Limitless possibilities of god

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Zhavric Somebody PM me when CC catches on that the thread is about providing evidence for god being possible and stops with the theistic god-of-the-gaps assertions.

A god-of-the-gaps argument is when a person uses god to explain why something happens, because they cannot imagine another explanation. This is like using Thor to explain the occurrence of lightning. I am not doing this.

[Fonceai]

Again, Zhavric, you asked for this...

Quote by: Z Why have you repeatedly failed to grasp you're challenging a proven scientific law with a "what if"?

And you dutifully listed the proven scientific laws in Post #34.

They all refer to the conservation of energy in a closed system.

Now that you've provided proof of your statement, we can continue.

Tell me what conservation of energy in a closed system has to do with the quote above.

[Kamehameha34]

Kame admitting there's no positive evidence suggesting god is possible was good. The second part of the sentence explains why agnostics are loathe to committ to any definition of god & why their stance is untenable. "Since god is anything I want god to be, I don't have to worry about things like evidence or support..."

You know, requiring the other side to define their stance into impossibility is a very poor debating tactic.

I've never proposed any definition other than "creator of the universe with consciousness". If you think that it's too hard to disprove, then you shouldn't have assumed the position that such a being does not exist.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Captain Chaos A god-of-the-gaps argument is when a person uses god to explain why something happens, because they cannot imagine another explanation. This is like using Thor to explain the occurrence of lightning. I am not doing this.

That's the usual motivation, but the effect is still the same. You're still looking at gaps in our understanding and trying to insert god into them. The theist has a semi-legitimate motivation for doing this. What's your excuse?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai And you dutifully listed the proven scientific laws in Post #34. They all refer to the conservation of energy in a closed system. Now that you've provided proof of your statement, we can continue. Tell me what conservation of energy in a closed system has to do with the quote above.

Two problems here.

First, god must be able to do anything that's not paradoxical and there's nothing paradoxical about creating energy within a closed system. God needs to be able to do this and about a thousand other things which contradict existing scientific laws. Thus, he still defaults to false until proven true.

Second, we know the Earth is not a closed system because it can receive energy from elsewhere (like the sun), but the universe IS a closed system. Energy does not spontaneously come into existence.

Physicists would prefer to say that energy is conserved, not matter. In relativity theory we can convert one to another but energy is always conserved. That statement is not in conflict with the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that in a closed system any process can either keep the entropy constant or increase the entropy of the system. The key is the form of the energy. In the universe today there are processes all around us that are converting one type of energy or another into heat energy. So the question is, what happens when all the usable energy is converted into heat?

That's a famous question that people thought a lot about in the nineteenth century. It goes under the name of the 'Heat Death of the Universe.' In short, once all of the energy in the universe is converted to heat then the universe will be in equilibrium -- everything will be of the same temperature and entropy will remain constant forever. This is complicated a bit by the fact that the universe is expanding. In an expanding universe you can never really reach equilibrium -- but the scientists of the 1800s didn't know about the expanding universe so let's just assume that the universe is static.

In such a universe we have a 'heat bath' of photons. These are the cosmic microwave background photons at a 'temperature' of 2.78 Kelvin. That's a pretty cold heat bath, and obviously you and I and the sun are much hotter. So we're not in equilibrium with the heat bath of the universe. But over time, as the sun burns hydrogen and as planets collide and break apart and as particles decay and so on, everything eventually ends up as photons or other elementary particles which eventually come to equilibrium. This is the conversion to 'heat.' The reason that we no longer worry about the heat death of the universe is that the time it would take for everything around us to convert to heat is many, many times longer than the current age of the universe. Our universe is marching very, very slowly towards equilibrium!

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the universe tends toward high entropy. If so, what happens when there is nothing left to be disordered? How can matter be constant?

So, where is your evidence that energy is created anywhere in our universe? Where is your evidence energy is coming in from another universe?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You know, requiring the other side to define their stance into impossibility is a very poor debating tactic. I've never proposed any definition other than "creator of the universe with consciousness". If you think that it's too hard to disprove, then you shouldn't have assumed the position that such a being does not exist.

It's not at all hard to disprove. This isn't nearly as clever an argument as may think it is. You keep ignoring what we know to be proven & evading arguments by twisting your defintion of god around without ever justifying these changes with evidence.

I could just see you talking to a detective:

"Where were you at 8:00 pm on September 23rd?"

"In town. Doing stuff."

"Were you at 3548 Main Street?"

"Maybe."

"Were you talking to Santa Clause."

"Maybe"

"How were you talking to Santa Clause? He's not real."

"I was in town. Doing stuff."

"Were you levitating?"

"Maybe."

"Levitating is impossible."

"I was in town. Doing stuff."

etc. ad nauseum

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Zhavric That's the usual motivation, but the effect is still the same. You're still looking at gaps in our understanding and trying to insert god into them. The theist has a semi-legitimate motivation for doing this. What's your excuse?

What gap in our understanding am I inserting a god into?

I see godhood as one natural consequence of infinite emergence. I do not see godhood as a necessary explanation for existence. It might be the explanation, it might not be. I see no way at present to prove it either way.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Zhavric First, god must be able to do anything that's not paradoxical and there's nothing paradoxical about creating energy within a closed system.

Here is what you are doing.

1) A is impossible
2) To be a god, a being must be able to do A
3) Since A is impossible, no being can be a god


Everyone understands this, Zhavric. It is not exactly deep logic. The problem is that you will only debate your private definition of a god. There are plenty of other definitions of a god that do not require the ability to do the impossible.

Definitions of god:

god - Definitions from Dictionary.com



Try to get this: A god, using the Zhavric definition (lets call it a zod), is highly improbable. Personally, I would guess zods are impossible. So, there, you and I agree on that point.

But gods, as defined by other definitions that are in use, are not impossible by your reasoning.

You don't get to rework the english language, Zhavric. You can rant all you want about how we should all use your definition, and only your definition - but the rest of us are bit more practical and less dogmatic.

If you find yourself unable to get past your fixation on your personal definition of god, then use a different word. I suggested the word zork, for non-omnipotent god-like creator beings.

[Zhavric]

I'd be happy if you used any definition, CC. Instead, all I get from you is "got could be this or god could be that" all without a shred of support.

What you forgot in your straw man is...

1) A is impossible
2) To be a god, a being must be able to do A
3) Since A is impossible, claiming a being can perform A is the same as claiming A is possible (which is false).

... all you're doing is saying "Well god doesn't have to be A! Neener!" While this may seem a clever way to allow god to remain possible, it's incredibly dishonest & absolutely unsupported.

You've had many chances to provide positive evidence that god is possible. I see none.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Zhavric I'd be happy if you used any definition, CC.

A being with the ability to design and implement a reality such as our own.

Will you accept that definition, which I have introduced about a zillion times, now?

1) A is impossible 2) To be a god, a being must be able to do A 3) Since A is impossible, claiming a being can perform A is the same as claiming A is possible (which is false).

I agree. Zhavric-style gods, zods, would appear to be impossible. Can we move on now?

... all you're doing is saying "Well god doesn't have to be A! Neener!" While this may seem a clever way to allow god to remain possible, it's incredibly dishonest & absolutely unsupported.

No, it is not dishonest. Since we agree omnipotent gods appear to be impossible, we can agree that the default position on such beings should be nonexistent.

Now...

Do you acknowledge that most definitions of the word god do not require omnipotence?

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Z First, god must be able to do anything that's not paradoxical and there's nothing paradoxical about creating energy within a closed system. God needs to be able to do this and about a thousand other things which contradict existing scientific laws. Thus, he still defaults to false until proven true.

As CC already pointed out, this is your own personal definition. You are completely ignoring the fact that what makes a god a god in the first place is the ability to do things that are paradoxical.

You state that gods aren't possible based on them fulfilling that which makes them gods in the first place.

Talk about paradoxical...

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Zhavric It's not at all hard to disprove. This isn't nearly as clever an argument as may think it is. You keep ignoring what we know to be proven & evading arguments by twisting your defintion of god around without ever justifying these changes with evidence.

Your insistence is rather tiring.

You can't disprove the concept at hand, so you call us ambiguous for your inability to back up your belief.

Oh, and I can fabricate equally witty and applicable scenarios that are just as ridiculous. Hence, appeal to ridicule is also a poor debating tactic.

"No elephants exist."

"Why would you say that?"

"An elephant that weighs so much wouldn't be able to fly."

"But who said elephants have to fly?"

"Any animal that can't fly has no business being called an elephant."



And I've not "ignored" anything - You're simply trolling because the scientific laws that you thought would be the panacea for theistic belief are suddenly not applicable.

[Fonceai]

@Captain Chaos
@Zhavric

I want to make sure that this is the right thread... is this the one where Zhavric is establishing that god has to have been omnipotent, but can't be omnipotent because the universe is a closed system?

[Zhavric]

Kame, this is ridiculous. The further along we go into your never-ending barrage of straw men the more your stance twists in on itself.

The point of the thread was to provide positive evidence god is possible. Do so or concede that you are unable to.

Your stance is little different than agustine's who's decided, because he's an epistimologist, god is "properly basic" and thus asking for evidence of this basic claim is "irrational". The difference is that Agustine has a clear definition for god.

You've never given a logical explanation for why we should consider a non-omnipotent being a god and have failed to understand that god must necessarily be able to overturn ANY and EVERY law of science that doesn't pose a paradox. Thus, any and every law of science stands on the side of my argument.

What will you do now? Provide evidence? Doubtful. You've had pages to do so, but have been unable to.

Why don't you argue honestly by defining god as "a creator of the universe that (no matter how logically impossible) isn't tripped up by any of Zhavric's arguments" and provide some evidence?

[Fonceai]

You can stop citing your "conservation of energy" argument.

It's your "proven claim", right?

It's not.

To elaborate, you're saying that:

Energy cannot be created in a closed system.
That means an omnipotent god is not possible.

Remember how I question "proven claims" that aren't proven.

Your assertion fails.

It is not proven that the universe is a closed system.

Until you can prove that it is, your "conservation of energy" argument is invalid.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Zhavric The point of the thread was to provide positive evidence god is possible.

Except that you only use your definition of God, which is very likely impossible - and obviously so at that.

I created a much more reasonable version of this thread for the same purpose. I have discussions of what would be needed for a god to be possible on that thread. You are welcome to post there, if you can overcome your fixation on your omnipotent-only definition of god.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Zhavric You've never given a logical explanation for why we should consider a non-omnipotent being a god and have failed to understand that god must necessarily be able to overturn ANY and EVERY law of science that doesn't pose a paradox.

Words evolve in meaning. The word god, and similar words in different languages, came into existence to describe superpowered beings who control aspects of reality. The idea of an omnipotent god came later.

It is you, Zhavric, who fails to understand that you do not get to control the English language for the rest of the world.

If myself and Kame wish to use established definitions of 'god' that do not involve omnipotence, we are free to do so.

[Fonceai]

A.K.A. the "The Thread Doesn't Revolve Around You" clause.

@Captain Chaos

I'm game for non-Zhavric definitions.

What definition are you and Kame using?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Fonceai A.K.A. the "The Thread Doesn't Revolve Around You" clause. @Captain Chaos I'm game for non-Zhavric definitions. What definition are you and Kame using?

Roughly the same.

Mine is:

A being with the ability to design and implement a reality as such as our own.


I mean, a being capable of creating universes deserves the title god, in my opinion. Certainly such beings would be far more powerful than the vast majority of gods that humanity has envisioned throughout history.

[Fonceai]

Indeed.

Unless I'm mistaken, the JCI-god was the first to be credited with creation of existence.

Before, most god-groups controlled different aspects of natural phenomenon.