A thought experiment about what it means "to be" GOD

by Terry 143 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • FlyingHighNow

    I don't think you understand what circular reasoning is. Your question is circular reasoning. I guess it's just one of those terms thrown around a lot on threads like this to the point that it's meaning has become blurred.

    You cannot get something from nothing. If your pantry is empty, you're not going to pull a meal out of it for you or your family.

    So what is nothing? <............circular.

  • PSacramento
    I think I've lost track of the discussion to the point I don't even know how to jump in :)

    Sorry Terry, my bad.

    You know how much I enjoy your threads and how they challenge us, I apolgise if it got highjacked a bit.

    To go back to the OP, IMO, to limit the creative process of God to the crweation of THIS universe is incorrect.

    To say that before God created this universe He was doing nothing or knowing nothing because there was nothing yes is to imply that until THGIS universe was created there was nothing BUT the "fact" that there was God before implies there was something, GOD and that means at least 1 other reality/universe before THIS one, HIS reality/universe.

    Yes, this is all conjecture but so is your opening premiss, I am simply stating what is IMO, the incorrect premis.

  • EntirelyPossible

    I don't think you understand what circular reasoning is.

    You probably think that because I said a specific definition was circular, not any specific reasoning. I mean, seriously, if you are going to play the "you don't know what you are talking about" card to try and get out actually delivering any specific information in the discussion, you should at least get right the name of the thing you claim I don't know about right, otherwise, you just end up looking silly.


    Actually, that's a question you are pointing to. And I'm waiting for you to answer it.

  • rocketman

    Thanks Terry....I'm still trying to wrap my brain around all of it, but I am finding this thread very challenging and interesting.

    And I think I can safely say that God = Cake.

  • Apognophos

    I don't find this thought experiment helpful, to be honest. High-sounding philosophy aside, it all comes down to which is more likely, that a mind (God) existed before our universe, or something inanimate (a previous collapsing universe, random atoms just sitting around until they exploded, etc.). Either way, the crucial question of how it all got started is beyond the ability of science to grasp at the present time. Saying that our universe came from another universe does not answer the question of where that universe came from. Saying that God made the universe does not explain how God came into being. Either way, the root cause of our existence is fundamentally incomprehensible.

    Considering how well everything came together, it's hard for me to believe that it was blind chance, but as some people are fond of pointing out, this could be Random Universe, Take One Trillion And Four. The previous random universes may have been a disaster, and it's only because we happen to stand in this universe, having not seen any other, that we can say that it seems designed. That reasoning feels disingenuous, as there is no evidence for or against previous universes. Absence some scientific evidence, we can only rely on common sense. Common sense says that things that look designed are designed. This does not require belief in the God of the Bible. I lean towards deism. Some people lean towards simulationism.

    But sitting in an armchair and pondering it cannot get us anywhere. It's a matter that is truly beyond our ken.

  • EntirelyPossible

    Common sense says that things that look designed are designed.

    No, it doesn't.

  • NewChapter

    Like water puddles that are perfectly shaped to fit in the recess they inhabit? Must be designed? LOL Who was that? Doulas Adams?

  • tec

    Speaking of redefining words...




  • EntirelyPossible

    Was there a point, tec? So far, I've asked several people what they mean by "nothing" and all I have gotten back are insults.

  • tec

    The dictionary and traditional definition of nothing is not the same as this new explanation of 'Nothing'. (which is what i suspect you are leading up to... could be wrong though... but that was my point regarding re-defining words)

    1. Something that has no existence. 2. Something that has no quantitative value; zero: a score of two to nothing. 3. One that has no substance or importance; a nonentity:



Share this