Do you think Darwin is right

[Avalach21]

Soleron said:

Avalach21 said:

...

 

God isn't "Stuff."  God isn't in "time" or "space."  God doesn't exist in our "universe."  So therefore a hypothetical "God" doesn't fall under the laws that govern our universe.  So if there were to be a "God" it would be impossible for us to understand him, or his existance, and questions such as "how did he come to exist?" make no sense, becasue he doesn't "exist" in our sense of the word.  This is why it is hard (impossible) for science to prove or disprove God, because you can't test something that does not follow the rules of science.

1. Our universe is deterministic (all things have a cause). If God is outside these rules, he cannot affect the universe at all. He can't talk to people or perform miracles. I assume you believe in a personal (interventionist) God? You can't have both.

2. Even if there is such a supernatural cause to the universe, your description doesn't imply any of the qualities usually assigned to "God" - a cause outside time need not be sentient, or benevolent, or intefering, or omniscient/potent/present.Suppose a lump of extradimensional cheese caused the universe. If I call that cheese "God", it fits your description but is not appropriate to worship.

Conclusion: Whether or not something supernatural created the universe has no bearing on traditions of religion or religious belief.

 

 

1. I never claimed to believe in any God, I'm just presenting a "hypothetical" God.  All things in our universe, after it's existence, have a cause, but the universe itself also needs a cause. In my opinion, it's logical to think that something that caused our universe to exist is something outside of the universe (the mentioned supernatural cause).

Also, a religious person could easily believe that while the essence of God is extradimensional, he could manifest himself into the physical world in any manner he chooses (ie. Jesus, God in flesh.)

2. You can call God whatever you want, cheese, a lump of spaghetti, who the hell cares.  He is not physical, none of these things describe him, so you can apply whatever physical image to him you want.  I don't understand how my description of God prevents God from having any of the traits you listed either?

 

I guess a comparison could help here.

Let's say you and I build a computer together.  We exist outside of the computer, we assemble the parts and make a working computer (we even install Linux on it.)  We are outside of the processes of the computer, we are not data on the hard disk, we do not exist any where on the RAM or anything, we are outside of the computer.  Even though we exist outside of the "dimensions" of the computer, we still make a way for ourselves to be able to interface with the computer.  The computer will run under it's programmed rules until we feel a need to manipulate them.  I'm sure if God made the universe, if he was "all knowledgeable" he would make it in such a way that he could interface with it when he wanted to. 

This is all assuming that an "interventionist" God existed.

Someone earlier in the thread (maybe even Akuma?) mentioned a God who set off the big bang, and set everything to in place to occur, so we'd evolve from microorganisms to human beings, and he need not intervene anywhere afterward.  This would be a God who is not an "interventionist."

So the "interventionist" quality is neither necessary nor impossible with my previous description of God.