Could God have created the universe in 6 days out of light?

a reply to: neoholographic

First off of course I meant to use the word need because I never said god was restricted in using Light in this instance. Again, this is just simple English.

We're talking about Genesis 1 and the way god Created the universe. So saying god needed light after he created the heavens and the earth isn't saying god was restricted in using light when he created the universe.

This is just basic common sense and use of the English language.

I respectfully disagree that this is common sense in the context of a discussion of omnipotence. Again, "need" is a word loaded with subtle meanings beyond those of "simple English" in a discussion like this.

So using the word need in a context of a debate about Genesis doesn't exclude god creating the universe in other ways.

On this particular point, we agree. Which is why I think the thread in general is... I used the word silly before, but that may have been overly harsh. Maybe superfluous? If you believe that god is defined as absolutely omnipotent, and again I'd encourage you to read the link I provided earlier to differentiate between the various kinds of omnipotence that have been used to describe god over the years, then asking if god could have done something in particular way seems irrelevant. If he's absolutely omnipotent, he could have done it in any way he chose to do so.

It's sort of sad that you have to use an illogical strawman in a debate about Genesis. Of course god needed Light because the Debate is about Genesis and in verse 3 it says:

3 And god said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Hardly an "illogical strawman", since nowhere does it say that he needed or as a simple choice of will used the light that he just created as a raw material to create the universe.

When it comes to Omnipotence, I told you time and time again that omnipotence doesn't mean god can go against his nature.

No offense, but you were more than willing to throw out my view of omnipotence because it wasn't directly from a scholar, in your estimation. I brought Aquinas, Augustine, and Descartes to the table to show you that there's more than one definition of omnipotence. So what you've "told me time and time again", originating from C.S. Lewis, is of little concern to me when there are intellectual heavyweights that are at least his equal that disagree with him.

If this being is bringing into existence this popcorn and he needs the energy from the vacuum does he cease to be Omnipotent?

He doesn't cease to be anything. If he needs something to create something else, then by definition he was never absolutely omnipotent to begin with. He may have been one of the "lesser" forms of omnipotent as described by some scholars, but there seems to be quite a bit of debate within Christianity regarding what "flavor" of omnipotent god is described as, not even considering the debate from those in other Abrahamic religions or from outside the Abrahamic religions.

AN OMNIPOTENT BEING WOULD CEASE TO BE OMNIPOTENT IF HE NEEDED SOMETHING THAT ALREADY EXISTED.

Asked and answered, in more than one post. If you don't understand my reply, point out which part you don't understand and I'll be happy to clarify, even though it's far more courtesy than you've paid me so far in this discussion.

Feel free to reply, but if you don't have anything new to ask about and are unwilling to answer the questions I've posed to you regarding which flavor of omnipotent you believe god to be, then don't expect a reply in turn. I've been more than patient with you and your ad hominem attacks so far.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Again, you're making the illogical argument that non believers make time and time again. I don't know if you're a believer or not but I have heard this argument before and it didn't make sense then and it doesn't make sense now.

You said:

Well than he isn't omnipotent if there are limits to what he can and cannot do. Unless we are using point two in the definition of omnipotent you posted above. "Having very great or unlimited authority or power." So maybe it is a case of God having great but not unlimited power?

Can God kill himself? Can God kill Adam before Adam is even alive? Can God make it rain on earth when there is no earth? God is all powerful and can do all things that are consistent with his nature.

Seems like a sneaky attempt around the paradox imho. It still doesn't mean he can't lift it, just that he is choosing not to.
Question: How does he regain the power he has emptied himself of?

Nothing sneaky just basic common sense. The fact is people want to make these illogical arguments in order to say look, God contradicts himself and is illogical. When a person tries to add some logic to this silly debate that has been occurring for years it's "sneaky."

It isn't sneaky just common sense. Why can't God empty and restore his power if he's all powerful? God's power is always present so if he chooses not to use his power to create a rock he can't lift then he's just being LOGICAL.

Of course you don't want to be logical because the whole point of these debates is to try and make God look illogical. It's a tried and tired tactic.

Now, you talk about God lying and deceiving.

Again, the verses you mentioned are consistent with Gods nature. This is consistent with free will.

Let's say I'm God and I create a universe with beings and I give them free will.

I'm God, so I know which beings will reject me and which beings will accept me. God knows whose hearts are open to accept him and which hearts are hardened and will never accept him.

So when it says I the Lord deceives that prophet it's because God is protecting those who are open to accepting him or who he sees will accept them and removing those who may try to corrupt them.

If an atheist whose heart is hardened and who will never accept God is about to work with and slow down a man that will accept God and lead a lot of people to Christ, the atheist can be sent a strong delusion or lying spirit to get them to accept another job in order to keep them out of this mans way.

This is perfectly consistent with God's nature.

God knows who will accept him or who has a hardened heart and will reject him. At certain points, God doesn't need non believers trying to impede the progress of believers so he sends them a lying or deceiving spirit. This is consistent with free will and if a person wants to have a hardened heart and reject God they have every right to do so.

a reply to: iterationzero

You said:

I respectfully disagree that this is common sense in the context of a discussion of omnipotence. Again, "need" is a word loaded with subtle meanings beyond those of "simple English" in a discussion like this.

The word need isn't loaded with any subtle meaning when you're responding to a thread about Genesis. I didn't say or imply that God couldn't create the universe in any way he chooses.

NEWSFLASH

This isn't a debate about Omnipotence but about Genesis. This thread isn't titled, can God create the universe in any way he chooses.

Hence, your strawman argument.

Again, this whole diatribe is senseless. Did you read the title of the thread before you responded? You said:

On this particular point, we agree. Which is why I think the thread in general is... I used the word silly before, but that may have been overly harsh. Maybe superfluous? If you believe that god is defined as absolutely omnipotent, and again I'd encourage you to read the link I provided earlier to differentiate between the various kinds of omnipotence that have been used to describe god over the years, then asking if god could have done something in particular way seems irrelevant. If he's absolutely omnipotent, he could have done it in any way he chose to do so.

THE THREAD ISN'T ABOUT GOD'S OMNIPOTENCE IT'S ABOUT GENESIS!!

Ergo, your strawman argument.

The thread isn't titled Can God create the universe any way he chooses. This thread is about the way he did create the universe according to Genesis. This is why your posts are so illogical. They have nothing to do with the debate.

Nobody said God couldn't create the universe in the way he wanted to but this isn't a debate about God's Omnipotence, it's about the way God did choose to create the universe according to Genesis.

You then obfuscated again, THIS TIME IN BOLD AND ALL CAPS. You said:

He doesn't cease to be anything. If he needs something to create something else, then by definition he was never absolutely omnipotent to begin with. He may have been one of the "lesser" forms of omnipotent as described by some scholars, but there seems to be quite a bit of debate within Christianity regarding what "flavor" of omnipotent god is described as, not even considering the debate from those in other Abrahamic religions or from outside the Abrahamic religions.

First off, this isn't a debate about Omnipotence, this just stems from your strawmen argument. It's a debate about Genesis.

I responded to your assertions because they're so illogical. You never answered the questioned. Explain to me in your own words why if God needs the energy from the vacuum to create everything that he wills does he cease to be absolutely omnipotent. What can't he do?

Also, if you don't believe in God why do you restrict yourself to accepting only absolute omnipotence? That makes no sense unless like most non believers you just want to make these silly and illogical comments and therefore you can turn a blind eye to logic.

Again, why would God cease to be absolutely omnipotent if he needed vacuum energy to create what he wills? Also, why is a non believer restricted to the view of absolute omnipotence if you don't believe in God?

a reply to: neoholographic

originally posted by: neoholographic
Again, you're making the illogical argument that non believers make time and time again. I don't know if you're a believer or not but I have heard this argument before and it didn't make sense then and it doesn't make sense now.

I am an atheist who is a former Christian.

Of course you don't want to be logical because the whole point of these debates is to try and make God look illogical. It's a tried and tired tactic.

There is an ample amount of things about God and religion that are illogical. The arguments are a tired tactic only because there continues to be irrational people in the world that are theists. Their arguments ultimately don't stand up to scrutiny.

Now, you talk about God lying and deceiving.

Again, the verses you mentioned are consistent with Gods nature. This is consistent with free will.

So you now agree that lying is consistent with the nature of God? Because before, you made the argument that he is incapable of lying.

originally posted by: neoholographic
God can't lie.

Let's say I'm God and I create a universe with beings and I give them free will.

I'm God, so I know which beings will reject me and which beings will accept me. God knows whose hearts are open to accept him and which hearts are hardened and will never accept him.

So when it says I the Lord deceives that prophet it's because God is protecting those who are open to accepting him or who he sees will accept them and removing those who may try to corrupt them.

So it's ok to lie under certain circumstances? Only if you're God?

If an atheist whose heart is hardened and who will never accept God is about to work with and slow down a man that will accept God and lead a lot of people to Christ, the atheist can be sent a strong delusion or lying spirit to get them to accept another job in order to keep them out of this mans way.

Ah so not only is it ok to lie under certain circumstances but even go so far as manipulate the free will of one man, for the sake of another man's soul? Where is the logic in that?

So what about people like me? Former Christians who are now atheists? Where were God's lies to protect me? Why am I now subject to strong delusions?

This is perfectly consistent with God's nature.

Agreed. The contradictory, and do what I say not as I do attitude. God teaches us not to lie or set stumbling blocks before our fellow man. But he does not practice what he preaches. We are suppose to use this being and his book as an example of how to live and act?

God knows who will accept him or who has a hardened heart and will reject him. At certain points, God doesn't need non believers trying to impede the progress of believers so he sends them a lying or deceiving spirit. This is consistent with free will and if a person wants to have a hardened heart and reject God they have every right to do so.

What good is free will if God will pick and choose who to delude or deceive? The bigger question is why would he not do things to change the hearts of the unbelievers towards him as opposed to the exact opposite?

As this isn't the main topic, I will understand if you choose not to reply.

a reply to: neoholographic

Any conversation about god creating the universe is inherently tied to a discussion of his omnipotence. It's like saying that a thread is about the heritability of traits and then saying that it has nothing to do with genetics. Genes are the vehicle by which traits are inherited; omnipotence is the vehicle by which god may or may not do something... like, say, create the universe out of light.

You're getting more and more agitated and impolite as this conversation goes on, so I'll take my leave of it. Enjoy!

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

God has nothing to do with logic whatsoever. God is a paradox.

a reply to: liejunkie01

First let me say God bless and I hope you find Jesus, but I GOT TOO SAY REALLY ARE YOU SERIOUS, You left your faith for your own reasons only you decide your our fate/faith, don't throw salt when so many truly are seeking the truth. But I'am still laughing hard and sad for you at the same time currently after reading your post because:

You say

1.This is exactly one of the illogical answers that drove me from religion.
Really... What's illogical about trying to understand our creator's perspective and seek him and if that made you run away from faith it means you never had true faith in your creator to begin with. That is why you have fallen.

2.It's just an example how believers try to twist and squeeze something from nothing.
Reading my post I can't see what is twisted and squeezed from nothing. In my above post I'am just alluding to the fact none of us truly can say what God's perspective of time is and what a day consists of in his direct presence. Unless you are standing next to him you really wouldn't know. Nothing stated in my above post about God's perspective of time is stone set or forced on you or twisted. It is pure pondering right or wrong/theory. God loves those who eagerly seek him so why am I wrong for wondering shame on you this is ATS deny ignorance. Lastly since neither one of us has stood directly next to God yet, I know God is manifested on high the highest and if your talking dimensions then wouldn't that mean the Lord our God resides in the highest dimension. I have my faith and I will not run from it. If you gave your pearls to swine I' am truly sorry and I pray Jesus gives you a new set of pearls with a strengthened vigor for faith in Jesus name Amen.

3.The text does not say "gods day".


day
dā/
noun
1.
a period of twenty-four hours as a unit of time, reckoned from one midnight to the next, corresponding to a rotation of the earth on its axis.
synonyms: a twenty-four-hour period, twenty-four hours
"I stayed for a day

This is actually the part of your post that made me laugh pretty good, here's why in my post I'am talking about God's perspective of time. First I didn't know I was so BA that my ATS post's are considered official texts that warranted for official vilification from a dictionary lol. What's so funny is I' am talking about God's perspective when I said God's day it's his perspective. How can you use a human dictionary to try to discourage people and think you can poop on my post, YOUR WRONG. Think for a second, day in the dictionary is 24 hour cycles for us humans but we don't know how long a day for God really is, so no wonder it doesn't say god's day in your dictionary .It's because we really don't know, that's why there's not a God's Day in your dictionary is because we don't know the answer for that yet. That was my point we don't know so we should keep seeking his face. I hope you have a good new year and I do really hope you find Christ.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: neoholographic

So you now agree that lying is consistent with the nature of God? Because before, you made the argument that he is incapable of lying.

Nice one! Shame I can only give you the one star because that was worth a hundred.

My, doesn't he get excited..

What is a day when there is no sun or planet earth?

Just an observation

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

God created the universe in an instant....maybe out of light

Then, God restored the heavens and earth in 6 days so that man could dwell on it

hmm sounds like God allowed the little deimurge 6 days to restore it in his image. Definitely not the same god.

God can do whatever he effen wants, he is God. Jeez.

Can God tell the difference between a Hebrew and an Egyptian first born without having lamb's blood smeared on a door frame? Apparently not.

a reply to: Blue Shift

So he has a sick sense of humor?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
So he has a sick sense of humor?

George Carlin said that the best way to describe him is that he was an underachiever.

a reply to: Blue Shift

It is kind of sick story when you think about it. Killing babies is kind of in my "its wrong no matter what" category. Why not just kill the Pharaoh and be done with it? Why waste time with all the plagues and stuff? I really don't get God sometimes. I started to feel bad joking about killing babies and then remembered it probably didn't actually happen and then I thought that its probably doesn't matter because just the thought of a devine being killing babies is just disturbing.

a reply to: AlephBet

This. I've found that there's equal focus on light and a frequency as tools of creation in religious, metaphysical and now some unification theories. Ohm is a solid example. I've always figured if light is the creative force, then the word is the intention behind it. "Let there be light", he's gotta say it first.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Blue Shift

It is kind of sick story when you think about it. Killing babies is kind of in my "its wrong no matter what" category. Why not just kill the Pharaoh and be done with it? Why waste time with all the plagues and stuff?

A truly super powerful God could just lift the Hebrews out of Egypt and put them someplace wonderful where they wouldn't be slaves anymore. Or completely reverse the scenario and have the Egyptians be slaves. Or whatever. Did he want to teach the Egyptians a lesson? He could just put that lesson into their heads.

God's actions are so small and petty and illogical that it becomes impossible to believe that they actually happened.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Yeah, I think I just lost my way.

Still going to see the new Moses movie. looks pretty kick ass. Might give iron man a run for his money.

a reply to: neoholographic

no

a reply to: th3dudeabides

If you watch this in surround sound, you may change your mind