• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

For the love of god, can someone explain who created god?

Polymath257

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
savagewind said:
I am wondering why there are people who can imagine that the physical universe always existed and that it had no creator, but the same people can't imagine that God always existed and had no creator.
Click to expand...

If you believe the first, why is the second necessary?

I have no problem with an eternal deity in concept. I just don't think any actually exist.

The problem comes from those that say everything has a cause and then make a special pleading for their deity. That is just violating their own rules.
 
BilliardsBall

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
Matter being created does not violate that law. That has been known for over one hundred years. Like I said, you do not understand that law. You can pretty much bet that whenever a creationist claims about a violation of a physical law that they do not understand that physical law. Over one hundred years ago Einstein demonstrated an equivalence between energy and matter. You will still screw it up, but one correction at a time. Do you see your error yet or do you need further explanation?
Click to expand...

You are misunderstanding. I can say the universe at origin was not a closed system, and that what is now matter and energy was introduced from the multiverse, but the point of the Law is that it underscores the question of infinite regression.

What you want is to have a non-physical, non-this-universe, um, deus ex machina, that makes universes. Sounds like a typical goddidit to me. No.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
BilliardsBall said:
You are misunderstanding. I can say the universe at origin was not a closed system, and that what is now matter and energy was introduced from the multiverse, but the point of the Law is that it underscores the question of infinite regression.

What you want is to have a non-physical, non-this-universe, um, deus ex machina, that makes universes. Sounds like a typical goddidit to me. No.
Click to expand...


Sorry you have no understanding of the law of conservation that you kept touting. I really do not care at all about your strawman version of the early universe. Let's discuss your inability to understand the science that you keep touting.

Did you realize your error yet in claiming that mass is conserved?
 
BilliardsBall

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
Sorry you have no understanding of the law of conservation that you kept touting. I really do not care at all about your strawman version of the early universe. Let's discuss your inability to understand the science that you keep touting.

Did you realize your error yet in claiming that mass is conserved?
Click to expand...

If you point out my error, I will understand better, and will recant. Please do so now.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
BilliardsBall said:
If you point out my error, I will understand better, and will recant. Please do so now.
Click to expand...

I already pointed out one to you. Mass is not conserved. You should have admitted that you did not understand a long time ago. Did you forget E = mc^2? That tells you that mass can be changed into energy. It was confirmed rather violently in two Japanese cities, you do remember that, don't you?
 
BilliardsBall

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
I already pointed out one to you. Mass is not conserved. You should have admitted that you did not understand a long time ago. Did you forget E = mc^2? That tells you that mass can be changed into energy. It was confirmed rather violently in two Japanese cities, you do remember that, don't you?
Click to expand...

You must be joking! ...?

The Law refers to matter and energy being converted without being destroyed or created! What does that have to with out of nothing, EVERYTHING?!
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
BilliardsBall said:
You must be joking! ...?

The Law refers to matter and energy being converted without being destroyed or created! What does that have to with out of nothing, EVERYTHING?!
Click to expand...

Do I need to go back and quote your earlier posts? Earlier you implied that mass is conserved. You may not have understood when you did that.

But let's assume that you did not make that error. The universe from nothing still does not violate that law. There is both "positive" and "negative" energy. Energy is merely bookkeeping when one gets down to it. As long as your total energy is conserved everything is copacetic. The total energy of the universe has been measured. That number is zero. In other words energy wise we have nothing from nothing. No violation of conservation. I can give a link to Lawrence Krauss's excellent lecture on this topic. It is aimed at lay people so you should have no problem understanding it.
 
BilliardsBall

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
Do I need to go back and quote your earlier posts? Earlier you implied that mass is conserved. You may not have understood when you did that.

But let's assume that you did not make that error. The universe from nothing still does not violate that law. There is both "positive" and "negative" energy. Energy is merely bookkeeping when one gets down to it. As long as your total energy is conserved everything is copacetic. The total energy of the universe has been measured. That number is zero. In other words energy wise we have nothing from nothing. No violation of conservation. I can give a link to Lawrence Krauss's excellent lecture on this topic. It is aimed at lay people so you should have no problem understanding it.
Click to expand...

Would you say that mass-wise we also have nothing?
 
A

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
BilliardsBall said:
Would you say that mass-wise we also have nothing?
Click to expand...
Positive energy in the form of matter minus negative energy in the form of gravity = Zero. Nothing. Nada. 1 (positive energy/matter) - 1 (negative energy/gravity) = 0. Nothing. Nada. The universe is just nothing expressed as matter minus gravity. 0=0. 1-1=0. Doesn't matter that you have a 1 and another 1. The net result is still nothing. Zero.
 
BilliardsBall

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
ArtieE said:
Positive energy in the form of matter minus negative energy in the form of gravity = Zero. Nothing. Nada. 1 (positive energy/matter) - 1 (negative energy/gravity) = 0. Nothing. Nada. The universe is just nothing expressed as matter minus gravity. 0=0. 1-1=0. Doesn't matter that you have a 1 and another 1. The net result is still nothing. Zero.
Click to expand...

I understand. What are you? A 1 of many cells or a 0? What am I? I exist, ergo cogito sum. Explain this miracle if you will. :)
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
BilliardsBall said:
Did you mean a "multiverse"? If your concept is a multiverse, I'd ask you about infinite regression.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I meant to say "multi-verse". And sooner or later there will be a root cause but we may never find it. The fact is that the universe needs a creator as much as god needs a creator. The same "logic" that leads to the conclusion that the universe needs a creator leads to a conclusion that God needs a creator. The "Sumthin must have made it" argument falls flat on its face.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top