Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

On day x of creation->

  1. Jan 21, 2004 #1
    Did God made the Devil too?
    Why, the hell, did he do that for?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 21, 2004 #2
    The devil is supposedly a rebellious angel who started a war against god, with some of the other angels joining on his side.
  4. Jan 21, 2004 #3
    His question still stands... Why make an angel that will rebel? (This thread is doomed to be locked :P)
  5. Jan 21, 2004 #4
    <---- Not a Christian.

    However, the typical Christian argument (one of the few Christian Apologist arguments that fly with me) is that God created all beings with free will.

    Lucifer was free to rebel if that was his will.

    However, the Agnostic in me would point out...

    I wish I could remember where I got that from.
    I would like to give credit to the author.
    However, if you really want to know, you can do an exact phrase search on yahoo, and I am sure you will be able to find it on the net without too much trouble.
  6. Jan 21, 2004 #5
    Indeed. However:

    An omnipotent God has power over everything.

    Therefore an omnipotent God had to create everything:

    If something existed without God creating it (telling it that it could exist), God's approval was not required in order for it to exist and therefore he did not have power over its creation. Therefore he would not have power over everything- so any omnipotent God had to create everything.

    This includes logical constraints; if a God is confined by ANY rules whatsoever, including truth/falsehood, the laws of mathematics, etc, that God must operate under those rules. If the God is subordinate to the rules then that God must not be omnipotent.

    Here we run across innumerable paradoxes (EG How could God create the act of creating?), but we shall skim over them for now.

    Because of this, God had to create the concept of free will- he could have created it where every decision was good and it would still be free will. This would not be evil, because God has power over the definitions of good and evil.

    God had to create the concepts of good and evil- why not create good and leave evil out, so any decision would be good? Some would argue duality is necessary, but God had to create duality and necessity as well.

    So the free will argument holds no real ground- it is meaningful only if God is subject to the laws of reality, which he cannot be if he is omnipotent. (For the reason of the vast number of paradoxes involved in this argument that we skimmed over, and based on various other ideas, I find any omnipotent being an impossibility- but that is beside the point).
  7. Jan 21, 2004 #6
    I personally don't believe in "good" and "evil", but leaving that aside...

    Who said God was "good"?
    Who said that rebellion (and Lucifer, for that matter) was bad?

    My view is that if there is a God, he would be closest to the Diest version.
    He created all, set the rules, put the ball in play, then backed off to let it do what it's going to do.

    He would still be omnipotent.

    The ability to control all does not imply the necessity or obligation to do so.
    I could invent a board game.
    I would know all the rules.
    I would know how to cheat.
    I would choose to abide by the rules I created.
    The game does not have power over me, I chose to follow the constraints I invented.
  8. Jan 21, 2004 #7
    Yes, but free will is part of the game. We are PIECES of the game, so we would be BOUND by the rules- since we can't will ourselves more powerful than God, obviously there are bounds. Meaning our choices must be monitored, meaning they are censored so God allows or disallows every thought and action.
  9. Jan 22, 2004 #8
    Not at all.
    The rules are imbedded into the game already.
    The laws of physics.
    There are no other unbreakable rules.

    We can't break them, not because God is watching and will squash us with his thumb if we do, like the Tower of Babel or something.
    We can't break them simply because they are integral to the design of the system.

    I can kill you right now.
    If God were "good" and enforced Biblical morality, I wouldn't be able to do that.
    Since God created me with free will, I have the choice to kill you.
    He CAN do something about it, but he doesn't because he is abiding by the rules of non-interference that he made for himself.

    However, I can't fly to the moon right now under the power of the magic wings I tuck under my shirt while I am at work.
    Not because God is watching me, but because it is a rule built into the game.

    Allowing "evil" to happen to people does not make God malevolent himself.
    He does not perpetrate the evil.
    Abstention of interference does not imply malevolence.
    Especially if "Heaven" exists.
    The petty little woes that humans suffer on earth are but a speck of sand in eternity.
    That is like saying if you mother cared about you she wouldn't let you get a hangnail.

    Besides, the VAST majority of suffering humans go through is caused by other humans.
    Maybe he is watching and saying, "You deserve it you shallow, self-absorbed, arrogant little fux!"

    Who's to say?
    The point, however (believe it or not, I do have a point buried in here somewhere), is that someone could very well be omnipotent, but not interfere.
    If he IS omnipotent, he has the power to turn his back if he wishes.
  10. Jan 22, 2004 #9
    Isn't God, by engaging in any action, not engaging in another? And seeing as he isn't engaging in another he must be bound by reality.

    Doesn't God exist or not exist? Either he doesn't exist, or he does. If he does he is bound by existence.

    God can do anything- therefore he can create a rule by which he is bound. But then he is bound by a rule...

    God created all concepts. How can you create the concept of creating before it exists?

    How can God know that he is omniscient? What if something else created God and purposely MADE HIM THINK he was omniscient?

    Since free will operates under the rules of the "game", and God created the rules of the game, God still had to create every decision we make. How can you jump if there's no such thing as jumping?

    What motivation would an allpowerful and allknowing God have to create a universe? He already knows everything that will happen and can already do whatever he wants. Needs and desires indicate a lack- how can God be lacking something, since anything he creates must necessarily come from himself?

    How can there be a beginning to time anyway? Whatever units we use to measure back in time, the last "instant" can always be divided into subinstants and get us farther and farther back.

    If there was no beginning to time, there was an infinite wait before the creation of the world... That's odd, wouldn't you say?

    These are general arguments against the existence of any omnipotent/omniscient being... There are infinitely more against specific religions' Gods which I shan't go into since they are off the topic of the philosophical discussion (and everyone already knows them anyway). So what of these?
  11. Jan 23, 2004 #10
    Hindus don't believe in the devil.

    If you don't like the devil - become a hindu!!!

    Oh and hindu girls are very nice looking!!!
  12. Jan 23, 2004 #11
    Perhaps the "problem" is viewing "God" as an the Great Outsider who "created the Universe" ...rather than viewing the Universe Itself as an eternal Entity of energy whose "bodily functions" comprise "the Game".
  13. Jan 30, 2004 #12
    God=omnicient does not = free will:

    Let's take a question like, "Are you going to hell?" Assuming there is a definite answer, i.e. either you are, or you aren't, that means that there will eventually be a factual truth associated with the question. You either went to hell or you didn't. If God is omnicient, he already knows the answer to the question. If he knows the answer to the question, then that means there ISan answer to the question, and therefore your fate has already been decided. You could argue that God could change his mind, but he already knew he was going to do that, and so your ultimate fate is still known. The consequence of this is that you have no free will. Your fate is already decided. If, on the other hand, you do have free will, and the question of your going to hell is not known yet by God, then he is not omnicient.

    When God created everything, he already knew every single thing that was ever going to happen. He was the architect of every single act. He knew perfectly well that Satan would turn evil, men would do evil, etc ...

    Makes me wonder why its so important for me to believe and be "born again" and all of that stuff, since God has already made up his mind about me anyway and there is nothing I can do about it.
  14. Jan 30, 2004 #13
    And THAT's the "problem" with the paradigm that has "God" as "omnicient". Instead, might not the Universe Itself be an evolving Entity that DOESN'T KNOW what's going to happen next. What, in fact, would be the POINT -- or even ENJOYMENT -- of a highly intelligent Being knowing everything in advance and just watching It's little "creations" walking through their parts? It's a flawed (and primitive) paradigm -- IMO -- that presents "God" as the Great Outsider with a "Plan"!

    In MY paradigm, the Universe Itself is evolving over infinite incarnations twixt one Big Bang through a Big Crunch to next Big Bang, at infinitum. At each Big Bang, It SEEMINGLY "blows apart" ...except Everything is STILL CONNECTED via "forces". As to It's "consciousness"? ...Its Mind "blows apart" as well, then goes through the process of "coming together" via "forces" ...much like the "physical plane". IOW, the Universe "looses It's marbles" "in the beginning" when IT is "born again"!

    Thus, free will is in play and everybody -- including the Universe -- is happy.
  15. Jan 30, 2004 #14
    which makes you wonder this: if we are part of the universe, (and we certainly are) and we are self aware, and we are aware of the universe, does that mean the universe is aware of itself, and intelligent?
  16. Jan 30, 2004 #15


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Sort of answered your own question, didn't you?
  17. Jan 31, 2004 #16
    Good point - one that gets forgotten. If science is right then the physical universe can self-reference itself, can know itself. How this idea makes sense I have no idea at all.
  18. Jan 31, 2004 #17
    Yes, if all parts of the universe, other than us, don't lack self-awareness. "We" are only one part of the universe. So if any one part exists that is not self-aware, the universe (as a whole) is not aware of itself. If, in fact, "we" are self-aware, then the universe is either partly or wholly self-aware. Therefore, the answer is only contingent upon the awareness of the remaining parts.

    Any suggestions on how to, if possible, determine awareness in, say, inanimate objects? Maybe we should start by defining awareness itself?
  19. Jan 31, 2004 #18
    Absolutely! Countless logical proofs show that God’s omniscience is suspect. But, his almost certain ignorance does not necessarily negate his completely uncertain existence. And if he does exist, I wonder if God made it outright impossible to prove his existence for purposes of amusement.
  20. Jan 31, 2004 #19
    I have proposed elsewhere -- and am now proposing here -- that ANY "exchange of information" constitutes "awareness" ...from simple to complex.

    IOW, an electron is at least "aware" of the positive charge of the proton, and RESPONDS to with regard to its spacial relationship to same. Likewise larger systems detecting and responding to each other's masses via gravity ...a form of "information".

    Many currently contend that consciousness "emerges" when biological organisms reach a certain level of complexity, but I propose that consciousness is on a continuum from simple to complex ...based on the complexity of the sensing and responding entity ...be it elementary particle, star, galaxy or gnat.

    Perhaps we are being "elitist" when we deem only biological systems with BRAINS as being conscious when brains are "merely" biological devices that have evolved to sense/process/store/respond-to a LOT of information. Lesser systems can -- at the very least -- sense and respond to "information" ...which -- at the very least -- is mediated by the current count of four forces (weak, strong, gravity, em)

    Also -- in response to the title of this thread -- there is no "day of creation" if the Universe Itself is "eternal" ...and, if It's an "eternal Entity of energy that's responsive to all of It's parts" ...so much the better. Moreover ...no "God" need apply.
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2004
  21. Jan 31, 2004 #20
    Yes, that's good! Of course, it all depends on the definitions we choose--but, I like this one for the moment.

    So now we have to figure out if there is any part of the universe that does not partake in this information exchange. And by exchange I understand you to mean that an aware part must not only receive, but also send information. So if we can identify the existence of a part of the universe that does not receive and/or send information (in any way), we can conclude that the universe is not wholly self-aware. And if we can't identify such an existence then the state of the universe's self-awareness is unknown, but certainly possible.

    Does the information itself fall under such identification? For example, along with the information the gravity wave is transmitting in the first place between its source and all destinations to follow, does it also send and/or receive subsequent information? As far as I know, gravity does not interact with anything in that sense. In order to be wholly self-aware, gravity (as a part of the whole) should partake in information exchange itself among other parts and not simply be the actual message between other parts.

    Imagine two people speaking to each other: John says "Hello" to Jane. John initiated the message and is fully capable of receiving messages himself--therefore, he is self-aware. Jane received the message and is fully capable of initiating her own messages--therefore, she is self-aware. The question lies not in whether John or Jane is self-aware, but in whether the message "Hello" itself is self-aware. The example is a bad one practically because one could reason that the message is transmitted with sound waves and sound waves certainly affect each other along with whatever they collide into. But, conceptually it is easy to see where I was going because a gravity wave is very different from a sound wave in that (to the best of our knowledge) it does not interact with anything except massive bodies. And we certainly can't exclude gravity as a part of the whole universe simply because it disagrees with our process of identification.

    So on that note, can anyone think of how gravity participates in a communication process in a way other than simply being the message between other aware parts?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook