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

a reply to: iterationzero

First off, you're using a strawman tactic that never works in a debate. You're debating against something that I never said. You spent the first part of your post debating against a strawman. You said:

By definition, a being of unlimited power needs nothing. Can you explain how an omnipotent creator would still be omnipotent if he needed something? An omniscient creator may still need something to create with. But an omnipotent one? If you claim that he needs something to create with, he ceases to be omnipotent.

I never said an Omnipotent Being needed these things. This makes no sense because you're debating against something that was never said.

Secondly, let's debate your point since you seem to have first hand knowledge of what an Omnipotent Being can or cannot do. Tell me, why would an Omnipotent Being cease to be Omnipotent if he can create anything he wants out of what already exists?

Say consciousness is eternal alongside the true vacuum and out of this vacuum this consciousness can create anything it wants. Wouldn't this consciousness be Omnipotent or have great or unlimited power? Why would this conscious lose it's Omnipotence because it uses a seas of vacuum energy to create whatever it wants?

Omnipotent

adj.
1. infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power.
n.
3. an omnipotent being.
4. the Omnipotent, God.

Again I ask:

Why did God have Jesus be born through a woman and go through pregnancy and childhood when he could have just poofed Jesus into existence because he's an Omnipotent Being?

Why can't an Omnipotent Being act through his creation?

Here you say you don't believe in God yet you're going to limit what a God you don't believe in can or cannot do? That sounds really silly.

Lastly, you're entitled to your view about God. There's billions of people who disagree with you and they believe in God. This isn't a debate about the existence of God though. I know people like to turn threads into a debate about God's existence. I simply ask if you want to debate about existence, start a thread.

a reply to: neoholographic

Why did God have Jesus be born through a woman and go through pregnancy and childhood when he could have just poofed Jesus into existence because he's an Omnipotent Being?

The answer is simple. If god exists, he is not omnipotent, nor omniscient. That's what the bible claims, so that is what I believe ITZ was addressing. If somebody or something is all powerful, that means they have unlimited power and can do anything. The second you put limits on omnipotence it is no longer omnipotence. Straw mans aren't about arguing against something that wasn't said, they are about constructing a false definition of something and using it to debunk whatever you are talking about. It looked to me like he used the word properly. It's not about knowing what an omnipotent being can do. It's about knowing what omnipotence means. If you know what it means, and you assign that label to god or anybody, then they should be able to do anything at all. You posted the definition yourself. It says it right there.

a reply to: neoholographic

First off, you're using a strawman tactic that never works in a debate. You're debating against something that I never said. You spent the first part of your post debating against a strawman. You said:

I never said an Omnipotent Being needed these things. This makes no sense because you're debating against something that was never said.

It's not a strawman. You said, in your OP:

In the beginning, God Created the Heaven and Earth. (information)

These are the plans for the universe God's building. This would be similar to the information we would create to print a gold watch.

Once you have this information, then all you need is light.

(Emphasis mine.)

You're implying that God "needed" light once he had created the information. Is your God omnipotent? If yes, then why would he "need" anything (your words, not mine) to then create matter from? If he didn't need it, then you should have chosen your words more carefully.

Secondly, let's debate your point since you seem to have first hand knowledge of what an Omnipotent Being can or cannot do. Tell me, why would an Omnipotent Being cease to be Omnipotent if he can create anything he wants out of what already exists?

By definition, an omnipotent being can do anything, so "first hand knowledge of what an Omnipotent Being can or cannot do" is irrelevant. And now you're arguing a strawman. I never said that an omnipotent being would cease to be omnipotent if he can create anything he wants out of what already exists, I said that an omnipotent being would cease to be omnipotent if he needed to use that which already existed to create something.

Why did God have Jesus be born through a woman and go through pregnancy and childhood when he could have just poofed Jesus into existence because he's an Omnipotent Being?

Well, the simple answer would be that God didn't have anything to do with it i.e. that it was a perfectly natural birth that was later ascribed some kind of supernatural characteristic.

Why can't an Omnipotent Being act through his creation?

No reason I can think of. You were the one that used the word "need" first.

Here you say you don't believe in God yet you're going to limit what a God you don't believe in can or cannot do? That sounds really silly.

I don't believe in vampires, but I'm pretty clear on what they can and can't do based on the surrounding mythology. Not silly at all.

Lastly, you're entitled to your view about God. There's billions of people who disagree with you and they believe in God. This isn't a debate about the existence of God though. I know people like to turn threads into a debate about God's existence. I simply ask if you want to debate about existence, start a thread.

I'm not debating the existence of God in the slightest. You shared your "personal view" in a reply to me:

In my personal view, we all share in the essence of the Creator. God experiences his creation through us.

I was simply doing that same. If you didn't want to discuss different points of view regarding origins and creation, you shouldn't have posted your thread in the O&C forums.

a reply to: iterationzero

Of course it's a strawman argument.

WHERE DID I SAY THAT GOD COULDN'T CREATE THE UNIVERSE IN ANY OTHER WAY?????

Again, the discussion is about Genesis and how it was created.

What you're saying makes zero sense. You're debating as to why would an omnipotent God NEED light to create the universe. I never said he needed light or that he couldn't create the universe in any other way. In this instance I'm saying he used light. Just like Jesus was born through Mary.

Where did I imply God needed light or that God couldn't create the universe in any other way? Again, it's a stawman argument and I clearly stated God can act through his Creation.

Show me where I implied or even hinted that God needed light and couldn't create the universe any other way. Your whole argument is debating against something that was never said.

Secondly, let's again debate your general point. Why would an Omnipotent Being cease to be Omnipotent if they needed that which already existed. You never explained this odd statement. Do you know what Omnipotent means?

Omnipotent

adjective
1.
almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2.
having very great or unlimited authority or power.
noun
3.
an omnipotent being.
4.
the Omnipotent, God.

So by your definition an Omnipotent Being is prohibited from needing anything? Where does this definition come from?

An General can be omnipotent but he would need his troops to maintain his power.

I'm just trying to understand where your definition of Omnipotent comes from. Do you know many Omnipotent Beings? Did they give you this definition??

Back to my example, if you had a Being that was the most intelligent being in the universe and could create anything from vacuum energy, why would he cease to be Omnipotent if he needed energy from the vacuum?

Being all powerful doesn't mean you don't use or need anything to maintain that power.

I'm not saying God needs anything but I'm directly talking about your assertion that an Omnipotent Being that needed anything would cease to be Omnipotent. Where did this definition come from?

C.S. Lewis made a similar point:

His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.

This just means God's power is also consistent with his nature.

So God couldn't create and kill Adam at the same time. One thing would have to logically precede/succeed the other. God couldn't kill Adam if Adam was never alive to begin with. God can kill Adam if Adam's life precedes his death.

This isn't limiting God's power in any way.

How could Jesus be born without pregnancy preceding his birth?

Where does your definition of Omnipotence come from and which scholar's and researchers shaped this definition or is it just made up out of whole cloth??

I don't think God (if he actually existed) is omnipotent.

For example:

Can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?

Omnipotence Paradox.

a reply to: neoholographic

I'll just trim this down to the relevant part...

Show me where I implied or even hinted that God needed light and couldn't create the universe any other way. Your whole argument is debating against something that was never said.

I quoted the part of your OP where you used the word "need" in relation to the discussion about God creating the universe from light in my previous post. If a being "needs" something to perform an action, such as creating something, then it's not really an omnipotent being any longer, is it?

The first definition that you yourself just posted says...

almighty or infinite in power, as God.

If he can't do something, then his power is no longer infinite. Ergo, he's no longer omnipotent.

And I've excised a ton of stuff where you keep asking me where I'm getting my definition of omnipotence from, since I'm just using the definition you yourself posted. But I'll reply to following...

C.S. Lewis made a similar point:

If you're looking for scholarly views on omnipotence, why not look to a canonized saint?

St. Augustine:

But assuredly He is rightly called omnipotent, though He can neither die nor fall into error. For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent.

So, as St. Augustine would have it, the only God cannot do something that would make him no longer omnipotent i.e. make a rock so big that even he couldn't lift it. Which is really just a convenient way to skirt the concept of an omnipotence paradox.

Or even Rene Descartes, who said that God is omnipotent to the point that he can do what is logically impossible because, as the author of logic, he isn't bound by logic.

Maybe the problem is we have two different views on the type of omnipotence you seem to be talking about. Which of these suits your OP and personal worldview? I typically read discussions of God's omnipotence as being consistent with "absolute omnipotence", as Geach would put it. But it sounds like you subscribe to one of the "less" omnipotent versions of God.

a reply to: neoholographic

First there was Sound...god spoke (Gen 1:3). Without sound there is no light. God spoke in the presence of other gods. In that environment there was no light as we would know it (in finer refined spirit realm) .

SIX seconds is an eternity as far as the creation of the universe,
try an shorten the timeframe by a factor of a billionth or trillionth of a nano second .
That's how short a timeframe exsistance space time took to manifest.
before a hundredth of a second had passed super inflation had already kicked in an expanded the universe from the sise of an electon to about the size of our solar system.

And that's the fartherst biggest increase in size its ever made of course it had to travel faster than light to achieve that remarkable size increase,

So of course its just a theory super inflation I think some guy received a bucket full of cash an a nobel prize for theoriseing the consept.

Hope he invested his prize money in a bank account with super inflation intrest linked returns..

Stories like this are ridiculous speculation.

Christians seem to need to find so much proof for their faith, and argue endlessly about their faith and their beliefs when they're challenged.

If Christian faith and belief were so strong, it wouldn't matter what people said about them, it would be unwavering.

a reply to: iterationzero


First this makes no sense.

You quoted where I used the word need but you never quoted the part where I said God needed this to create the universe or that God couldn't create the universe in any way he chooses to.

You can't just see the word need and then make up a strawman argument to debate against. That makes zero sense.

Again, you just blindly ignored the issue. What is it God can't do if he needed energy from the vacuum to create anything he wants?

You said, he would cease to be Omnipotent if he needed something that already existed. You have yet to cite or provide anything that backs up this silly assertion.

At the end of the day, you're obfuscating the issue at hand and dodging questions. You said:

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

In post after post you have failed to demonstrate how this is correct. I have asked you several times now and in each of your responses you ignore the issue.

Even with Descartes view, it doesn't support anything that you're saying. Descartes beliefs are consistent with beliefs about God's omnipotence. For instance, say we live in a universe of 10 dimensions, God would know about these 10 dimensions and may do things that seem logically inconsistent to our 3-dimensional perspective.

Again, this has nothing to do with what you said. You said:

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

Some simple questions and I hope you don't dodge and dance yet again.

If God created light and then needed that light to manifest his creation would he cease to be omnipotent and if so why?

If God uses vacuum energy to create anything he wants, would he cease to be omnipotent?

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I don't think any paradox exists. The Bible tells you that there's things that God can't do.

Hebrews 6:18 - That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

Titus 1:2 - In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

1Samuel 15:29 - And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

Numbers 23:19 - God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent. Hath He said, and shall He not do it? Or hath He spoken, and shall He not make it good?

What this tells you is God is logic and therefore there's no need for him to repent.

So logic is simply God creating a heavy rock, emptying himself of some of his power and then he has a rock he can't lift.

This doesn't make him any less Omnipotent just LOGICAL.

It would be like saying it's illogical for Christ to die like a man. No it's not because he can empty himself of his power and take on the form of a man(his creation).

Philippians 2:7 - But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

So these questions are really not paradoxes when you read what the Bible says about God.

a reply to: neoholographic

If there wasn't a sun how did they measure 6 "days?"

And why would God need 6 days? Why not 2? Or 1?

a reply to: Jamie1

Why does God need a sun to measure 6 days? What does 6 days mean outside our local perception of minutes and hours?

Who said God needed 6 days?

a reply to: neoholographic

First this makes no sense.

You quoted where I used the word need but you never quoted the part where I said God needed this to create the universe or that God couldn't create the universe in any way he chooses to.

So why did you use the word "need" in the context of God creating something?

You can't just see the word need and then make up a strawman argument to debate against. That makes zero sense.

Hardly a strawman when I'm using your words to construct a counterargument. I mean, you could just have easily have phrased it in your OP that God used light, as opposed to God needed light. If you can't discern the subtle difference between someone choosing to use something and someone being required (i.e. "needing") to use something, then I'm not sure how much farther this discussion is really going to get.

To be fair, it's kind of a silly OP to begin with. "Could God (an omnipotent being) have created the universe in 6 days out of light?" Well, yeah... he's omnipotent. He could have created the universe in six seconds out of giant flying elephant excrement if he wanted to. He could have created it instantly from nothing if he wanted to. That's called being omnipotent. And it's also why it's ridiculous to try and put acts of God into some kind of scientific framework.

I provided you with an objective framework to describe how you view your God's omnipotence. I explained that, based on my own past beliefs and my understanding of the beliefs of those around me, that when adherents to one of the Abrahamic faiths says that God is omnipotent, they typically mean he is absolutely omnipotent. I've asked you multiple times now to clarify your position in a way that's objective. If you're unwilling to do so, that's fine. Just say so.

Again, you just blindly ignored the issue. What is it God can't do if he needed energy from the vacuum to create anything he wants?

I haven't ignored anything and have replied to every single question you asked, which is more than you've done in return. You can continue to ask the same questions and even type in all caps, but I've already done my best to clarify.

its not light but information or more precise programming code like we have in our DNA.

Light is just one means of comunicating information much like electrical inputs that our brains use to process the information.

Some people say that like energy you cannot destroy information but i say they are wrong.

a reply to: iterationzero

More dancing and obfuscating. I never implied or hinted that God needed light to create the universe. You read the word need and have built a strawman argument. You have to make a leap and say well you implied.

What are you a mind reader? This is what you quoted me saying:

[

In the beginning, God Created the Heaven and Earth. (information)

These are the plans for the universe God's building. This would be similar to the information we would create to print a gold watch.

Once you have this information, then all you need is light.

I think you have a problem with the English language. Never did I say God was restricted or he had to use light to create the universe.

For instance, I can put hot coco in a cup and I need some milk to add to it, this doesn't mean I can't use water to make it instead.

I can say to a waiter in a restaurant after he brings me my pancakes, I need some butter, this doesn't mean I can't use margarine to put on the pancakes.

It sounds to me as if you're making things up as you go because the only way you can debate the issue is by trying to debate against a strawman argument or debate against a God that isn't logically consistent with his nature. This is because you want to make a silly argument that Omnipotence means God can do anything.

God can't lie.

God can't repent.

Hebrews 6:18 - That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

Titus 1:2 - In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

1Samuel 15:29 - And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

Numbers 23:19 - God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent. Hath He said, and shall He not do it? Or hath He spoken, and shall He not make it good?

Does this mean God isn't Omnipotent? Of course not.

Again, you're just obfuscating. You spent most of your posts talking about the word need because you made a statement that you haven't or probably can't explain.

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

Why is this the case?

I then asked you a couple of simple questions:

If God created light and then needed that light to manifest his creation would he cease to be omnipotent and if so why?

If God uses vacuum energy to create anything he wants, would he cease to be omnipotent?

Again, you obfuscated about the word need with no answers or explanations.

This happens a lot of times when you debate people like you. You don't want to debate the issue because you can't debate logically. You have to build illogical strawmen which doesn't make much sense.

a reply to: BlessedLore

I agree with you on the indifference of time through God's perspective, 6 days perceived by us humans could have been 1,000 years per God's day or 1,000,000 per God's day we don't know and can't until after this life that kind of perspective is above 3 dimension and even higher

This is exactly one of the illogical answers that drove me from religion.

It's just an example how believers try to twist and squeeze something from nothing.

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

a reply to: neoholographic

More dancing and obfuscating. I never implied or hinted that God needed light to create the universe. You read the word need and have built a strawman argument. You have to make a leap and say well you implied.

I've answered every question you've put to me, sometimes more than once. You have yet to pay me the same courtesy.

What are you a mind reader?

Not at all, I went from the words in your OP.

I think you have a problem with the English language. Never did I say God was restricted or he had to use light to create the universe.

No, no issues with English that I'm aware of. All you had to say was that you didn't mean to use the word "need" in that context, you could have avoided typing the last couple of discourteous replies you made.

It sounds to me as if you're making things up as you go because the only way you can debate the issue is by trying to debate against a strawman argument or debate against a God that isn't logically consistent with his nature. This is because you want to make a silly argument that Omnipotence means God can do anything.

How am I making it up? I provided quotes from scholars that are at least as estimable in the realm of Christian thought as your friend C.S. Lewis, as well as a link to a hierarchy of concepts regarding omnipotence which clearly defines what I'm talking about as "absolute omnipotence". Are you suggesting that I "made up" the works of Aquinas, Augustine, Descartes, and others and then wrote the Wikipedia entry I linked to with Geach's hierarchy of omnipotence? Seriously?

God can't lie.
God can't repent.

Then you don't subscribe to the concept of an absolutely omnipotent god. Nothing wrong with that, I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm not scolding you. I'm simply looking for clarification on how you view God's omnipotence. I provided you with an objective framework so we can both be talking about the same thing in the same words (in English, even!), but you refuse to clarify. And then you have the nerve to accuse me of "dancing and obfuscating".

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

Asked and answered. I've clarified this for you multiple times in the context of an absolutely omnipotent god. You obviously don't share the same view of god's omnipotence. For the sake of being courteous and answering your question yet again...

An absolutely omnipotent being doesn't need something to make something else. For the sake of simplifying the argument, an omnipotent being doesn't need popcorn kernels to create popcorn; he can simply will the already popped popcorn into being. If a being needs for there to be unpopped kernals in order to create popcorn, then by definition that being is not absolutely omnipotent.

This happens a lot of times when you debate people like you. You don't want to debate the issue because you can't debate logically. You have to build illogical strawmen which doesn't make much sense.

Nice ad hominem attack from someone crying "illogical!" at me.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I don't think any paradox exists. The Bible tells you that there's things that God can't do.

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?

Hebrews 6:18 - That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

Titus 1:2 - In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

1Samuel 15:29 - And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

Numbers 23:19 - God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent. Hath He said, and shall He not do it? Or hath He spoken, and shall He not make it good?

What this tells you is God is logic and therefore there's no need for him to repent.

I will have to disagree with you that God is incapable of lying. Especially if you consider the Bible to be the inerrant word of God. As you are no doubt aware, the Bible has many contradictions. Some more relevant than others. But are there any verses where God himself admits to lies? Actually, yes there are.
A few examples:

And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel. Ezekiel 14:9

Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee. 1 Kings 22:23

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie. 2 Thessalonians 2:11

More at: Lying for God

So logic is simply God creating a heavy rock, emptying himself of some of his power and then he has a rock he can't lift.

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?

This doesn't make him any less Omnipotent just LOGICAL.

If God is bound by logic, how can he be the author of it?

a reply to: iterationzero

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.

If I say God needed David to write the Psalms, does that imply God couldn't have used anyone else to write the Psalms? Of course not.

The thread is talking about Genesis and this is why your argument is so illogical. If God would have said Let there be grapes in Genesis then the discussion would have been about grapes after God created the heavens and the earth. The title of the thread isn't:

Can God Create the Universe in any other way?

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

Like I said, If I tell a waiter I need butter for my pancakes it doesn't mean I can't use margarine. Just because I need some milk for my hot coco doesn't mean I can't use water.

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.

Again, this isn't a thread titled Can God create the universe in other ways.

A discussion about Genesis doesn't exclude God creating the universe in any other way. Just like a discussion of Psalms doesn't mean God couldn't have worked through someone other than David.

Your assertions don't make any sense because we're talking about what occurred and you're constructing a strawman by trying to debate what God can or can't do.

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

Most people who don't believe in God want to talk in terms of absolutes because they want to make statement about God lifting rocks that are too heavy.

Can God kill Adam without Adam first being alive? Can God kill himself?

The final part of your post sums up the illogical position:

An absolutely omnipotent being doesn't need something to make something else. For the sake of simplifying the argument, an omnipotent being doesn't need popcorn kernels to create popcorn; he can simply will the already popped popcorn into being. If a being needs for there to be unpopped kernals in order to create popcorn, then by definition that being is not absolutely omnipotent.

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

This is the catch 22 you created and you still haven't answered. You said:

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

So if God needs the sea of vacuum energy to bring into existence everything he wills, does he cease to be Omnipotent?