X-Ftn-To: Ian 

"Ian"  wrote:
>>     I just want to make a point to this statement before making my own
>> argument for the existence of a "Supreme Being".  - If you define the
>> Universe as all of reality, all that exists, then you must redefine the
>> generally accepting scientific definition of "universe".  You see, what
>> scientists have defined as the universe is the sum of all galaxies, solar
>> systems, and etc.
>
>Fine, but if you define God as being the creator of part of existence then
>he cannot be the ultimate creator.

:))))))) You obviously have very interesting ideas about creating and
creation. You mean, if God didn't create himself, then he's not the
ultimate creator? :))

>>     You also seem to forget that the scientific community has also, if
>> rather infrequently, used the term "Multiverse", which is used to describe
>> all of the various universes that exist.  Accounting for the existence of
>> separate planes, as well, you end up with a whole lot more than just "the
>> universe".
>
>I do not believe in this (although it has no effect on my previous
>argument). If something can have no effect on the physical universe then it
>does not exist, and if it can effect the physical universe then it is part
>of the physical universe (it's physical manifestation gives it physical
>existence).

Sorry, wrong. A programmer can affect the running program, without
being a part of the program.

>>  There for, defining "the universe" as the highest level of
>> "stuff" (everything that there is, reality and otherwise all included), is
>> not including the vast majority of theoretical "stuff" (things that exist,
>> are real, or otherwise).
>
>Purely theoretical "stuff" does not exist. Unicorns do not exist. 

They do exist, but form of their existence is not primary. Characters
in a dream do not exist as physical objects, but they exist in a sense
that you can perceive them while you dream. An imagined unicorn exists
within your imagination. This universe, too, exists only in God's
imagination, it is not the primary reality. But, you are perfectly
willing to describe unicorns as unreal, and universe as real, in spite
of the fact that you have no evidence whatsoever of its actual
existence, except perceiving it. 

>Objects,
>forces etc in postulated scientific theories which do not describe the
>physical universe do not exist. 

Science can work with what you perceive, but it can't tell you whether
it's just an event within someone's dream. The things that you see as
real, are in fact only a bit more real than unicorns and elves.

>Just because we can talk about unicorns,
>what they might eat etc. that doesn't mean that they exist.

Exactly. And just because you perceive the universe, doesn't mean that
it exists. After all, if somebody erased your memory and plugged you
into a virtual reality device, you'd perceive lots of things that
don't exist. What would your "scientific" mind tell you, then?

>> point and continues infinitely.  The terminal point, the beginning, cannot
>> have anything before it and, for all intents and purposes, is a catalyst.
>> That terminal point, the beginning of the chain of existence/time, must be
>> something that could exist before/outside of all other things and,
>thereby,
>> set all other things into motion.
>
>But surely this simply creates another universe to embed the first one in
>and begs the question of this other universe's origins. 

Exactly. This is why God is defined as transcendental to causality. He
wasn't caused, or created. He's also transcendental to time, or
change. Of course, human mind cannot accept or imagine that, but what
else is new. Human mind is a very limited tool for understanding God.

>You cannot postulate
>something "existing" outside the universe or outside all universes
>(depending on how many universes you believe there are).

This is only because of the limitations of your mind; you work with a
narrow minded theory full of limitations, and when you find one, you
conclude that you found yourself something fundamental. You just
demonstrated that you can't define God as a part of the universe and
simultaneously claim that he created the entire universe. Basically,
you said that God didn't create himself, but since most people know
that anyways, you didn't tell us anything we didn't already know.

>>     That terminal point, whatever you want to call it, is greater than
>> anything that I can personally comprehend.  It is, for all intents and
>> purposes, the Supreme Thing/Being/Event/ God.
>
>A terminal point is an event, it is certainly not a being. So then God is an
>event, doesn't sound like any God I've ever been told about.

I don't know what you've been told about, but fundamental logic would
indicate that the originator of the Universe, the one capable of
creating the initial event, must be at least smarter and more capable
than yourself, because he managed to do it, and you're not quite up to
the task of repeating it.

-- 
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org