Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Bahman]

First, God is a being and is not energy, reality, or consciousness. Second, I provide an argument against the act of creation from nothing so feel free to read OP and provide your criticisms.

What does it mean "God is a being and is not energy"?
Can there be any "reality" without "energy"?
In your "consciousness", can there be a "reality" without "consciousness"?

As for the "Second", I thought we agree there is no such thing as "nothing" or creation from "nothing".

God to me is a being who is also the creator of the universe. The energy on the other hand is a term in physics that means the power or heat that is created when something moves, is burned, or is exerted. Consciousness is a term in the philosophy of mind which means the ability to be aware of Qualia. Reality is another term that means whatever exists.

[Carter Blunt]

You can be clairvoyant and have an intuitive sense of the most likely outcome in an unimaginable complexity of probabilistic computation but it can change with any new previously unknown variable. You can't be God and know everything, I think.

That just means we don't know the variables, not necessarily that new ones are being introduced. For all I know, there IS a variable for the emergence of randomness, thus negating it being random. It could potentially be impossible to measure, since even the act of measurement interferes with the result. In a deterministic world, the random variable was always gonna roll the way it rolled. It may be the case that this is an unfalsifiable proposition.

[Carter Blunt]

God to me is a being who is also the creator of the universe.

Just pushes the question back. How can a god come from nothing?

[Bahman]

God to me is a being who is also the creator of the universe.

Just pushes the question back. How can a god come from nothing?

If it is shown that the act of creation is possible and nothing to something is logically impossible and there was a point that there was nothing then it follows that God must necessarily exist.

[Carter Blunt]

If it is shown that the act of creation is possible and nothing to something is logically impossible and there was a point that there was nothing then it follows that God must necessarily exist.

That's a lot of "ifs". And no, that conclusion doesn't follow at all. God is something. If he must necessarily exist, then there is never a point that there was nothing. If nothing created him, then nothing to something is logically possible. If the act of creation from nothing is possible, it still wouldn't prove a god.

[Ranvier]

Bahman and Carter Blunt

Words represent concepts. Concepts can be simple or very complex and even difficult to comprehend. The better we understand the concept, the more accurate is the use of words that represent these concepts. "Being"; "God"; "Energy"; "existence"; "Randomness"; "Chaos"; "consciousness"... are all concepts, some are more difficult to understand than others.
This understanding of concepts is necessary to have the proper mental "matrix" from multifaceted relationship between all these concepts that enables understanding "reality" and our place within that "reality".

[Ranvier]

First, God is a being and is not energy, reality, or consciousness. Second, I provide an argument against the act of creation from nothing so feel free to read OP and provide your criticisms.

What does it mean "God is a being and is not energy"?
Can there be any "reality" without "energy"?
In your "consciousness", can there be a "reality" without "consciousness"?

As for the "Second", I thought we agree there is no such thing as "nothing" or creation from "nothing".

God to me is a being who is also the creator of the universe. The energy on the other hand is a term in physics that means the power or heat that is created when something moves, is burned, or is exerted. Consciousness is a term in the philosophy of mind which means the ability to be aware of Qualia. Reality is another term that means whatever exists.

How does your explanation justifies your claim that God is a being and not "energy"? We should first have good understanding of both "being" and "energy" before we can make such determination in regards to God. Would you agree?

[GE Morton]

If it is shown that the act of creation is possible and nothing to something is logically impossible and there was a point that there was nothing then it follows that God must necessarily exist.

If "the act of creation is possible" then it follows that there must be an actor, or creator. Whether that actor/creator is "God" remains an open question.

It does not, however, follow that "if nothing to something is impossible and there was a point where there was nothing" then "God must necessarily exist." That claim is self-contradictory: if God exists, then there was not "nothing."

Finally, it is not logically impossible for something to spontaneously appear from nothing. Note that a spontaneous appearance is not the same as a "creation." The latter implies a creator; the former does not. The former may be theoretically impossible and counterintuitive, but it violates no logical rule.

[Carter Blunt]

Words represent concepts. Concepts can be simple or very complex and even difficult to comprehend.

They can be a lot more difficult to comprehend when you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. I'm pretty sure you ultimately settled on "we can change it", i.e. free will, but I thought you were arguing for hard determinism up until that point, so I have no clue.

[Bahman]

If it is shown that the act of creation is possible and nothing to something is logically impossible and there was a point that there was nothing then it follows that God must necessarily exist.

That's a lot of "ifs". And no, that conclusion doesn't follow at all. God is something. If he must necessarily exist, then there is never a point that there was nothing. If nothing created him, then nothing to something is logically possible. If the act of creation from nothing is possible, it still wouldn't prove a god.

I should have written it this way: If it is shown that the act of creation is possible and nothing to something is logically impossible and there was a point that there was nothing but God then it follows that God must necessarily be the creator.

[Bahman]

First, God is a being and is not energy, reality, or consciousness. Second, I provide an argument against the act of creation from nothing so feel free to read OP and provide your criticisms.

What does it mean "God is a being and is not energy"?
Can there be any "reality" without "energy"?
In your "consciousness", can there be a "reality" without "consciousness"?

As for the "Second", I thought we agree there is no such thing as "nothing" or creation from "nothing".

God to me is a being who is also the creator of the universe. The energy on the other hand is a term in physics that means the power or heat that is created when something moves, is burned, or is exerted. Consciousness is a term in the philosophy of mind which means the ability to be aware of Qualia. Reality is another term that means whatever exists.

How does your explanation justifies your claim that God is a being and not "energy"? We should first have good understanding of both "being" and "energy" before we can make such determination in regards to God. Would you agree?

God can create energy given the definition of God and energy. Energy however can turn into different things and it is not a being.

[Ranvier]

God can create energy given the definition of God and energy. Energy however can turn into different things and it is not a being.

God doesn't have to create energy, as God is [Energy]. Energy and "being" isn't mutually exclusive. It's your understanding of both concepts that creates disparity.

Here is the evidence from scripture:

John 6:53-58
New King James Version

"53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is [a]food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”


How do you understand this? What does it mean?

When [we] were created in God's image, does it mean that God has two kidneys, one heart, and opposable thumbs? What does it mean [we] were created in God's "image", how does it influence your understanding of energy?

[Bahman]

If it is shown that the act of creation is possible and nothing to something is logically impossible and there was a point that there was nothing then it follows that God must necessarily exist.

If "the act of creation is possible" then it follows that there must be an actor, or creator.

No. If the act of creation is possible then it follows that there could be a creator. The necessity of the creator just follows if there was a point that there was nothing but the creator.

Whether that actor/creator is "God" remains an open question.

Well, that depends on how you define God. To me, God by definition is a being with the ability to create.

It does not, however, follow that "if nothing to something is impossible and there was a point where there was nothing" then "God must necessarily exist." That claim is self-contradictory: if God exists, then there was not "nothing."

Correct. I should have written it this way: "if nothing to something is impossible and there was a point where there was nothing but God then it follows that God is the creator".

Finally, it is not logically impossible for something to spontaneously appear from nothing. Note that a spontaneous appearance is not the same as a "creation." The latter implies a creator; the former does not. The former may be theoretically impossible and counterintuitive, but it violates no logical rule.

True.

[Ranvier]

Finally, it is not logically impossible for something to spontaneously appear from nothing. Note that a spontaneous appearance is not the same as a "creation." The latter implies a creator; the former does not. The former may be theoretically impossible and counterintuitive, but it violates no logical rule.

Is there any evidence for such conclusion?

[Bahman]

God can create energy given the definition of God and energy. Energy however can turn into different things and it is not a being.

God doesn't have to create energy, as God is [Energy]. Energy and "being" isn't mutually exclusive. It's your understanding of both concepts that creates disparity.

Could you please define what you mean by energy?

Here is the evidence from scripture:

John 6:53-58
New King James Version


"53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is [a]food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”


How do you understand this? What does it mean?

When [we] were created in God's image, does it mean that God has two kidneys, one heart, and opposable thumbs? What does it mean [we] were created in God's "image", how does it influence your understanding of energy?

I don't understand what those verses mean. Do you? Could we please stick to philosophy rather than theology?