Who Created God?

[CranstinaC]

Which could be his point - perhaps the universe was uninhabitable before God made conditions so that we exist. Your first paragraph about cards kind of backs that up, by saying that if there is a chance it could happen, then it could happen. (ie if there were only two kings in the pack instead of four, then its impossible to deal three royal flushes in the first hand - however, add one/two kings and it becomes possible; highly unlikely but still possible.) Personally I think concious thought proves God - I don't see why we discuss this possibility unless there was a reason to discuss it. Everything in life serves a purpose over a set time span, we just have to find ours.

As to who created God, well, the idea would be that he has always existed - but then what is existence as we know it? A physical manifestation of being is how we define it, but Im sure theres more to it than that...

Another question Chapskins should be asking is, 'If I disagree with WCrevdonner, will he give me hundreds of press ups in the lesson tomorrow?'

That I can answer with a resounding YES.

 

[whiteknight]

Skips lesson, la la la la la la la, next question please.........

 

[thisfool]

Hi there.
can everyone read up on "anthropic principle" before the next blurtfest?

http://www.anthropic-principle.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

looking forward to some well reasoned arguements and rebuttals.

 

[BriaM]

and can everyone read this also before the next blurtfest?

Quoted from:

http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/answer.asp


How would you answer?
Far from being a blind faith, Christianity can be logically defended.
by Ken Ham

In our everyday experience, just about everything seems to have a beginning. In fact, the laws of science show that even things which look the same through our lifetime, like the sun and other stars, are running down. The sun is using up its fuel at millions of tonnes each second—since, therefore, it cannot last forever, it had to have a beginning. The same can be shown to be true for the entire universe.

So when Christians claim that the God of the Bible created the entire universe, some will ask what seems a logical question, namely ‘Where did God come from?’

The Bible makes it clear in many places that God is outside of time. He is eternal, with no beginning or end—He is infinite! He also knows all things, being infinitely intelligent.1

Is this logical? Can modern science allow for such a notion? And how could you recognize the evidence for an intelligent Creator?

Recognizing intelligence
For more information, visit Q&A: God
Scientists get excited about finding stone tools in a cave because these speak of intelligence—a tool maker. They could not have designed themselves. Neither would anyone believe that the carved Presidents’ heads on Mt Rushmore were the product of millions of years of chance erosion. We can recognize design—the evidence of the outworkings of intelligence—in the man-made objects all around us.

Similarly, in William Paley’s famous argument, a watch implies a watchmaker.2 Today, however, a large proportion of people, including many leading scientists, believe that all plants and animals, including the incredibly complex brains of the people who make watches, motor cars, etc., were not designed by an intelligent God but rather came from an unintelligent evolutionary process. But is this a defensible position?

Design in living things
Molecular biologist Dr Michael Denton, writing as an agnostic, concluded:

‘Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced [twentieth century technology appears] clumsy … . It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate.’3

The world-renowned crusader for Darwinism and atheism, Prof. Richard Dawkins, states:

‘We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully “designed” to have come into existence by chance.’4

Thus, even the most ardent atheist concedes that design is all around us. To a Christian, the design we see all around us is totally consistent with the Bible’s explanation that God created all.

However, evolutionists like Dawkins reject the idea of a Designer. He comments (emphasis added):

‘All appearance to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with future purpose in his mind’s eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind … . It has no mind … . It does not plan for the future … it is the blind watchmaker.’5

Selection and design
Life is built on information, contained in that molecule of heredity, DNA. Dawkins believes that natural selection6 and mutations (blind, purposeless copying mistakes in this DNA) together provide the mechanism for producing the vast amounts of information responsible for the design in living things.7

Natural selection is a logical process that can be observed. However, selection can only operate on the information already contained in genes—it does not produce new information.8 Actually, this is consistent with the Bible’s account of origins; God created distinct kinds of animals and plants, each to reproduce after its own kind.

One can observe great variation in a kind, and see the results of natural selection. For instance, dingoes, wolves, and coyotes have developed over time as a result of natural selection operating on the information in the genes of the wolf/dog kind.

But no new information was produced—these varieties have resulted from rearrangement, and sorting out, of the information in the original dog kind. One kind has never been observed to change into a totally different kind with new information that previously did not exist!

Without a way to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution. Evolutionists agree with this, but they believe that mutations somehow provide the new information for natural selection to act upon.

Can mutations produce new information?
Actually, it is now clear that the answer is no! Dr Lee Spetner, a highly qualified scientist who taught information and communication theory at Johns Hopkins University, makes this abundantly clear in his recent book:

‘In this chapter I’ll bring several examples of evolution, [i.e., instances alleged to be examples of evolution] particularly mutations, and show that information is not increased … But in all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information.9

‘All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.10

‘The NDT [neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to explain how the information of life has been built up by evolution. The essential biological difference between a human and a bacterium is in the information they contain. All other biological differences follow from that. The human genome has much more information than does the bacterial genome. Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business can’t make money by losing it a little at a time.’11

Evolutionary scientists have no way around the conclusions that many scientists, including Dr Spetner, have come to. Mutations do not work as a mechanism to fuel the evolutionary process.

More problems!
Scientists have found that within the cell, there are thousands of what can be called ‘biochemical machines.’ All of their parts have to be in place simultaneously or the cell can’t function. Things which were thought to be simple mechanisms, such as being able to sense light and turn it into electrical impulses, are in fact highly complicated.

Since life is built on these ‘machines,’ the idea that natural processes could have made a living system is untenable. Biochemist Dr Michael Behe (see The mousetrap man) uses the term ‘irreducible complexity’ in describing such biochemical ‘machines.’

‘… systems of horrendous, irreducible complexity inhabit the cell. The resulting realization that life was designed by an intelligence is a shock to us in the twentieth century who have gotten used to thinking of life as the result of simple natural laws. But other centuries have had their shocks, and there is no reason to suppose that we should escape them.’12

Richard Dawkins recognizes this problem of needing ‘machinery’ to start with when he states:

‘The theory of the blind watchmaker is extremely powerful given that we are allowed to assume replication and hence cumulative selection. But if replication needs complex machinery, since the only way we know for complex machinery ultimately to come into existence is cumulative selection, we have a problem.’13

A problem indeed! The more we look into the workings of life, the more complicated it gets, and the more we see that life could not arise by itself. Not only is a source of information needed, but the complex ‘machines’ of the chemistry of life need to be in existence right from the start!

A greater problem still!
Some still try to insist that the machinery of the first cell could have arisen by pure chance. For instance, they say, by randomly drawing alphabet letters in sequence from a hat, sometimes you will get a simple word like ‘BAT.’14 So given long time periods, why couldn’t even more complex information arise by chance?

However, what would the word ‘BAT’ mean to a German or Chinese speaker? The point is that an order of letters is meaningless unless there is a language convention and a translation system in place which makes it meaningful!

In a cell, there is such a system (other molecules) that makes the order on the DNA meaningful. DNA without the language/translation system is meaningless, and these systems without the DNA wouldn’t work either.

The other complication is that the translation machinery which reads the order of the ‘letters’ in the DNA is itself specified by the DNA! This is another one of those ‘machines’ that needs to be fully-formed or life won’t work.

Can information arise from non-information?
Dr Werner Gitt, Director and Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, makes it clear that one of the things we know absolutely for sure from science, is that information cannot arise from disorder by chance. It always takes (greater) information to produce information, and ultimately information is the result of intelligence:

‘A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) … It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required.15

‘There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.’16

What is the source of the information?
We can therefore deduce that the huge amount of information in living things must originally have come from an intelligence, which had to have been far superior to ours, as scientists are revealing every day. But then, some will say that such a source would have to be caused by something with even greater information/intelligence.

However, if they reason like this, one could ask where this greater information/intelligence came from? And then where did that one come from … one could extrapolate to infinity, for ever, unless …

Unless there was a source of infinite intelligence, beyond our finite understanding. But isn’t this what the Bible indicates when we read, ‘In the beginning God …’? The God of the Bible is an infinite being not bound by limitations of time, space, knowledge, or anything else.

So which is the logically defensible position?—that matter eternally existed (or came into existence by itself for no reason), and then by itself arranged itself into information systems against everything observed in real science? Or that a being with infinite intelligence,17 created information systems for life to exist, agreeing with real science?

The answer seems obvious, so why don’t all intelligent scientists accept this? Michael Behe answers:

‘Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just don’t want there to be anything beyond nature. They don’t want a supernatural being to affect nature, no matter how brief or constructive the interaction may have been. In other words … they bring an a priori philosophical commitment to their science that restricts what kinds of explanations they will accept about the physical world. Sometimes this leads to rather odd behavior.’18

The crux of the matter is this: If one accepts there is a God who created us, then that God also owns us. He thus has a right to set the rules by which we must live. In the Bible, He has revealed to us that we are in rebellion against our Creator. Because of this rebellion called sin, our physical bodies are sentenced to death—but we will live on, either with God, or without Him in a place of judgment.

But the good news is that our Creator provided, through the cross of Jesus Christ, a means of deliverance for our sin of rebellion, so that those who come to Him in faith, in repentance for their sin, can receive the forgiveness of a Holy God and spend forever with their Lord.

So who created God?
By definition, an infinite, eternal being has always existed—no one created God. He is the self-existing one—the great ‘I am’ of the Bible.19 He is outside of time—in fact, He created time.

You might say, ‘But that means I have to accept this by faith, as I can’t understand it.’

We read in the book of Hebrews, ‘But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him’ (Hebrews 11:6).

But this is not blind faith, as some think. In fact, the evolutionists who deny God have a blind faith—they have to believe something that is against real science—namely, that information can arise from disorder by chance.

The Christian faith is not a blind faith—it is a logically defensible faith. This is why the Bible makes it clear that anyone who does not believe in God is without excuse:

‘For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse’ (Romans 1:20).

 

[abbbijo]

Perhaps you don't know the difference between 18 and 10^123.

Penrose is well noted as a physicist as well, although some of his ideas are slightly different than the typical physics community, his calculation of the probability of a universe that allows complex chemistry isn't really. His exact number may be under dispute, but the general idea is prevalent in physics.




Well, you might look at it that way - and I'm not really trying to use this as evidence to prove the existence of God, merely pointing out what another poster may have referred to as scientific evidence.




Well, the odds of winning the lottery a million times in a row are, according to Penrose, better than the odds of the universe supporting complex chemistry.

On a side note, notice I didn't say the probability of a universe supporting human life is 10^-10^123 - merely the probability of a universe that supports any form of complex chemistry, i.e. more than just hydrogen gas. You can't have life made out of pure hydrogen gas, for the reasons I listed in my last post.

I just want to point out, once again, that the odds of the universe supporting complex chemistry are more on the order of:
-You waking up on mars (having tunneled there)
-Time running backwards in Chicago
and
-Me getting flung into space by pressure from the earth
all at the same time

than three players getting royal flushes in a poker game at the same time.

The fact is, and physicist recognize this (and if you had ever taken a serious physics lab class, you would see that probabilities of this magnitude are the basis of definitive experimental results. We can't merely ignore them, and the anthropic principle is an extremely weak argument that probability indicates is wrong), that some sort of explanation is probably required for the universe being the way it is. God may or may not be it. Here are a few other avenues physicists are looking down

-More complete quantum field theories. Maybe if we knew more about QFT, it would actually turn out that certain constants *have* to have the values that they do.
- MWI - I think this one is wrong, since it currently is incapable of producing meaningful laws of physics, and any attempt the get it to do so would probably destroy the linearities that it was created to preserve.
-Various inflationary models that might provide many universes.

and finally

- The anthropic principle is the only explanation, and science as we know it is useless, because even when we've narrowed the laws of physics down to P = 10^-10^123 of being accurrate, we still can't know for sure.

Incidentally, there is, according to thermodynamics, a small probability that your body will vaporize, the earth will fling everybody on it into space, and time will begin to flow backwards in certain places. According to QM, there's a small probability that you will wake up on mars. If all of these things were to happen tomorrow, should we just say "Well, you know, probability is just that - probability, so it was bound to happen sooner or later" - or should we try to find some other explanation?

I'm sorry, but resorting to anthropic arguments for the state of our universe is pretty stupid. If any of the other possible events that have 10^-10^123 probability were to happen, we would expect there to be some reasonable explanation. I'm not saying that God is the only possible recourse, but to accept the state of our universe at face value is something that no competent physicist would do.

 

[JenniB]

Anthropic principles are valid.
I'm afraid your tail is wagging the dog..
What the odds that I'm on the internet right now?
1 in 100
that I'm male? 1 in 2
Exactly 31 years , n days, x seconds, p nanoseconds old.. in as small a number as I require.

OMG! The odds on that are so tiny as to be unachievable by pure chance - I can certainly cook up odds that are far longer than anything discussed so far...Is that proof of God? Not really -

We are one permutation from many -
some of us are assuming that we are the only permution that could support life.. etc.

 

[betty_adex]

I am obviously not at the level of either of you guys regarding scientifc knowledge but I dont think physicists recognize that the universe supporting complex chemistry is imposible. I believe that tunneling from the earth to mars, time running backwards and you getting flung into space all at the same time are not valid equivalents because it borders on imposibility or rather is bending the rules a bit too much.

On a second thought: if those are the odds of the universe supporting complex chemistry then what are the odds of an omnipotent, eternal being, violating many of the laws of physics, who one day decides to create a vast and complex universe? I think the odds are pretty high here aswell, but thats just me.

 

[tigraparati]

the fundamental paradox..
Universe must be created, but God can just exist...?

 

[AldeelAldee]

Its just odd to me, I would think that the odds of a being who is so much more advanced than us to the point of being capable of bending time and space are just too high to even put down on numbers.

 

[Biju]

since the universe is believed to be infinite than so is possibility. So therefore it is safe to say that there is nothing that is completely impossible, it is just very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very...(you get the point) improbable. So therefore i can say that god does and does not exist since nothing is impossible.

and that took my brain the size of a planet
notice there is 42 very's

 

[NarutoWatcher]

He's omnipotent..kinda..?
If he's eternal, why wasn't the universe created sooner and now older?
6 days to create it all... that's NOT omnipotence
a day of resting? Resting is for mortals (yes - I do understand the messgae)
how can pure good create evil?
How can the perfect create the imperfect?
etc..

 

[zanadm]

You are not paying attention to what I'm saying.

First of all, the odds of a human being being whatever age, sex, etc. are not improbable, because the specificity is low. I'm sure that a proffessor in information theory or something could explain that much better than I can - but likelyhood is related to specificity and probability. In the case of you - the specificity was low enough to counteract the probability - I'm not explaining this very well, but I can't really word it better than this right now.

If I were to say "I predict there is a male on this forum, so many nanoseconds old, with a certain hair color, etc." and I was describing you, then that would be extremely strange, since the specificity was high and the probability was low. That would require some explanation.

In any event, I assume you are not a physicist. Let me stress once again, almost no physicist would rely simply on anthropic agruments in this scenario. The probability is too low and specificity too high. It requires some sort of explanation. I outlined three, aside from God that are being looked into.

The probability the earth shooting you off into space - a real entropic probability, is higher than 10^-10^123. If it happens, does that mean we should simply accept it, or try to look for some other reason. I mean - Jesus actually walking on water, and not being the Son of God, or having any divine origin, is more probable than the universe being the way it is.

Once again, this is a real physical problem, as serious as quantum gravity or inflation, and we shouldn't stop trying to explain it, just because some idiot says the anthropic principle is enough. As we gain more evidence, it becomes apparent that the anthropic pricniple *isn't* enough.

 

[tklescz]

But by definition we're being specific implicitly.. "of life evolving" when we really mean "of THIS life evoloving"

 

[WhyAskMe]

Not impossible, etremely unlikely.



Not less likely than 10^-10^123. I really think people are having trouble comprehending the meaning of 10^-10^123. 10^-123 would be increadibly small - you would never expect something with a 10^-123 probability of happening. 10^-10^123, however, is incredibly small compared to that number. There's not enough memory on earth for me to write out that number. Not enough atoms in the visible universe, if I turned each one into a zero.

Getting flung into space by the earth is a very real probability. It's just so unlikely that we don't ever expect it to happen. I'd wager the probability is better than 10^10^-123 though, of it happening to you at some point in your life.



That's a bit of a different question. We can estimate the probability of a universe that allows complex chemistry by using ranges of certain values that constants can be between from QFT. Others we can make reasonable estimates for the ranges on. In some cases, I think other methods are used to try to make reasonable estimates for ranges when we don't really know what they are.

The probability of God? I don't even know how we'd calculate that. As far as I know, God should be completely separate from the laws of this universe, so we can't really calculate the probability of his existence based on those.

 

[RagMuffin]

Forget life evolving. Forget life at all. Lets just talk about chemistry - chemistry that allows for stuff other than hydrogen gas. Not much interesting can happen in a universe where you can't have anything other than hydrogen gas.

 

[TooCurious]

and you know this because?
How many universes have you seen?
You think that this reality or nothingness are the only choices?
You're apply anthropic principle and not realising it -
Yopu start from "what is" and work backwards rather than "what could be" and work forwards..

 

[robster]

Ok, so we've got a lot of space, and we've got hydrogen gas. Show me this cool thing that's going to happen.

I may not have seen universes filled with only hydrogen gas, but I have seen hydrogen gas, and the properties are well known, and it really *doesn't* do cool stuff on its own. Remember, in our probable universes, it can't bond and we usually don't have any process to get other elements, and other elements aren't usually stable.

Actually, I didn't really get a good look at the gas itself - it was the line spectrum we were interested in. But I assume it was just sort of floating there in the chamber.

 

[everlastingbutterflies]

Thats Christianities version, the common storybook at sunday school thingy, dont confuse the argument "does God exist" with "does the Christain God exist"

Cristianity is an exercise in faith, not reason,it requires the practitioner to believe something the cannot prove through convential means, any Christian who has attempted to prove God scientifically (Thomas Aquinas) has been disproved by critics beyond the point of return (David Hume)

 

[Nita]

Oh, specitivity foul..
That the current laws of chemistry are necessary for life.
How about a different chemical system, based on different laws of physics..
? You're being specific about ONE variable.

 

[Jamon]

What if different universes have different laws?