Pages: 1 … 5 6 7

 

2008-05-29 09:08:46
Bell
Frosties > Cornflakes
+362|6851|UK

Excellent thread guys, if I may I would like to throw this possibility up and your opinion would be appreciated

If there is a God, wouldnt it be plasuable to assume, he, the creator, is not subject to the laws and restrictions of his creation.

I'll explain what I mean.  If I worked in a factory making DVD's, I, the creator have created DVD's.  Yet, the logic of DVD's, is that in order to see what is on that disc, you need a DVD player, power connections, a HDMI, and an LCD/plasma/whatever.  As far as that creation (the DVD) is concerned, the only way to view human images is through those mediums (laws).  Yet I can be seen and heard without those laws.  Does that mean I do not exist?  Well obviously not.  Yet as far as the logic of my creation is concerned, I cannot exist because I defy it's laws.  I am exempt from those restrictions in my domain, and thus, I am exempt from the restrictions and laws of what I created.  According to my creation I cannot exist by logic, yet I do.  And that is exactly my point, if there is a God, he wouldnt nescesarily be subject to the restrictions we are.  If logic dictates that a pillow will fall to the ground due to gravity, then by the same token, in his domain it could do the opposite and/or the parallel.

Thoughts?

Martyn
2008-05-29 11:48:15
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6432|North Tonawanda, NY

pierro wrote:

Without a God there is no free will:
If there is no god or supernatural force in the universe then humans are just glorified computers and have no more free will then the desktop I’m working on now

God > Logic:
Could god make a stone even god could not lift? The answer is that of course god could…god would create the stone that even god could not lift and then lift it anyways. You may say that makes no logical, but that is the point…you cannot apply logic to anything that is omnipotent and omniscient (i.e. God).

With a God there can be free will:
As was stated before, the argument against there being free will relied upon applying logic to God’s omnipotence and omniscience. As I demonstrated above, god can do anything and you can’t apply logic to it…that includes allowing for paradoxes such as creating beings with free will while still possessing omnipotence and omniscience. While I can’t say that God chose to give humans free will, I can say that with a God the possibility for free will exists as God can do anything and without a God there cannot be free will.

There is a God:
The argument for god’s existence is the question “What created the universe if it wasn’t God?” There is no argument against this other then countering with “Then what created God?” But as I demonstrated before, you cannot apply this sort of logic to God and therefore the counter-argument of “Then what created God?” does not stand…I could counter with “God created itself” and although that doesn’t make logical sense you cannot apply logic to God and the argument would stand. All the while, the question “What created the universe if it wasn’t God?” would still not have an answer other than “God”, proving God’s existence.
Why is god required for man to have free will?  I see your argument for how god can be omnipotent with man having free will, but you don't address why god is required.  It really looks like you presume the existence of god in order to prove the existence of god.
2008-05-29 20:59:50
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6707|North Carolina
Pierro...  what if we really are just glorified computers?  You could describe us as being organic computers, so to speak.

I'm basically a determinist, so I view everything as being connected one way or another.  It's just that the complexities of every action are so convoluted that we can't possibly take in all of what's going on around us.

This is why, even using your explanation, I could argue that free will might not exist even if there is a god.  Free Will could just be a matter of perception, where we simply don't realize that everything we do is nothing more than the result of neurochemical reactions.
2008-05-29 21:30:05
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6432|North Tonawanda, NY

pierro wrote:

-The reason that I believe God is required to have free will is because in a godless world, humans would just be glorified computers. Just the product of intricately arranged atoms, only of carbon instead of sillicon. I cannot see a computer having free will and I therefore cannot see humans in a godless world possessing free will
Your belief is not definitive proof.  Well, not proof for anyone but yourself.  But I don't see how a world without god would make man 'glorified computers'.  Can you explain a little more about why you think mankind couldn't have free will without god?  I am not making that connection.

pierro wrote:

-The way I prove the existance of God is to ask the question what created the universe if it wasn't God? Those opposing god's existance can only answer with "What created God then?" and if that argument doesn't work, they have nothing (or so I've heard so far). Fortunately, I can reply with “God created itself” and although that doesn’t make logical sense you cannot apply logic to God and the argument would stand.
That is not a proof of god.  It is a 'proof' based on the prior assumption that god exists and that he can conveniently defy logic.  If you looked at it from another perspective, you would see how that argument fails.
2008-05-30 16:19:19
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6432|North Tonawanda, NY

pierro wrote:

Sorry about that…here’s what I am saying:
1)Without God human’s are just the product of intricately arranged sets of carbon atoms and neurochemical reactions…a glorified computer (Turquoise says the very well above)
2) Computers cannot have free will
3) Since humanity is a glorified computer, it cannot have free will
If we are all computers, then nature has had billions of years to develop one that could have free will.  I suppose I don't see how god is required to supply anything with free will.  I will come back to this later though.
2008-05-30 16:27:15
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6645|tropical regions of london
thought it said "Free Will vs Pedestrians"
2008-05-30 17:03:22
Cheeky_Ninja06
Member
+52|7034|Cambridge, England

Kmarion wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Exactly,

Nature does not however, it comprehends, tides, seasons, water evaporating and falling as rain, warm and cold ocean currents, lunar cycles, night and day, dawn and dusk,etc.....Time does not exist in nature.
seasons change with the tilt of the earth, the earth slows in its rotation, the moon drifts away, stars burn out and die

some day, the earth will stop spinning, the moon will drift away, and our sun will cease to give off energy.

time only seems cyclical to us due to the effects of gravity, but all things must come to an end.
Sounds a lot like the the second law of thermal dynamics to me .
As the earth slows its orbit the moon would come closer not drift away. Currently the earth is loosing angular momentum to the moon as the system has not yet reached equilibrium, i.e. the same side of the moon always faces the earth but it is a different part of the earth that faces the moon. As the earths rotations slow we will become locked with the moon the earth will continue to loose angular momentum to the sun which will slow our rotation, bringing the moon into a tighter orbit.

Or a bit simpler, the earth is much more massive than the moon, therefore the moon will be "attracted" to the earth i.e. the moon will get closer as its speed decreases.

Kmarion wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

based on the visible mass of the universe, it should have stopped expanding millenia ago, but it is currently exhibiting rapid acceleration, for reasons unknown
We should have touched on this more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch vs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip
I watched the The Universe : Cosmic Apocalypse again last night. The apocalyptic scenarios were chilling (some literally).

The entire show can be watched here: http://documentary-log.com/?id=28
The third segment is the best.
Why will the universe stop expanding? The big bang cannot really be likened to an explosion here on earth as the universe does not have an atmosphere. We're looking at huge masses traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light but there is little resistance acting upon them to convert this Ke into Pe, you would need some sort of layer around the edge of the universe to absorb our momentum, otherwise with nothing to hold us back why should we not keep going?

I cant see how gravity would be responsible for this as we are getting ever further away from the vast majority of the universe hence any gravitational force opposing our expansion would be constantly diminishing, not the increasing force necessary to turn us about.

The hardest question to answer is, if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?

Anyway back to the OP, after a bit of thought i can appreciate two main outcomes either there is no god or religion is flawed in its approach. For god to be omnipotent he would know the series of events bought about by his creation of us, right down to each persons actions. This is after all what omnipotent means, which would effectively alleviate free will, not because you cant go and do "whatever you want" but because god already knew you were going to do that. I'm not saying he is forcing you to do it, but he knew that you would. Quite clearly at some point it was announced that god was/is all knowing and ever since religion has had to try and explain that, that wasn't what they really meant when they said it.

Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2008-05-30 17:06:28)

2008-05-30 18:13:28
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6903|132 and Bush

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

As the earth slows its orbit the moon would come closer not drift away. Currently the earth is loosing angular momentum to the moon as the system has not yet reached equilibrium, i.e. the same side of the moon always faces the earth but it is a different part of the earth that faces the moon. As the earths rotations slow we will become locked with the moon smile the earth will continue to loose angular momentum to the sun which will slow our rotation, bringing the moon into a tighter orbit.

Or a bit simpler, the earth is much more massive than the moon, therefore the moon will be "attracted" to the earth i.e. the moon will get closer as its speed decreases.
By equilibrium I assume you are talking about tidal lock. The earth and the moon share angular momentum. It is commonly accepted that the moon is currently leaving earths orbit, at about the same speed your fingernails grow. Our moon is pretty unique with regards to size relative to the planet it orbits. I think the only other planet with a relatively similar sized moon to it's host is Pluto (if you want to still call Pluto a planet). Ultimately, depending how far you want to look into the future, all celestial bodies should collide into a "big crunch".  Also consider the moon itself helps to regulate the rotation. It slows the earth with the friction caused by tidal bulge. The Moon also tugs the earth slightly ahead of the sub-lunar point on Earth at which the Moon is overhead. this in turn causes lateral acceleration. The rate at which the earths rotation slows is not a cause for concern. Irrelevant really, the Sun will gobble us up before this is means anything.

Why will the universe stop expanding? The big bang cannot really be likened to an explosion here on earth as the universe does not have an atmosphere. We're looking at huge masses traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light but there is little resistance acting upon them to convert this Ke into Pe, you would need some sort of layer around the edge of the universe to absorb our momentum, otherwise with nothing to hold us back why should we not keep going?

I cant see how gravity would be responsible for this as we are getting ever further away from the vast majority of the universe hence any gravitational force opposing our expansion would be constantly diminishing, not the increasing force necessary to turn us about.

The hardest question to answer is, if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?
Could have something to do with Dark matter. The stuff we haven't quite figured out that makes up the vast majority of our universe . That hypothetical "layer" around the Universe isn't absorbing but rather accelerating galaxies as they approach. A characteristic similar to gravity (inner planets orbit faster than outer planets). Or look at the acceleration of matter around a black hole. So what if the "layer" is made up of an infinitely larger mass than all of the known universe combined? Bingo! I just explained it to you using gravity..lol
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-05-30 22:23:49
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6432|North Tonawanda, NY

pierro wrote:

-I don't see how you can get conciousness, let alone free will from a computer...eager to see your proof/response
It's not so much that I have a proof, but more that I do not see how god is required for such a thing...  I'm really not trying to be obtuse, so I am sorry if it comes off that way.  Again, I will come back to this when I am thinking clearer.  My good buddy Molson and I were hanging out earlier, now John Jameson & Sons took his place...
2008-05-31 13:51:59
Cheeky_Ninja06
Member
+52|7034|Cambridge, England
no im afraid i dont follow, it just doesn't sit right. The faster a planet travels the further it is from the object it is orbiting i.e. the closer it is to escaping. Otherwise you could never re-enter the earths atmosphere as you would have to go faster and faster to get closer. To get closer you have to slow down hence space junk is more likely to re-enter than a satellite which is maintaining its orbit.

We cannot keep accelerating otherwise we would exceed the speed of light so instead we would see this "acceleration" as an increase in mass, but what is the force responsible for this?

I dont see how as the universe spreads out, the gravitational interactions would increase. Is not the inverse true?
2008-05-31 14:33:47
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6903|132 and Bush

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

no im afraid i dont follow, it just doesn't sit right. The faster a planet travels the further it is from the object it is orbiting i.e. the closer it is to escaping. Otherwise you could never re-enter the earths atmosphere as you would have to go faster and faster to get closer. To get closer you have to slow down hence space junk is more likely to re-enter than a satellite which is maintaining its orbit.

We cannot keep accelerating otherwise we would exceed the speed of light so instead we would see this "acceleration" as an increase in mass, but what is the force responsible for this?

I dont see how as the universe spreads out, the gravitational interactions would increase. Is not the inverse true?
The orbital speed of an outer planet is slower. The re-entry into the earths atmosphere is also slowed by the atmosphere and friction. The ultimate speed is determined by the amount of mass. Escape speed is dependent upon the velocity created by the acceleration. The point at which a smaller mass is overwhelmed by gravity vs acceleration is called the event horizon.

It is true that if an object is massive enough not even light will escape. We see this with black holes.

If the mass on the Universes fringe is greater it will continue to expand by gravitationally pulling the less massive interior. We might only see the smaller picture (galaxies colliding). All matter accelerate as they approach another. We have been using "gravitational slingshots" to escape the suns pull in our spacecrafts.

Think outside the box
Xbone Stormsurgezz

 

Pages: 1 … 5 6 7

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard