Evidence for God from Science

Hello. I was told this site welcomes new arguements against god to challenge. Hopefully this is one you haven't seen before.

An omniscient being would theoretically know everything that will ever happen. This means that it's thoughts cannot be impacted by new events because it was already aware of them. In fact, an omniscient being would not experience thoughts because it would know every thought it could ever have, making them redundant.. Such an entity would act in two ways: as a planned response to a foreseen event, or at the moment it gains omniscience. It would not do things spontaniously. An omniscient god existing before the universe would not create the universe if it had not immediately, because no event would cause it to do so and it is not capable of new ideas. No matter when god created the universe it existed for an infinite amount ammount of time without creating it and nothing could have caused it to do so. So god couldn't have created the universe.

Lateralus wrote:Hello. I was told this site welcomes new arguements against god to challenge. Hopefully this is one you haven't seen before.

An omniscient being would theoretically know everything that will ever happen. This means that it's thoughts cannot be impacted by new events because it was already aware of them. In fact, an omniscient being would not experience thoughts because it would know every thought it could ever have, making them redundant.. Such an entity would act in two ways: as a planned response to a foreseen event, or at the moment it gains omniscience. It would not do things spontaniously. An omniscient god existing before the universe would not create the universe if it had not immediately, because no event would cause it to do so and it is not capable of new ideas. No matter when god created the universe it existed for an infinite amount ammount of time without creating it and nothing could have caused it to do so. So god couldn't have created the universe.

I think you need to clarify your conception of God's relationship to time without and with creation.

I see no immediate contradiction between God's choosing to create the universe and omniscience. All that is required is that God in His eternal knowledge willed to create universe in the manner that was done. Spontaneity has little impact, particularly if God did not desire to create "spontaniously" (whatever "spontanious" might mean if time is a part of our universe or result thereof).

Lateralus wrote:Hello. I was told this site welcomes new arguements against god to challenge. Hopefully this is one you haven't seen before.

An omniscient being would theoretically know everything that will ever happen. This means that it's thoughts cannot be impacted by new events because it was already aware of them. In fact, an omniscient being would not experience thoughts because it would know every thought it could ever have, making them redundant.. Such an entity would act in two ways: as a planned response to a foreseen event, or at the moment it gains omniscience. It would not do things spontaniously. An omniscient god existing before the universe would not create the universe if it had not immediately, because no event would cause it to do so and it is not capable of new ideas. No matter when god created the universe it existed for an infinite amount ammount of time without creating it and nothing could have caused it to do so. So god couldn't have created the universe.

We could use this argument, and more effectively against all the crack pot, psuedo science,scientist have cooked up.. All of their theories rely on a states of infinite regression. In other words you admit there should be nothing rather than something since something infinite lacks action or time. So nothing natural should ever occur in this state.

Swimmy wrote: We could use this argument, and more effectively against all the crack pot, psuedo science,scientist have cooked up.. All of their theories rely on a states of infinite regression. In other words you admit there should be nothing rather than something since something infinite lacks action or time. So nothing natural should ever occur in this state.

Agreed on that. Technically this argument can be used against the existence of the universe itself. I've thought of the argument on my own before; as in, how can we not already be over with this period if eternity really indeed exists?

My response, besides with Swimmy said above, is that our starting point for knowledge about anything, including God, is with an acknowledgment that we can make any reasonable claim about anything; its the acknowledgment that we exist. If we use that as a starting point, we have to make sense of things with that in mind always. We can thus rightly throw out the idea that eternity is in contradiction to our existence. This means that God could be omniscient and eternal and we could exist. It also, technically and with no other information factored in, means the universe could be infinitely old without problems.

The fundamental problem with the argument is the assumption that a finite mind can even comprehend what a concept like eternity or infinity is like. Unfortunately, if a mind could understand those things in full, it would itself have to be infinite. We can only (and in mathematics and physics we do this all the time) use representations of infinity and eternity that have finite properties. For instance, saying that 2^x is bigger than 1.9^x as x approaches infinity. Both formulas technically become infinite, but we use the finite term 'bigger' to describe them. In Calculus this is done all the time; you can divide 'bigger' infinite values by 'smaller' ones to get actual finite values.

The point of all of this is that we cannot understand infinity or eternity as they properly are, and yet we have to acknowledge the existence of both. Without them, we have a situation where nothing exists for no amount of time and becomes something. Trying to do the mental exercise of envisioning nothing is impossible - every concept our minds can grasp has properties and technically 'nothing' cannot have properties; if it did, it wouldn't be nothing! And scientifically, it makes absolutely no sense for something to come out of nothing without cause. It is more logical to assume then that there is an eternal aspect to at least a the source of a cause.

Heh, in retrospect, I guess this is just a more involved way of saying the initial point- the argument that was made cannot be true on the basis that it contradicts fundamental assumptions about science and logic that allow us to infer higher concepts such as the argument itself- those contradicted fundamental assumptions being that we exist in a technically infinite universe and that infinity and eternity are called such because they are measureless.

Apologies if this is incoherent at all... it is 3:30 in the morning for me and I'm not exactly in the best state of mind to write as a result of that.

Also, to clarify - by 'technically infinite universe' I mean that some aspect of existence must be infinite.

The other thing I wanted to mention was a brief response to "An omniscient being would theoretically know everything that will ever happen. This means that it's thoughts cannot be impacted by new events because it was already aware of them. In fact, an omniscient being would not experience thoughts because it would know every thought it could ever have, making them redundant."

The other point you made, as stated before, can be applied to the universe regardless of whether God exists or not. However, the point I quoted is only applicable if He does exist. It may not be the best argument (like I said in my last post, its really really late for me), but the first thing that comes to mind is that knowing everything does not negate the idea of thought in a metaphysical sense. Thoughts are the focus of our mind on a particular thing. As I said in my last post, we can't comprehend the infinite or eternal; we can only try to describe it, and we can't possibly hope, on our own, to get the description right. It would be like my cat suddenly getting the urge to analyze my behavior if I start moving a string around in the air. To him, the focus is on the piece of string and he could do little more than make the conclusion that 'the string is moving', and yet I am having incomprehensible (to him) levels of thought about what I'm doing - focusing on him making a fool out of himself by attacking a string. And yet, despite the fact that he can't understand the working of my mind, my mind in fact works and can focus on something just as his can, albeit at a higher level. There's no reason that a God who is just as incomprehensible to us as I am to my cat can't have a similar situation.

It would be more accurate than saying that He has no thoughts to say that His thoughts are not ours, and we can't understand them on a satisfactory level. This would not only make sense based on what we can reason, but it is actually very much Biblically supported. And, just like my cat can feel my affection even though it can't completely understand my reasoning for it, we can feel God's and have a relationship with Him despite our lack of understanding about it. I suppose the main difference is that unlike the relationship between pet and owner, the human/God relationship involves sin on the human side; arrogance, pride, trust in self and one's own limited mind, among other things.

You are right in saying 'theoretically' in your post. I appreciate the logic and the idea, but it is theoretical for a reason. The only way we could actually know about God in any specific detail, if He is indeed beyond us, is if -He- revealed Himself to us (like He has in Scripture).

I see a lot of flaws here. First in relation to time. You are assuming time before time existed.

2nd in relation to thought. You are assuming a thought as we possess thought, which is tied to the cognitive ability of our material brains.

@Kurieuo I'll try putting it this way: why did god create the universe, and wouldn't the same reason to create it apply any ammount of time before he did create it?

@MarcusOfLycia Why wouldn't infinity be comprehensible to finite minds? It sounds resonable to say that but I still think you may be making a bit of a leap in your logic.

@jlay When I said 'universe' I didn't necessarly mean the scientific definition that includes both space and time. Do creationists believe god created time when he created the universe?

Your second point confuses me. How exactly do you think god processes thought?

I pointed out that we are capable of using the concepts of infinity and eternal, but that we can't comprehend them. Think about it this way: A computer might be able to use infinity too. If it is looking at an equation and sees 1 / n as n approaches infinity, it can, using a pre-programmed understanding, tell you that the entire formula will approach 0. However, if you wanted the computer to actually hold the value of infinity and store it as n, you'd be at an impossible task. You'd need an infinitely large memory block and an infinitely fast processor to access it to make use of it in a finite amount of time.

It is more than reasonable to conclude that we can't comprehend those two concepts with that knowledge. But to take it a step further, if there was some value X that represented either years when referencing 'eternal' or integers when referencing 'infinite', we could see that if you could wrap your mind around X at a value, I could always increase it exponentially. At some point, the value will be too high for understanding. But even by that point, there are still an infinite number of values above it. You could infer properties of this in mathematics, which is done all the time. But, you could not -comprehend- the value.

God is infinite and eternal. As I said before, His ways are not our ways; He is higher than us.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:I pointed out that we are capable of using the concepts of infinity and eternal, but that we can't comprehend them. Think about it this way: A computer might be able to use infinity too. If it is looking at an equation and sees 1 / n as n approaches infinity, it can, using a pre-programmed understanding, tell you that the entire formula will approach 0. However, if you wanted the computer to actually hold the value of infinity and store it as n, you'd be at an impossible task. You'd need an infinitely large memory block and an infinitely fast processor to access it to make use of it in a finite amount of time.

It is more than reasonable to conclude that we can't comprehend those two concepts with that knowledge. But to take it a step further, if there was some value X that represented either years when referencing 'eternal' or integers when referencing 'infinite', we could see that if you could wrap your mind around X at a value, I could always increase it exponentially. At some point, the value will be too high for understanding. But even by that point, there are still an infinite number of values above it. You could infer properties of this in mathematics, which is done all the time. But, you could not -comprehend- the value.

Then by the deffinitions you are using, I am not trying to comprehend god, I am trying to infer his properties.

IMO, something that's infinite is neither created nor destroyed. Maybe that helps.

Yes, many if not most creationist view time (as we know it) as a product of creation. Even though they try to apply their experience of time to terms like eternity. Even science for the most part shares this idea. That the universe began from nothing. That space, time and matter leapt into existence from nothing. If the universe is 4.6 billion years old or 6k years old, it really doesn't matter. At some point there was nothing. No space, no time, no matter. And then bang, everything.

Your second point confuses me. How exactly do you think god processes thought?

Not just to quote scripture, but here is the basis of it.

Isaiah 55:8-9
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the LORD.
9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

God is a spirit. God, being transcendent and uncreated, is not bound in time. If you want to get the right answers you have to start with the right questions. So, if you assume that God processes thought like a human, well you have ascribed a quality to Him that is incorrect, and thus will preclude you from finding a valid conclusion. Faulty premise. The bible often uses anthropomorphic descriptions of God. But these only serve to help us. Like saying, "I'm putting it, in his hands." This doesn't mean physical hands.

I am trying to infer his properties.

Really? Because your OP sure doesn't seem like such. Sounds like you are making a proposition based on what you already infer. And so we have to examine and see if it is valid or faulty. I think that has been demonstrated, which means your conclusion (An eternal and omniscient creator is impossible)
is false.