/sci/ - Science & Math

sage

everone below me is trolled

>>978587
Actually, that is a good point.

What the shit is going on in OP's pic?

But if he did not exist previous to 'willing himself into existence', he cannot have had a will, since he did not exist. Therefore, An all-powerful being could not have willed itself into existence

QED

Logic Error

Abort, Retry, Fail?

>>978587
>>978598
No, because the god-slaying machine is so powerful that it preemptively stops all gods from doing that.

>>978600
Captain Kirk being attacked by a midget.
Spock is in the background, being a wise sage.

>>978602
OK, is he so powerful that he could just pop into existence?

Isn't it possible that theirs a unicorn behind you that disappears every time you turn around?

>>978614
No. See previous god-slaying machine.

>>978610
Incorrect, Captain Kirk is being ridden by a midget and forced to impersonate a horse.

It is the biggest WTF moment in a TV series renown for its WTF moments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhQA-06kSLU

>>978587
>>978598
>>978614
>>978621
Yes it's possible, but you'd have to be irrational to believe in it without evidence, delusional to think you had evidence, and then if you tried to demonstrate it to others you'd simply be wrong when reality continued to not support you.

Sure it is absolutely possible for a deity to will himself into existence.

Anything other than that is retarded.

You guys get too caught up in implied definitions of the word 'god'. It doesn't help that the popular religion calls their god 'God'

Who cares if some 'god' wished themselves into existance and created the universe? It is completely and utterly irrelevant.

>>978587
Not logically.

For God to will himself into existence implies SOMETHING had to exist prior to the event to commit the act of "willing".

Though its an interesting thought.

>>978715
Someone already said that.

Please read the whole topic you lazy fuck.

>>978715
unless he willed himself into the beginning of time from the end of time

>>979047
This

>>979038
Correct answer is correct no matter how many times it's repeated.

>>978715
>>979047
Implies God is somehow constrained by a time dimension, even while accepting the irrelevance of spatial dimensions.

Not rational. Either God is constrained by space & time, or by neither. (or, obviously, is no more than a hypothesis for human philosohphicalising)

>>979081
how is he constrained by time if he kicks causalities ass by causing from the end of time his presence at the beginning?

Anyone getting flashbacks to when this guy started bitching he could leave the hollodeck if he had enough will.

Will is a meaningless human emotion with no place on /sci/. If god(s) could retro-causally create themselves why can't the universe do so in its own?

>>979099
who says it can't we're not debating whether its possible for the universe to do so OP's question just asked whether god could.

>>979093
Because it implies that he his somehow incapable of doing something at the beginning of time that he is capable of doing at the end of time. meaning time somehow 'matters' to God.

What if the 4D-universe has sufficient complexity to be sentient?

>>979131
The 3-d universe would be a subset of the 4-d universe.
A dimension is not a place, it is a direction.

>>979145
And if we take a 2D slice through your brain, it won't be sentient. A dimension is not a direction, is is a dimension, an orthogonal 'scalar direction space' if you like.

I've been seriously thinking about this. My idea about it is as follows:

God, as a supremely powerful being, was able to create himself. Although this completely goes against all domains of logic, since God is a supremely powerful being he has the ability to act outside of our domains of logic.

Atheist by the way, not some Christfag trying to justify his beliefs. Thoughts?

>>979183
As a philosophical argument, I prefer that there is some logical reason why God (and likewise the Universe) could not NOT come into existence. No will required, just inevitability.

In my head, I imagine a bit that is on if _anything_ exists, and off otherwise. But since the bit exists, it must be on.

God is nothing more than the spark that started the universe.
/thread

>>979183
This is what I have believed since I was a child, but knowing /sci/ they'll cover their ears and say "nananana" so they can avoid this perfectly reasonable argument.

>>979217
...huh?

>>979183
here
>>979217

Didn't understand any of that bro.

Also just realized that my argument isn't an argument to prove the existence of God, but rather one that proves the existence of an omnipotent god is a rational idea.

>>979305
Hmmm - try this.

The very possibility of the question 'does anything exist' (regardless of whether there is actually anything to ask it) automatically requires that _something_ does exist, because the possibility of the question exists.

Hence Universe (and for me, Universe in analogous to God)

>>979207

i like her

I think a better way to phrase this is he made the universe and can will himself into it
besides turing proved that any system no matter how powerful/complex etc can program itself i.e will itself into existence

csb

>>979469
I am in love with her. TO /R/ FOR SAUCE!

>>978587

Idk.

The only theology I'm familiar with states that God existed for ever and that God's actions never defy logic.

>>979245
I don't think you realize what the /thread is, its for things that are the correct answer, not stupid attempts to be almost deep by making a pointless statement that essentially amounts to naming the inanimate proto-universe.

http://tinyurl.com/37xzkyn