Challenge - Give proof for your religion of choice WITHOUT using scripture - Page 12

quote DG

quote ssbm freak

I'm a christain myself but I'm far from what you would call religious.
Alright so an Eternal Being cannot exist. This is true. Through this same logic an eternal universe cannot exist as the concept of a Negative Infinity cannot exist in our universe.

Suppose time loops, this would remove a beginning and an end. There's also theories suggested that separates time from the equation, time is a touchy subject when talking about the creation of our universe since it existing in a system invalidates any 'negative infinity.'

So we suggest that it's a dimension that is only part of the puzzle the works with other dimensions. Our universe is interacting with all these dimensions, thus relatively... how long are these dimensions interacting since the dimension of time wouldn't affect said interaction?

Scientific explanations as well as religious explanations usually come to a pretty common conclusion, suddenly we were there.

Who's to say that an Eternal Deity, or an Eternal Will cannot exist above these dimensions?
I believe there is a system that commands the system that our universe is based on. And a system in control of that reaching infinitely eventually reaching an Eternal Will or a 'God.'

When I think of god I don't think of some bearded man in the sky, I think of him as the holder of all scientific knowledge. Infinitely intelligent as opposed to so many portrayals as a being that spouts meaningless wisdom.

Now let's try this, Validate your own existence and then Validate the existence of everyone besides yourself in that order.

Yes, I would agree that the concept of an infinite universe doesn't really help to explain anything. My point was that an INFINITE DEITY doesn't explain anything either, because it poses the same problem.

I take your point, which is essentially the same as multiple universe theory. Yes, there could be lots of universes somehow suspended in a "multiverse" which contains them. Your theory is that God rules the multiverse, or something along these lines.

OK, but there's a large problem with this.

THE SAME PROBLEM STILL APPLIES.

The multiverse would still need a beginning or an end, so you'd be left with the same issue of who created it/how it was created.

Thus even if God exists outside our universe, you're still left with the same issue. Once again, his existence explains nothing.

Even if he created OUR universe, how did the MULTIVERSE get there?

You see the problem?


As for your last sentence, I don't understand what you're asking me to do. What do you mean by "validate my existence"?

To me, my existence is merely due to evolution from an original organism which formed via random combination of chemical compounds under certain conditions.

The same is true for every other lifeform on this planet.

quote Asthenia

Why are you against it? Just because you don't agree with religion doesn't mean others shouldn't believe it either.
Anyway I cant really think of a way to prove religion. But without proof you also can't fully deny religion as you don't know for sure if there is a grater being

Because the whole mindset of religion is ridiculous.

Think of it like this.

Scientists are like an adult trying to solve a puzzle in which you need to put shaped blocks through holes.
A scientist looks for blocks in the room, finds them, and sees how they fit into the holes. If a block is missing then science leaves the hole unfilled until that block is found.

On the other hand, religion is like a 2 year old child trying to solve this puzzle by putting the blocks immediately in front of them into whatever holes they see first. If a block doesn't fit, they violently smash it into the hole until it gets stuck and doesn't fit properly.


Why do I say this?

Because the main concept of religion is to explain the universe existing.

The scientific view is like this:

1. We are here. We must have got here somehow.
2. How did this happen? I better look for evidence.
3. I found some evidence. Theory formed.
4. More evidence found. Theory modified.
5. Can't find any more evidence at the moment. We're pretty sure there was a big bang but we have no idea what happened before it. Wait until more is found and then modify the theory.


Meanwhile, religion does this:

1. Make up creation myth based on no evidence at all.
2. Hold on to myth claiming it's literal truth for as long as possible. Ignore evidence to the contrary as long as possible.
3. Science intervenes and disproves creation myth. Change your mind and claim the myth is a metaphor somehow.
4. Science gets to a point where it can't explain anything further for the moment. Claim science is not infalliable and try to explain further via religious means.

The end result is basically that scientists are stuck at the point of the Big Bang until more evidence is found for what happened before it. This may never occur.

Meanwhile, the religious are saying this:

"Hm, Science can't go any further. They can't prove there is no god. I know! Religion can save the day. Let's make a massive assumption based on zero evidence! If god is outside the universe, made of neither matter nor energy, and violates every physical law we know of, then we can use him to explain everything!"

This is literally the argument a lot of people are using.

They claim that god doesn't need to follow the laws of the universe. They claim he's neither matter not energy.

This is not based on evidence. This is not based on logic. This is based on WISHFUL THINKING.

It's the only way in which a "god" can be used to provide an explanation for the universe being created.
Therefore in order to make this idea fit, they're saying that god must fit this description.

The block has just been smashed into a hole.

I do agree with allot of that, and I myself am more persuaded by the science side as they can prove there theory's, but there is only so far back science can go to my knowledge. Know one knows how the galaxy started from scratch, there may be a greater being that made our galaxy. but then again how did that greater being get there? In my opinion I think we wont get answers about god and religion on earth, I think seeing more of space would possibly show more possible answers to our creation.
Now thats about how we got here.

The whole thing about Jesus healing people, it was a miracle in the bible, but he could have just been good with medicine.

Now I say all these things against religion but there must have been something superior to make it stick for so many centurys.

I have also stuck with Christianity as that is the religion I have grown up around as allot of my family do believe. But religions do connect in a way, they are just written in someones different prospective. If someone looked at all the religions as one and compared the similarity there could be more of an answer to the religions we know of. There are probably things that are hidden from the bible as well that could stop believers believing if it is something bad.

But at the end whatever conclusion you decide to believe (God or science) you can never believe it 100% until you see it with your own eyes, because even if scientists do have proof whats to say its not made up in such a way we believe it? Whats to say all the proof is still just a believable theory? The only way at the end of the day you can fully come to a conclusion is by working it all out yourself, because reading someones proof and saying its true because it seems legit is the same as reading the Bible or Quran and saying they are legit.

quote DG

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
This is an experiment which successfully produced amino acids by simulating the conditions in which life is thought to have formed.

But it didn't produce life as we know it. There are at least two problems.

1. The amino acids had the wrong "handedness". Life is left handed amino acids and his mixture would be toxic to any life on earth cause it had right and left handed amino acids.

2. The composition he started with, the "pre chemicals" that were assumed to be like what would be found on the surface of the earths 3.5billion years ago is now known to be wrong.

quote DG

The next step would be to do the same thing with nucleotides and try to form them into DNA. I don't see how this is so hard to believe.

Key word...believe. Faith, in what has never been seen. Are you really so different then a Christian at this point?

quote DG

2/3/4/5. I think all of these are basically the same argument.

They are certainly related, but they are not the same.

quote DG

To simplify what you said, you're essentially saying that because god doesn't need to follow the rules of the universe, he can be used as an explanation for its creation, since he could be there before it existed.

I have one huge issue with this: Why would you assume this?

You are right that its an assumption, but you see when it comes to religion, and faith, its more then an assumption its faith. Which is not out of line. However, the same cannot be said for an atheist who is following the evidence and making assumptions about the cause of the universe. That faith is out of line and inconsistant with "following the evidence".

Personally the assumption makes sense. If God is "I am" and was never created, then it stands that He is made out of something entirely different then we have ever observed or tested. Its a valid assumption based on reasoning and evidence. Its not verifiable or testable, but it makes logical sense.

quote DG

The concept of a deity existing eternally makes no sense.

That is only true if you assume that everything that exists has to exist out of energy which decays and loses "usefulness". Personally I think you lack imagination that something else exists outside of physical energy this universe is made out of. But then again...if you are an atheist following the evidence, I don't think its a lack of imagination at all...just a lack of observability.

quote DG

Why should it be possible for a deity if not a universe? There's simply no logical reason why this should be the case.

What is inside the universe we know, through observation to be limited, created, and will eventually die out. We have no deity to test or observe or probe in a lab...so assuming that they are the same is an assumption that has NO BASIS what so ever.

quote DG

God could not create energy without containing energy.

I don't follow. Please expand this claim. Some would argue the universe contains the energy...so wouldn't God have contained the energy in the universe?

quote DG

Therefore I would say that the only existence god could have would be an energy being of some kind.

Possibly...but what kind of energy? The same stuff you and I are made out of or something different?

quote DG

To say that god could create either mass or energy without being made of energy would be to break the very law of thermodynamics which you stated.

I fail to see why God has to be made out of the stuff that He creates. I cannot fathom why this would be even close to being true. Do we humans then have to be made out of ceramics to make a tile or clay pot? Do we have to be made out of iron to make horseshoes? Or what about Gold or some of the elements that we don't find in our body? Eventually I would find some element that doesn't exist in our bodies that we can use and make things out of.

quote DG

It would not matter if it was the same kind of energy or not. SOME KIND of energy would be required. I don't see how it could not follow this law.

If the energy is different, could it then follow different rules that govern this energy? Are the laws of physics a consequence of the kind of energy that is created, or are you going to claim that no matter what kind of energy exists our laws always apply to it? I think a close examination of matter and energy will find that the laws of physics are derived from the energy itself. That the energy exists in a manner that is described by the laws of physics. In which case, a different energy would have a different set of rules.

quote DG

9. I had thought you meant the more... outlandish parts of the Bible such as miracles, the Ark, etc. I can see that this evidence supports the more mundane history found in the Bible and I accept this.

Yes...I am fully aware that the Flood and the Exodus are major historical issues. Personally I think they have solutions, but they are solutions that most Christians won't accept.

quote DG

10. Huh. The Boris story goes too far to be believable.

Exactly. You are going to shoot down miracles until one happens for you. Go to a church and talk to someone directly who has experienced one. That is the first step to accepting that they happen...otherwise, internet research is going to get you no-where cause you will find flaws and you will disbelieve because you already disbelieve, and reading about them from the comforts of your comfy chair isn't going to get you anywhere.

quote DG

But doors do not explode off their hinges when people make recoveries. This HAS to be fake. Why would god blow doors off?

Maybe its a necessary consequence of our spiritual energy uniting with the energy of the universe, which we can mathematically calculate if we have the transfer equations. Maybe such consequences is why such energy combining doesn't happen all the time becuase its so violent.

quote DG

Correct. However, problem 2 might mean that if they used the RIGHT chemical mix, we might get the correct chirality. ("Handedness")
The key thing is, if the right chirality did form, and DNA formed, from then on the entire process would be self sustaining. It only had to happen ONCE on the entire planet. That's a much larger sample size than the experiment, therefore much more likely.

But now we are extending belief past empirical evidence. This is fine for a Christian, not fine for an atheist following the evidence. How many times has Miller's experiment been modified to hypothesized atmospheric conditions redone and failed? Enough times to believe that its unlikely to have happened, that is how many times its failed.

quote DG

That's not faith. It's merely extrapolation of the evidence into a wider theory, which will be corrected when further evidence is present.

Its faith...if you believe. There is no evidence for the claim. Its funny you use the word "extrapolate"...you should look it up. One of the definitions is conjecture.

quote DG

But the thing is, we've never observed a state of matter which isn't mass or energy. Every single interaction we've ever observed featured the conversion of mass to energy or vice versa.

And every interaction has proven that energy decays and becomes less useful, and cannot be created or destroyed. yet...you are then going to say that it was created, and is infinite or always existed? That is the problem with alternative theories, because they contradict what we observe, and to believe in other theories as possible or likely, means one is believing in what has no evidence for. Which is fine in an of itself, as a Christian, I do the same thing...but its inconsistent for an atheist following the evidence.

quote DG

There's no evidence of any third state. There's basically no niche for it to fill in this universe.

But...God is claimed to exist outside the universe...so that doesn't mean anything for me.

quote DG

Outside the universe? Perhaps. But if god was outside the universe, and could not exist within the universe...

An assumption. Based on scripture one would have to believe that this assumption is invalid as God has interacted and effected the world. Being omnipotent, perhaps God can temporarily take a form that is consistent with the laws of this universe and interact? Or create beings that can interact between the two worlds? You were so sure his omnipotence can create free will beings without the will for disgusting urges, but now his omnipotence power cannot allow him to interact with the world he created?

quote DG

(since he doesn't obey its laws) I don't see how he could interact with it and have any effect upon it.

Its an interesting assumption, but I personally would never conclude from ignorance what God is unable to do.

quote DG

So before the universe was here, presumably there was some sea of pure energy.

i followed you up to this point...based on emirical observation and modern cosmology, the energy in this universe was created with the universe, not existing before the universe.

quote DG

God made it? HOW? If he's neither matter nor energy, he can't convert himself into energy. He doesn't contain energy in his own being.

Well, as you stated, he might contain energy of a different kind...and just modified it.

But I still don't understand why it is that God cannot create energy as we observe it out of nothing. Modern cosmology would say that in fact energy was created out of nothing since it all breaks down at a singularity, so even an atheistic world view can have the beleif that energy came from nothing.

quote DG

So how could he put the energy into the void which would then become matter and become the universe as we know it?

I think the question, at least for many...is wrong. Many comologists would state that the universe was created at the same time as energy...meaning that God (or big bang) didn't put the energy into a void, rather the energy and universe are one and the same...created at the same time. The universe doesn't exist independent of energy and energy doesn't exist independent of the universe. The universe is everything that exists inside it, and thus if that doesn't exist (energy), neither does the universe. And some would say there was no void either, because there was nothing prior to the big bang...not even an empty space.

quote DG

Now, this is my main point.

No matter what God were made of... How does his existence explain anything?

His existence can explain quite a bit. Why you are here, why the universe is here, why we are created, and how it came to be. Granted we might not have the answers to everything, but it would mean that there are answers to everything about our existence. Some Christians would argue that is only a matter of time.

quote DG

Even if you decide that he's made of something undetectable, which is neither energy or matter.

The same question remains.

How did god get there?

Its a valid question...but it has a completely different set of limitations then the universe. We know the universe is finite...we cannot say the same thing about God. Its a question that we may not ever know, or we might get an answer too some day.

quote DG

I just fail to see why it's preferable to have the situation of

"God created the universe. Before the universe was there, god was there eternally. We don't know why god was there."

compared to

"The universe came into existence in a big explosion. Its matter formed from energy. We don't know why that energy was there to start with."

Evidence is a bitch. The evidence dictates that energy and the universe was not always there. The evidence also dictates that energy cannot be created or destroyed so our own existence is a paradox. The evidence also dictates that this energy decays and becomes useless where life cannot even evolve eventually. The evidence also dictates cause and effect, so believing in a causeless universe contradicts evidence.

quote DG

To me, there is no distinction.

I think the evidence makes them worlds apart.

quote DG

You're left with the same paradox in both scenarios,

I fail to see the paradox you are referring too.

quote DG

Energy existing before the universe is unexplainable, but a living thinking being existing before the universe? That's even LESS explainable.

I don't get it. How can an unexplainable event be less explainable?

quote DG

Think about it. With no universe to interact with, what would be the purpose of any being being intelligent? Why would god have any senses? He doesn't need them to feed or deal with danger.


Being immortal and with no stimuli, why would he be ANYTHING other than a big blob that sits there and just exists?

Another assumption. Why is there no stimuli? Then again, maybe our existence just answered your question...maybe we are His stimuli....

quote DG

A lot of what you just said was just semantics.

Semantics? Where have we disagreed about a definition?

quote DG

I'm not going to argue about the nature of an atheist "believing" things. It's not relevant.

Its perfectly relevant when blind faith is inferred to be an issue in the case of religion. But you are free to drop that portion of the conversation.

quote DG

The big bang, if it was an explosion, was surely the conversion of energy into matter,

Except that energy existed only fractions of a second before matter. One second no energy, no universe, not even a singularity...the next second energy and matter.

quote DG

Eh? Where did you hear this? A singularity is only an infinitely dense point in spacetime. Energy cannot ESCAPE from a singularity, but this is the first I've heard about it breaking down at one.

The laws of physics including general relativity break down at a singularity. Meaning that energy and matter can be destroyed, or created which is nice for atheism and or scientists but only until one asks why energy was created...and not destroyed...or where the singularity came from and why there was an infinitely dense point of spacetime to begin with.

quote DG

To my knowledge, mass can break down into energy, but energy can't break down into anything, since energy is what mass is MADE OF. (Superstring theory. Mass is basically made of energy trapped into vibrating strings.)

That is how I understand it...but all the energy/mass of the universe in a single point smaller then an atom? How does that make sense? And why was it in a single point to begin with, and maybe all the energy was created at that point, since the law of conservation of energy breaks down at a singularity, but where did it come from? Why was it created in a singularity and where did it come from? How did it start?

quote DG

I still don't follow your argument.

You said god wouldn't explain anything...and yet His existence would explain lots.

quote DG

But it then poses a new question. "Why is god there?"

Which is a valid question, but one that is not the same as "why the universe is there", since God and the universe are not known to be made out of the same substances and all evidence and observations we have indicate that the universe is finite.

quote DG

You can't explain that one even with the existance of a god.

Agreed...

quote DG

You have replaced one question with another.

No. I have answered many questions...only to raise different questions. But we can do that all day with physics and science. You think Einstein simply replaced one question with another with his Theory of General Relativity? Hell no. He answered some questions...but in that case...we have asked far more questions then he answered. But that doesn't change the fact that some questions were answered. And the questions I have answers for, about are existence and purpose and reasons we are created give meaning to our lives if you so accept them. The questions those answers raise to do not subtract from my answers, they do not make the answers null and void. They are certainly good questions, but being unable to answer those raised questions doesn't mean our life then has no purpose or meaning.

So not I have not simply replaced on question with another. I have answered some very important questions, only to raise some other questions that need not be answered for the answers that I do have to be of any value.

I don't think the same can be said with an infinite regression of "naturalistic explanation" of the universe. I suppose a "it just popped into existence" avoids an infinite regression, but at that point, such an answer is no different then "God did it".

quote DG

You're saying you define the universe as being the entirely of both matter and energy, right?

That is the position taken by most physicists and cosmologists. Ignoring souls and spirits...I would agree.

quote DG

OK, so let's look at it that way.

The two options are therefore:


1. Mass and energy suddenly popped into existence. We have no idea why or how.

2. God did it. By magic! We have no idea why god was there in the first place or how he could exist.

There are a lot more options then that. Hawking has a different approach to name someone with an alternative option, though I suppose it could arguably qualify as 1, but we would have to remove the qualification "we have no idea of why or how" if we were to categorize it that way.

quote DG

To me, the more obvious solution is the simplest one. (Occam's Razor) As I said, I say this is the version without a sentient being present before the universe existed. I will address this shortly.

FYI...Occam's Razor merely suggests selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects

i don't think "God" and "natural occurrence" qualify as hypotheses equal in other respects"...but this is neither here nor there.

Ignore my ramblings...lots of people do anyways....

quote DG

Come now. That's a silly question.

I would say your assumption that God has no stimuli is silly. As though the Al-Mighty God, omnipotent in power (at least assumed so for the sake of the conversation...or at least assumed to be capable of creating all that we see) is just "sitting" around doing nothing.

quote DG

Sure, our existence as "toys" would make sense, but only if this deity possessed the intelligence to feel the need for amusement.

Seems to be a common theme in life...amusement. Most of the highly intelligent animals are observed amusing themselves and others. One might even claim its common to all intelligent beings....

quote DG

And he wouldn't have it. There would be no reason to have intelligence if you were eternal, immortal, and alone.

I would buy that argument...the problem I have is in the assumption that God is alone.

quote DG

Also, in this scenario, there is no way whatsoever that god would have a human appearance, or even anything like one. It rather mystifies me why the Bible mentions us being made in his image.

I am not sure the Bible says God has a human appearance. The "in His image" doesn't necessitate that God does have a human appearance, rather I think it means we have some characteristics of god...like intelligence or free will, ability to think, to evaluate and reach conclusions...etc etc.

quote Recipe

Prove that the mass of an electron is about 9.1x10^-31kg WITHOUT USING ANY REFERENCE MATERIAL

quote Arjy

...but that's what the first people who discovered this actually did...that's the point.

quote DG

Precisely.

Meanwhile, the original people who wrote the Bible didn't prove anything. They didn't measure anything. They just wrote things down that may have been facts, may have been parables, may have been JOKES for all we know, may have been metaphors, MAY have been literal truth...

The point is, scientific textbooks are specific. The data is recorded and its accuracy is checked by repeat experiments.

Holy scriptures are UNVERIFIED.

If they'd at least been written coherently and in a way easy to understand without making bizarre interpretations, then maybe I would see this differently.

The fact that basically all abrahamic scriptures are like this is quite telling.

If all you intended to say is that faith can't be proven then you should have done so in Loungin'. There is no value in talking to a wall. Even a biased and opposed idividual should be able to give more then bouncing words back at someone. Biased thread titles tend to be rubish. As a matter of point it was others in this thread that even gave this thread a reason to stay open or even on the first page. Your initial topic is shit. Hijacking and improvisation FTW. I just used this thread as another bible thread with the added bonus of talking about other faiths too.

quote Seeker X

quote GuardianReaver

The OT was only used as law by the jews and they were slaves most of the time.

I should've rephrased that. By "law of the land" what I really meant was that when a religion had an authority, unspeakable acts were committed. The OT is just one example largely for Judaism (even though the OT is used by Christians), or some of the violent Christianization processes, one of which the most famous being the Christian Crusades, so on and so forth.

quote GuardianReaver

Your opinion is that the religion is hateful and violent. I do not seek to change your mind. You are interpreting the words of one you don't believe in and think ill of. Do you not doubt your own objectivity?

What I believe is that too many people have and WILL use religion as a weapon to overpower others. Centuries before it was used as a "divine right" to kill dissenters (still used that way in other countries), nowadays it is sometimes used as a way to violate rights of others (in civilized countries anyways).

I do not attack religious people and ridicule their faith (that would make me a hypocrite) and I do not believe that they are all are evil, zealots, or self righteous. All of my friends are affiliated to a religion or another, and there are MANY people who I have learned a lot from who are christians themselves. My main reason for being an anti-theist is for that ever growing list for victims of faith, as shown throughout history (and the MAIN reason why atheists BECOME atheists). IMO, I don't find most religious doctrines and histories to be respected at all. I can respect the person, I do not need to respect the belief, etc.

quote GuardianReaver

How is it violence for slaves to be meek? The bible kept the hope of the slaves alive as they were held captive. They kept their head down and they lived.

Yes, I am widely aware of the bible's positive messages, otherwise the bible would've had a hard time being mainstream in a civilized society. I do not understand what point you are trying to make here, but MY point towards the scriptures is cherry picking. If you're going to show me verses, you will need to show me both sides of the coin, you cannot pretend to "see the light" while completely ignoring the dark. THAT is why the scriptures as an ethics guideline is very inappropriate (unless you cherry pick, of course). That being said, BACK to my original point with Jainism was that it NEVER promoted ANY violence in ANY scripture (that I know of, anyways) and it doesn't have a history of ever doing so to promote its own religious doctrine, the very zenith of a peaceful religion.

Janists are pacifists. This requires others to enforce the peace because not everyone will believe or properly conform to this or any other faith or mantra. Some people who worship the god in other faiths are also pacifists. Again they need the other ones to keep the other violent people away but in this case there is motivation to protect the pacifists in your religion. This leads to the domino effect of society taking care of the pacifists. Only when a nation is compleatly controled by a violent faith is it a danger to others because of the faith. The democratic design of the US makes it easy to avoid this danger. It is not Islam that is evil but the corrupt leaders of other nations and a few sects who have taken up a holy war. It is not Christianity or any other faith that is evil but the contents of the hearts of those who seek blood. Leading into...

Evil, good, bad, just, unjust, moral, and immoral are not factual, logical, or scientific words. These words can't stand up to the same test that theories in science can. These are philosophical, psychological, social, and religous questions. The only way to prove faith scientificaly is to look at its practical aspects from a social and psychological way. In such a case the what ifs are far less important then the what does happen or what will happen standpoint. One is just a theory and the other is what we know happens. From observation we have learned that the faith operates in a less violent way in a civilized nation. If the nation isn't civilized then you will have violence despite what religion tryes to accomplish. Leading into...

Cherry picking you call it. I am a practical person. You point to passages that everyone ignores unless they are already pissed with enough blood lust to be violent anyways as proof that the religion is violent. Your approach is less then scientific. From a psychological standpoint, the other passages I pointed out are the only relivent ones on the topic you brought up. They are the most current version of the mantra and people will favor them when both points are expressed. In addition first understanding where someone is coming from, or pretending you do, is a psychobable trick to get them to take your advice. These are horrible monsters but you should be good and loving because you are better then that is a very interesting argument for a 'violent' religion.

quote DG

Wait, how could god NOT be alone in his void?

You are assuming He exists in a void. As though we and Him are all that exist. I don't accept that assumption...thus I disagree with the presumption hidden in your question.

quote DG

Are you saying you think there are multiple gods?

No. Stimulus need not come from other gods.

quote DG

This is another paradox. The only reason for an omnipotent being to create us is basically for something to do.

I failed to understand what paradox you were referring to previously, and I continue to fail in understanding how this is a paradox. I also do not agree with your assumption that the "only reason" for an omnipotent being to create us is basically for something to do. Many humans have found much satisfaction in their creation. The act of creating something new and unique, even creating intelligence can be a drive for even God to create, just as its a drive for us humans to create. That alone is far more then simply because God needs something to do.

quote DG

(The paradox being that if there weren't then I don't think he'd be intelligent.)

I fail to see a paradox in this.

quote DG

Also, by saying god wasn't alone, aren't you basically contradicting the most basic tenet of Christianity, being that YHWH is the ONE GOD?

Stimulus need not come from other gods.

quote DG

Then again I think it's pretty obvious from the Bible that there are more than one. To me, YHWH is just saying that the others are his enemies.

Well then...I wouldn't be contradicting a basic tenet of Christianity if its supported in the Bible...now would I?

quote DG

*facepalm*

It's in the Bible, but so is YHWH claiming to be the one true god.

It's contradictory, like most of the Bible.

I have never found a contradiction in the Bible. Everything I have scene can be explained through context and an understanding of historical culture and language.

You don't really think the Bible has every detail in there about God's existence do you? The Bible might claim that the other gods ancient humans worshiped are not real, but that doesn't mean that some other beings (non-gods) or things, or even other gods who have never even been thought of or worshiped or interacted with humans doesn't exist in what ever dimension or space that God exists. I am not saying there are other Gods, merely I am saying that assuming God has nothing to do other then play a game of Spore to keep himself occupied is something that I do not agree with.

Satan for instance is another being that exists in Christian theology. That alone is enough put your claim that God is alone in serious doubt.

quote DG

But it seems you're saying something else...

Ok, so if the stimuli are not coming from other deities, then what stimuli do you imagine God would be recieving?

I have no idea. Its a fantastic question. But I imagine the universe, and the 5 billion people on this planet can keep Him pretty occupied, either through grief or amusement. That can account for 13.7billion years of God's existence...that is if he experiences time linearly...which I don't believe is the case.

Just because I won't or cannot name a stimulus to your satisfaction doesn't mean I then have to agree with your assumption...or that your assumption is then valid....FYI.

quote DG

And did god not create the angels? (Including Satan and Lucifer)

I am going to need to see something other then your assumption for this claim...like a verse reference perhaps.

quote DG

He'd be alone. Right?

So my argument still holds.

Not until you provide some verse reference....otherwise its just an assumption as far as I am concerned. Maybe God created Lucifer...maybe he didn't. Maybe Lucifer was another "Spore" game and before that...some other spore game. Either way...I have no reason to believe that God would be alone without anything to do but boredom. I don't pretend that this isn't a possibility, but to just assume it, as a basis to reach some other conclusion about God...that I cannot and will not do.

quote DG

I hope you realise that humans haven't been around for 13.7 billion years...

I know plenty of intelligent people that have spent years trying to understand the complexities of the universe...sheer energy is enough to keep a human occupied for more then his life time. I imagine such could keep the creator occupied for a number of "years". After all, there is some satisfaction in discovery, but the satisfaction in creation...well its unmatched in my experience. It very well could be similar with respect to God...after all, I was made in His image.

quote DG

Most Christians, if not all, claim God to be eternal.

Eternity is a hell of a lot longer than 13.7 billion years.

Eternity only has meaning if time exists in some meaningful manner. Time is meaningful in this universe because of death and decay...but if nothing died, if there was no decay...1000 years...or 1 year...is all the same. I am sure you won't agree with this, but God is claimed to exist outside of time...or at least outside our time...so 13.7billion years might have only been a few "days" for God...like maybe 7? Maybe that was the inspiration of general relativity...

quote DG

I was asking about the stimuli BEFORE the universe was created.

As to which I have no answer. But I will stress again...not being able to come up with a stimulus to your satisfaction doesn't validate your assumption.