Genocide, and God

[Phoenix]

Okay I was getting tired of not being able to stay on topic in the discrimination thread, so for anyone who wants to continue this argument, here's the place to do it.

I'll start off with two quotes since I don't want to type all that up again.(starting with less offensive quotes of course)

The act itself is brutal. Whether it is or not is not the issue according to you. Tell me though, why would God break one of His OWN commandments? Why would He contradict Himself like that? It's like your father saying "Don't steal from my liquor cabinet," then he steals beer from a liquor store and stores it in the cabinet. It leaves you saying "Well what the fuck, man?"

My response

One of the purposes of the ten commandments is to justify the ending of human life. They're being imposed on us partly so that the humans who don't follow God in the end, can be killed justly. See we were designed to be incapable of following the law to the letter, that way we have to rely on God to save us. If not for our inability to keep the law, we would deserve to live. I'm over simplifying this and I'm sorry but I'm in a hurry to get back to the RP.

The ten commandments only apply to human beings. They don't apply to animals, angels, or God himself.

Saying this doesn't really help with Esau's God is evil point, but I'm a little passed carrying now.

I couldn't quote anything else partly due to laziness, and not wanting to start at the exact point we left off on ... which was mostly vindication and borderline flaming.

[Defeatist Elitist]

One of the purposes of the ten commandments is to justify the ending of human life. They're being imposed on us partly so that the humans who don't follow God in the end, can be killed justly. See we were designed to be incapable of following the law to the letter, that way we have to rely on God to save us. If not for our inability to keep the law, we would deserve to live. I'm over simplifying this and I'm sorry but I'm in a hurry to get back to the RP.

The ten commandments only apply to human beings. They don't apply to animals, angels, or God himself.

Saying this doesn't really help with Esau's God is evil point, but I'm a little passed carrying now.

I... You... This... I mean...

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT? WHAT WHAT WHAT WHAT WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?

So you're saying God is like an abusive partner, right? He designed us to be incapable of following the law to the letter so we have to rely on him to save us. Kind of like making it so your spouse has no job, or everything's signed in your name, so they're incapable of supporting themselves and have to rely on you to get by?

[Jyosua]

Well, if we're going to assume God exists, then I'd see no reason for him to design us to be perfect. After all, if he did that, we might very well one day usurp his position as God, and I don't think God would want that.

[Ragnell]

One of the purposes of the ten commandments is to justify the ending of human life. They're being imposed on us partly so that the humans who don't follow God in the end, can be killed justly. See we were designed to be incapable of following the law to the letter, that way we have to rely on God to save us. If not for our inability to keep the law, we would deserve to live. I'm over simplifying this and I'm sorry but I'm in a hurry to get back to the RP.

The ten commandments only apply to human beings. They don't apply to animals, angels, or God himself.

Saying this doesn't really help with Esau's God is evil point, but I'm a little passed carrying now.

Um... what?

God did not design us to be unable to follow him. According to the bible, we are given the choice to follow him. But because we as humans are fallen and often choose wrong, we separate ourselves from God. If you assume that we as humans have free will, and that God is not responsible for our actions (which is another argument entirely), then it is only we humans keeping us from being perfect. According to the bible, God doesn't purposely turn people away like you imply.

And what do you mean 'can be killed justly'? Are you saying we should kill people who disobey the ten commandments? 'Cause that would mean offing about... 100% of the world's population.

Edited July 4, 2010 by Ragnell

[Balcerzak]

God did not design us to be unable to follow him. According to the bible, we are given the choice to follow him. But because we as humans are fallen and often choose wrong, we separate ourselves from God. If you assume that we as humans have free will, and that God is not responsible for our actions (which is another argument entirely), then it is only we humans keeping us from being perfect. According to the bible, God doesn't purposely turn people away like you imply.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Pharaoh would like to have a word with you.

9 The LORD had said to Moses, "Pharaoh will refuse to listen to you—so that my wonders may be multiplied in Egypt." 10 Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh, but the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let the Israelites go out of his country.

The Bible does not assert free will, but rather the opposite.

Edited July 4, 2010 by Balcerzak

[Phoenix]

I knew I was going to get creamed for that quote, but I decided to leave it in anyway.

@ Revan

It's not a spouse type relationship at all really, more like a father son relationship.

@ Jyosua

There's an ... interesting way to look at it.

@ Ragnell

It already says "the wages of sin is death". Who's sinned? Of course it's 100% of the populous. I might need to go into the other thing that quote was kind of hinting at.

What I meant by humans being designed to be unable to follow the ten commandments is that we were given "human nature". It's inherently selfish and completely incapable of following the law perfectly. I believe we were designed this way along with free will so we could choose to either fight it or not fight it. We've been created with minds that are the opposite of God's, and so we have to fight to try to overcome our own nature. It's kind of like exercise. The more you do it, the stronger you get, and the less you do it, the weaker you get.

@ Bal

I know what you're getting at, but I can't really debate that just yet cause I'm bouncing around all over the place. I'll try to explain why I disagree in the next post.

[Prince of Ravens]

@ Bal

The Bible does not assert free will, but rather the opposite.

Only when taken out of context. Pharoah 'hardened his heart' first. The verse you mentioned takes place right before the last (12th) plague on Egypt. God gave him 11 other chances.

And, just to clarify:

The ten commandments only apply to human beings. They don't apply to animals, angels, or God himself.

Angels are to be judged by Saints. This is said in the Christian New Testament. Angels have free will. This is demonstrated by Satan and his fallen angels. It is thus implied that they have their own rules to follow. I presume it's much easier for them; that they weren't created with a tendancy towards breaking rules like the tendancy that humans inherited. Otherwise, there's be more than 1/3 of the total angels fallen.

I doubt though, that this set of rules is the same as the Ten Commandments.

[Balcerzak]

@ Bal

Only when taken out of context. Pharoah 'hardened his heart' first. The verse you mentioned takes place right before the last (12th) plague on Egypt. God gave him 11 other chances.

8 Then the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Take handfuls of soot from a furnace and have Moses toss it into the air in the presence of Pharaoh. 9 It will become fine dust over the whole land of Egypt, and festering boils will break out on men and animals throughout the land."

10 So they took soot from a furnace and stood before Pharaoh. Moses tossed it into the air, and festering boils broke out on men and animals. 11 The magicians could not stand before Moses because of the boils that were on them and on all the Egyptians. 12 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses.

1 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these miraculous signs of mine among them 2 that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them, and that you may know that I am the LORD."

...

16 Pharaoh quickly summoned Moses and Aaron and said, "I have sinned against the LORD your God and against you. 17 Now forgive my sin once more and pray to the LORD your God to take this deadly plague away from me."

18 Moses then left Pharaoh and prayed to the LORD. 19 And the LORD changed the wind to a very strong west wind, which caught up the locusts and carried them into the Red Sea. Not a locust was left anywhere in Egypt. 20 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let the Israelites go.

Seems to me like the LORD is doing an awful lot of the hardening here.

Martin Luther agreed in On the Bondage of the Will

This is why Moses generally repeats after each plague: "And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, so that he would not let the people go; as the Lord had spoken" [Exodus 7:13, 22; 8:15; 9:12]. What was the point of: "As the Lord had spoken", but that the Lord might appear true, as having foretold that Pharaoh should be hardened? Had there been in Pharaoh any power to turn, or freedom of will that might have gone either way, God could not with such certainty have foretold his hardening. But as it is, He who neither deceives nor is deceived guarantees it; which means that it is completely certain, and necessary, that Pharaoh's hardening will come to pass. And it would not be so, were not that hardening wholly beyond the strength of man, and in the power of God alone, in the manner that I spoke of above

[Prince of Ravens]

My translation didn't have the hardening of hearts until the second-to last plague... conceded.

Regardless, I doubt the Pharoah that put the Israelites through brutal slavery would actually let them just up and leave. God was more like... throwing straws on the camel's back. Eventually the camel will have enough and quit, but it would be the camel's decision to quit, not God's.

The other point to consider is that the plagues were also for the Israelite's benefit. Who would you listen to? Some smelly 80-year old who says:

"The God you've never even heard from wants you to leave,"

or would you listen to the old guy who says:

"The God who covered the land with frogs, locusts, frogs, boils, death, blood, hail, and sickness, but left all you guys intact wants you to leave."

...?

[Janissary]

That's not really accurate Prince. For one, you aren't taking into account the sovereign election of God. Take a look at Romans 9:14-18:

14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

God elected to harden Pharoahs's heart for his purpose, which, as always, was the glofication of Himself (this is why many say he has an arrogance issue). In the end, the Bible teaches that God elected some to receieve the gift of regeneration (the changing of man's sinful heart to a purified, holy heart), as shown most clearly by Ephesians 1:3-6:

3Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves

The Bible teaches that God chose us before creation to be holy and blameless. He gave us a regenerated heart by which we can choose to follow him - and in that way, yes, we choose God, but God gave us our new heart, so he was the true initiator. By extension, yes, that does mean He also elected some to eternal damnation. Some would argue that this runs conuter to the various biblical declaration where God declares He wishes for the welfare of all, etc. However, I do not feel that it is. Without going into much theology, Adam, when first created, was a free moral agent - he had true "free will" so to speak in that he actually had the theoretical capability to not sin - something mankind no longer has following Adam's failure. God was forced to grant consequences for Adam's (and future man's) failures - hell. Does God want to send everyone to hell? No. However, it is important to note that without God's intervention, all go to hell. With God's intervention, only some go to hell. The existence of hell shows God's love rather disproves it. On top of that, how could heaven be a reward if there was no punishment for failure? God is a good parent - He knows positive vs. negative reinforcement, etc.

[Crystal Shards]

Well, if we're going to assume God exists, then I'd see no reason for him to design us to be perfect. After all, if he did that, we might very well one day usurp his position as God, and I don't think God would want that.

Perfect =/= all powerful

There's no reason for him NOT to design us as perfect.

On the actual topic, now that I've painfully skimmed the other topic: God has a plan right? But he's all-powerful right? So why did he have to kill people to get there? Couldn't he do something else, you know, considering that's he's supposedly omni-benevolent? Like make it so those "bad people" never existed in the first place?

Edited July 6, 2010 by Crystal Shards

[Prince of Ravens]

What do you define as a bad person? From God's point of view, you're a bad person because you broke one His laws, so you would be poofed out. If you were to choose who the bad people are, you'd be biased, undoubtably.

Basically put, the only one who could decide what a bad person is is God. To Him, everyone's a bad person, except for Him. He could kill everyone and start over, but (a.) He already did that, and (b.) He promised not to do that again. He could kill all the non-Christians/unsaved, but He wants to give everyone a chance.

Perfect =/= all powerful

What is perfect then? Your definition.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Prince of Ravens

[Sophius]

Somthing we must also consider on this point is that humans often time twist the meaning of religion in order to provide themselves with power. Religious empires could be created because ruler wants power, but is using god as an excuse. Look at the motto the conquistadors used as an excuse to conquer south america: Gold, Glory, God.

This brings up a serious contradiction , Gold(avarice, a deadly sin), Glory(pride, the worst deadly sin) and god(christiananity). These contradictions make apparent how religion was twisted for self gain.

Another point is that religion warrants the use of violence for self defence. Meaning Religious paranoia would make practitioners feel threatened causing a retaliation. And, because god purposely creates human beings with imperfections*(or so say the religious texts) he would have to forgive those who's actions are not to henious while keeping absolute faith in him/her/it.

However, I also believe that the latter point is an arguement for reincarnation, seeing as the pupose of life(again according to religious texts)is to overcome your various flaws and hardships in order to gain access to heaven. If people only have one life to do this, in conjunction with the belief about sins, I estimate that only 0.3% of the population would make it to heaven, which is nonsensical.

[Crystal Shards]

What do you define as a bad person? From God's point of view, you're a bad person because you broke one His laws, so you would be poofed out. If you were to choose who the bad people are, you'd be biased, undoubtably.

Basically put, the only one who could decide what a bad person is is God. To Him, everyone's a bad person, except for Him. He could kill everyone and start over, but (a.) He already did that, and (b.) He promised not to do that again. He could kill all the non-Christians/unsaved, but He wants to give everyone a chance.

Um, who else would define a bad person, considering the topic? And I'm not talking about killing bad people. I'm talking about making it so they don't come into existence, and considering God is supposed to be unbiased and all-powerful, that should be an easy task for him. Please read the post before replying, k? Thanks.

What is perfect then? Your definition.

Irrelevant question. Yes, the idea of perfection is--for the most part--at least partly subjective, but I don't know anyone at all who uses "all powerful" as a defining characteristic. Many say things like, "not making mistakes," but I don't know anyone who is like, "Yeah a perfect person would have to be able to control the universe, otherwise they aren't perfect."

[Prince of Ravens]

If bad people didn't exist, then there would be no good people. There would be nothing great about God's goodness because everyone would be just as good. Besides, with God as the judge for good/bad, everyone's bad, so God would have to poof everyone out of existance.

If the question is, "Why did God have to kill the Canaanites; why couldn't He just poof them?", then the answer is, "Because if God just poofed them, they wouldn't have a chance at life."

If the question is, "Why did God make the people bad?", the answer is, "He didn't, they did that to themselves."

If the question is, "Why couldn't God keep the people from being bad?", the answer is, "Because that would take away from free will."

I could be completely missing the question, but I hope it's one of those. I'm really bad at this theology stuff, but I'm sure you realized that already.

[Crystal Shards]

If bad people didn't exist, then there would be no good people. There would be nothing great about God's goodness because everyone would be just as good. Besides, with God as the judge for good/bad, everyone's bad, so God would have to poof everyone out of existance.

Wrong, and a lame duck of an excuse at that. If God is all powerful, he can make a world in which there is only good, and that people completely realize what good is. And again, it's not a matter of "poofing" ANYONE out of existence. It's making it so they never happened in the first place.

Let me use an example. Garden of Eden. God is all powerful, right? He could have just as easily created a Garden of Eden without the Forbidden Fruit. He could have made it so Adam and Eve didn't feel temptation. He also could have made it where people didn't need to prove their affection for God. After all, God's God. He doesn't need affection from us and to think that we as mere lowly beings (as most people see us; I disagree but that's not the point) and our actions are needed is ludicrous.

Fact of the matter is God could do things very differently than what he has done, assuming he exists. Either he's evil or not any of the following: all good, all knowing, or all powerful.

[Prince of Ravens]

If God is all powerful, he can make a world in which there is only good, and that people completely realize what good is. And again, it's not a matter of "poofing" ANYONE out of existence. It's making it so they never happened in the first place.

If everyone was good, then no one would be. There could be no knowledge of goodness, because there would be nothing to compare it to, thus it couldn't be considered good. And, again, the issue is a matter of free will. God decided that He was going to let the bad people in question continue with what they knew was wrong and give them the consequences equal to their misdoings.

Let me use an example. Garden of Eden. God is all powerful, right? He could have just as easily created a Garden of Eden without the Forbidden Fruit. He could have made it so Adam and Eve didn't feel temptation.

What's the point of a novel without conflict? I'd be a really lame story. What would be the point of life? Just to sit around playing harps?

He also could have made it where people didn't need to prove their affection for God. After all, God's God. He doesn't need affection from us and to think that we as mere lowly beings (as most people see us; I disagree but that's not the point) and our actions are needed is ludicrous.

God doesn't need our affection, but He wants it anyway. It's not like He feeds off of it or anything. I mean, suppose you were the greatest chess player in the world. Wouldn't you like some kind of acknowledgement?

Either he's evil or not any of the following: all good, all knowing, or all powerful.

Assuming He exists, right?

Evil: You'd be dead, or worse, there would be no death, you'd be born burning in hell for all eternity with the memories of all the sufferings ever inflicted.

Not all good: God so far has only punished for wrong doings, or allowed temptation from Satan to strenghten you. Just like you would prune a tree or spank a child. You're not doing it because you feel like (although, if your doing the latter for fun, than you need help), you're doing it to help the kid/tree grow stronger.

Not all knowing: If God made everything, I think he'd have to know how it all works. If you're talking about the future, then it's hard to prove without jumping in the Bible, but I kinda have to.

Consider the Prophesies in the Book of Daniel. Some of them are hard to understand, and one of them is impossible (God says so), yet one of them actually has a time-frame. It gives the exact day from the destruction of Jerusalem to the 'Triumphant Entry' of Christ into Jerusalem. It could be really good planning, or it could be foreknowledge.

Not all powerful: So He could make the entire cosmos, down to the inner construction and makeup of teensy little cells, design atoms, come up with the Laws of Nature, raise an army of supernatural spiritual beings known as angels, and He's not all powerful. Good luck proving that.

The only other options are:

1. God exists and He's Good, all knowing and all powerful.

2. God is pulling a prank.

3. God doesn't exist.

For the first, I win.

For the second, God wins, though I don't know how great a victory it is. It'd be like kicking over an anthill and naming yourself King of the World.

For the third, no one wins, but I get some satisfaction in life for living towards a higher power.

And if you feel like debating the third, prepare to lose. The mere existance of the universe is proof enough for the existance of God.

[Crystal Shards]

If everyone was good, then no one would be. There could be no knowledge of goodness, because there would be nothing to compare it to, thus it couldn't be considered good. And, again, the issue is a matter of free will. God decided that He was going to let the bad people in question continue with what they knew was wrong and give them the consequences equal to their misdoings.

Um, no? I don't think you understand. If God is all powerful he can MAKE IT THAT WAY. Just because our world is the way it is, that good cannot exist without evil, doesn't mean that's the only option. Please take the time to understand my points before trying to refute them.

What's the point of a novel without conflict? I'd be a really lame story. What would be the point of life? Just to sit around playing harps?

To many, it's not a novel, so you have no real point here.

God doesn't need our affection, but He wants it anyway. It's not like He feeds off of it or anything. I mean, suppose you were the greatest chess player in the world. Wouldn't you like some kind of acknowledgement?

I don't even know how to respond to this.

Assuming He exists, right?

Um, yes, for this debate to even happen that's more than a little necessary. Stupid question.

Evil: You'd be dead, or worse, there would be no death, you'd be born burning in hell for all eternity with the memories of all the sufferings ever inflicted.

Not necessarily.

Not all good: God so far has only punished for wrong doings, or allowed temptation from Satan to strenghten you. Just like you would prune a tree or spank a child. You're not doing it because you feel like (although, if your doing the latter for fun, than you need help), you're doing it to help the kid/tree grow stronger.

Provide proof where he's only punished for wrong doings. By that logic, earthquakes and other natural disasters are not evils, starving children in Africa aren't evils, AIDS and other diseases aren't evil, screw flies aren't evil, etc.

Not all knowing: If God made everything, I think he'd have to know how it all works. If you're talking about the future, then it's hard to prove without jumping in the Bible, but I kinda have to.

Consider the Prophesies in the Book of Daniel. Some of them are hard to understand, and one of them is impossible (God says so), yet one of them actually has a time-frame. It gives the exact day from the destruction of Jerusalem to the 'Triumphant Entry' of Christ into Jerusalem. It could be really good planning, or it could be foreknowledge.

I have no idea what you're referencing, but it could be a coincidence, or it could be one of those things where it's like, "This is how we interpret it after the fact," like it is with many of Nostradamus's works. Still, even if it's an accurate and valid prediction, one out of an infinite number does not a good track record make.

Not all powerful: So He could make the entire cosmos, down to the inner construction and makeup of teensy little cells, design atoms, come up with the Laws of Nature, raise an army of supernatural spiritual beings known as angels, and He's not all powerful. Good luck proving that.

I'm not proving anything. I'm just saying that in order for him to okay genocide, he's not the trifecta. If he has all the power you're saying he has, then he could have made this world without evil. He didn't, so either he's not all powerful or he's not all benevolent or all knowing (most likely the former).

The only other options are:

1. God exists and He's Good, all knowing and all powerful.

2. God is pulling a prank.

3. God doesn't exist.

For the first, I win.

For the second, God wins, though I don't know how great a victory it is. It'd be like kicking over an anthill and naming yourself King of the World.

For the third, no one wins, but I get some satisfaction in life for living towards a higher power.

1. Actually, you'd lose, because it's impossible for reasons I've stated before and that others are probably going to state better than I have in later posts.

2. That would make him not benevolent, so I would win.

3. What a sad life you must lead if you feel the need to satisfy something that doesn't exist.

The mere existance of the universe is proof enough for the existance of God.

Please, go through the proof then. Because it's very easy to imagine a world without one.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Crystal Shards

[Esau of Isaac]

Prince of Ravens, you can hold absolutely no form of logic in the face of an omnipotent being; if your God is truly all powerful, then it can easily construct a world wherein only good exists.

[Prince of Ravens]

Please, go through the proof then. Because it's very easy to imagine a world without one.

Well then...

The universe exists. This is a given. Any conclusion reached that refutes this is incorrect. Either the logic is wrong, or the original premise is.

There are 2 possibilities that explain the current state of existance of the universe.

(1.) The universe always existed. The univierse is infinite.

(2.) The universe had a beginning.

If not (1.), then (2.). Not both. One. Otherwise it contradicts the original given statement.

There is no way to directly prove that the universe was created. Therefore, I must discount the possibility of endless universe.

For something to be truly infinite, all possibilities in it must be realized. This is because no matter how slim a chance something has, either the Set of occurances for that action are infinite, thus an infinite amount of chances in any moment, or the amount of draws for that occurance are infinite, thus the occurance had an infinite amount of chances to be realized.

Suppose the universe had the possibility to stop existing. This must be a possibility, because if something exists, so must it be possible for it to not exist.

Regardless of the chances of this possibility, it must be met, for there was an unlimited amount of time available for this possibility to be realized.

Thus the universe does not exist anymore. This goes directly against the given statement. Something must be wrong with this premise. Either:

(A.) The rules of infinity are skewed; or

(B.) The universe is not infinite.

Not (A.), then (B.); and not (A.)

(B.) being the counter to the first of the original options for the existane of the universe. (1.)

If not (1.), then (2.).

The universe had a beginning at some point. How then, was it brought into being? Since something cannot cause itself, it must require some outside force.

It could be said that this outside force is a natural force, however, what caused that? The chain of forces supporting forces cannot be infinite, lest we fall into another paradox, so there must have been a beginning at some point. The universe cannot cause something that supports the creation of itself, for it didn't exist before the creation of the universe.

The universe cannot also be self sustaining. If A causes B, and B causes C, then C cannot cause A. All would need to be in place at the exact same moment, unless one is independant.

Thus something completely separate from the universe must have caused it and sustains it. Ultimatly, something that's independant must have caused it. The Independant must have no possibility of un-existance. Otherwise, it could no longer support the existance of the universe. This is not possible, or rather, unnatural. Thus the Independant must be unnatural; supernatural.

So the universe was ultimatly caused by a Supernatural Independant Force. God.

1. Actually, you'd lose, because it's impossible for reasons I've stated before and that others are probably going to state better than I have in later posts.

2. That would make him not benevolent, so I would win.

3. What a sad life you must lead if you feel the need to satisfy something that doesn't exist.

I'm talking ultimatly here.

1. I win, because I'm justified.

2. We both lose, because God word could not be trusted and we both wind up in hell, or both in heaven. For the former, we both definitly lose. For the latter, there's no point.

3. Perhaps. No sadder than yours. I live for something greater than myself. If it doesn't exist, then I didn't lose anything, because there's no meaning to life.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Nightmare

[Balcerzak]

The universe had a beginning at some point. How then, was it brought into being? Since something cannot cause itself, it must require some outside force.

Unsupported premise. Your entire argument breaks down once it's revealed that it's entirely possible for either self-caused or uncaused events to occur.

And it is entirely possible. Read up on quantum vacuum fluctuations.

[Prince of Ravens]

Quantum vacuum fluctuations exist in the universe. Thus the universe supports them. They could not exist without existance. The premise stands.

[Balcerzak]

Quantum vacuum fluctuations exist in the universe. Thus the universe supports them. They could not exist without existance. The premise stands.

You're missing the point. There is no logical barrier to self-caused or uncaused events. QVF are just one such example. There's no reason why the Universe itself might not be another.

[Phoenix Wright]

Prince of Ravens, why would God create scientific knowledge and/or laws that conflict with His own existence?

[Prince of Ravens]

The event must be supported. Something cannot come from nothing. This is a scientific Law (and if you understand QVFs, you should know which one). The universe must be caused, otherwise it is infinite. The universe cannot support itself, otherwise it'd already have to be in place at the time of first existance.

I understand what you're saying. There might be self sustaining events in the universe, but they would have to be supernaturally created that way.

Prince of Ravens, why would God create scientific knowledge and/or laws that conflict with His own existence?

Care to name them?

Edited July 6, 2010 by Prince of Ravens