit, angels or any of that)?  Now, since there's literally nothing there is no time. No space.  No quantum physics.  No heaven.  No supernatural domains or dimensions that might work differently given our imagination.  No miracles.  No magic.  Just nothing.

 

          mwc

 

 

Hey, hey, I know how it all went down. First there was nothing at all and God was a part of it. Then God created himself, and wa la, there was still nothing. Then nothing created the heavens, the Earth and mankind. Cool!

[sdelsolray]

Semantic masturbation is the bane of language...any language...at any time.

[mwc]

10 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Hey, hey, I know how it all went down. First there was nothing at all and God was a part of it. Then God created himself, and wa la, there was still nothing. Then nothing created the heavens, the Earth and mankind. Cool!

     That answer sounds like a lot of nothing.

 

          mwc

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

If nothing cannot exist, then why do christians have it between their ears?  

[Guest end3]

15 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

Semantic masturbation is the bane of language...any language...at any time.

Novel coming from a lawyer...

[pantheory]

9 hours ago, mwc said:

     That answer sounds like a lot of nothing.

 

          mwc

 

 

Yes, a lot of Nothing My posting above to mock religion sounds both crazy and ridiculous. Yet Big Bang theorists such as Stephen Hawking also propose such similarly ridiculous ideas IMO.

 

I am 100% pro science since I am a scientist myself in cosmology, but science theorists such as Hawking have also come up with, and believe in similarly ridiculous speculation IMO. Stephen Hawking, in his latest book The Grand Design, said that, "because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." Hawking also believes in multiverses so he has said that multiple universes have created themselves from nothing. This is almost as stupid as God creating himself from nothing. Science should be based, at least partly, on logic, and this is not it IMO. Sorry to see such stupid ideas (at best speculation, if not science fiction) coming from respectable scientists.

 

A book was also written on the subject of multiverses, where Its title sounds somewhat like religion. The Believers Guide to the Multiverse, by David Williams.

 

[mwc]

16 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Yes, a lot of Nothing My posting above to mock religion sounds both crazy and ridiculous. Yet Big Bang theorists such as Stephen Hawking also propose such similarly ridiculous ideas IMO.

 

I am 100% pro science since I am a scientist myself in cosmology, but science theorists such as Hawking have also come up with, and believe in similarly ridiculous speculation IMO. Stephen Hawking, in his latest book The Grand Design, said that, "because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." Hawking also believes in multiverses so he has said that multiple universes have created themselves from nothing. This is almost as stupid as God creating himself from nothing. Science should be based, at least partly, on logic, and this is not it IMO. Sorry to see such stupid ideas (at best speculation, if not science fiction) coming from respectable scientists.

 

A book was also written on the subject of multiverses, where Its title sounds somewhat like religion. The Believers Guide to the Multiverse, by David Williams.

 

     True.  Though I do recall reading a book (I don't recall the name but it was something like "The Universe From Nothing") and it ultimately allowed for a "something" in all this.  The idea being how did "our" universe come to exist not how did everything that might possibly exist come to exist.  Seems a little semantically tricky there since I consider the universe to be all things.   That is why when I said "nothing" I meant nothing.  Nothing at all.  Not a type of nothing.  A sort of nothing.  A nothing with an asterisk.  Just absolutely nothing in the most literal sense of the word.

 

     Because, once there's already something, then lots of possibilities open up.  Those are almost easy, I would think, compared to that original something.  Because that something needs to come from literally nothing (in our case here at least).

 

          mwc

 

[pantheory]

On 2/18/2018 at 2:54 AM, mwc said:

     True.  Though I do recall reading a book (I don't recall the name but it was something like "The Universe From Nothing") and it ultimately allowed for a "something" in all this.  The idea being how did "our" universe come to exist not how did everything that might possibly exist come to exist.  Seems a little semantically tricky there since I consider the universe to be all things.   That is why when I said "nothing" I meant nothing.  Nothing at all.  Not a type of nothing.  A sort of nothing.  A nothing with an asterisk.  Just absolutely nothing in the most literal sense of the word.

 

     Because, once there's already something, then lots of possibilities open up.  Those are almost easy, I would think, compared to that original something.  Because that something needs to come from literally nothing (in our case here at least).

 

          mwc

 

 

Yeah, I agree with all that you have said. I like, and totally agree with your explanation of 'nothing."

 

In defense of Hawking, although he used the actual word 'nothing,' what he meant was the zero-point-field (ZPF), which many call a void, aka nothing. When Hawking used the actual word nothing, I think he was talking down to what he perceives to be a generally science-illiterate public. In fact the  ZPF is not nothing. It has been estimated that there is more energy in the ZPF than all the other mass and energy in the universe combined. So, in fact, it could be thought of as the farthest thing away from nothing that exists.

 

But the original beginning entity didn't need to come from something else. According to the original BB version, the BB entity could have had no origin, if so, where did that come from etc. The idea in a finite universe model is that the original entity had to have the seeds of time within it, potential energy. Before time began the original entity had the potential energy within it to change its form, something like the potential to unwind for instance. Once potential energy is expressed as kinetic energy, change occurs, and with change time is expressed. The resulting entities from this change must also have potential energy within them for time to continue. I do not adhere to the BB theory but my own cosmology is also a finite universe model and works the same way in its beginning. This is one of the reasons why the forth dimension is considered to be time. IMO this means that all matter and substance has potential energy within it which perpetuates time forward, where time is measured as change. This potential energy in particles that have spin, called baryons, is expressed by their spin which is the result of their internal potential energy in accord with my model. 

 

I think we are still somewhat on topic here since this thread is about the proposed possibility of a God creating himself from nothing, then later creating the universe. My explanation is that there never was such a thing as nothing the way that you described it, but yet there was a beginning to the universe. And of course nearly everyone here realizes that the God of the bible being valid is even a bigger fantasy than the universe popping into existence from nothing.

[sdelsolray]

On 2/16/2018 at 7:08 PM, sdelsolray said:

Semantic masturbation is the bane of language...any language...at any time.

 

On 2/17/2018 at 10:12 AM, end3 said:

Novel coming from a lawyer...

 

Actually, the law is replete with rather precise definitions of single words, multiple words and short phrases.  There are probably in excess of 100,000 such definitions in statutory and regulatory law in the States' and Federal governments.  And that's just the USA.  Lawyers use these definitions frequently, as it is expected of them.

 

I suspect you are projecting your dislike for the law and/or lawyers from anecdotal personal experience.