LCEntity

If the "all powerful being" cloned itself then it would no longer be an "all powerful being." If the "all powerful being" did not clone itself because it would lead to such a contradiction, then it could not be an "all powerful being," since such a being could not create contradictions - end of story. Once you modify the original premiss, the "all powerful being" is no longer an "all powerful being."

I work at a nuclear power station (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station) in Arizona and have little time for sophomoric debates. My work consists of analyzing problem reports, and then generating formal corrective actions. So, if I seem a bit short and to the point, you might understand that I have an intimate relationship with nuclear physics – on a practical level. Before continuing with this odd thread, why don’t you reveal the assumed nature of this originating “ultimate reality” belief which you posses? What you are presently doing, is playing an intellectual parlor game. You assume a given – a god, then ask to have this given proven as false. You want to play poker, but never want to show your own hand -- yet you insist everyone at the table show theirs. Knowledge proceeds from the observation of phenomenon. A hypothesis is formed and initial testing is performed. A theoretical structure develops from refined testing and refined observation, or the hypothesis is debunked by testing, or more refined observation. If a formal theory develops, further testing and observation refines the theory. Eventually, the theoretical body of knowledge can be used to predict the outcome of combined actions. For example; scientists and engineers can predict that the application of mature theoretical knowledge will result in a spacecraft leaving Earth, arriving at the planet Mars within a precise time / distance tolerance and will then deliver 2 Mars rovers to the Martian surface. These rovers will operate for a given period of time – sending back Martian environmental data. We treat these underlying theories as factual, because we must commit ourselves to action in order to survive. Yet the theoretical knowledge is not considered as “absolute knowledge,” regardless of our success in using it. Knowledge always needs to be “open ended,” to allow for advancement in that knowledge. We know there are absolutes, but we cannot treat knowledge as absolute. Regarding you originating “god:” What are its properties? What is its mass? What is its density? Does it use energy? Is it composed of subatomic particles? How fast does it travel? Where is it located? How old is it? How does it maintain its structure – does it even have a structure? What was it doing before it created the universe? Is it expanding in all directions relative to other objects in the universe? If the universe expands forever, what might it do about this entropic doom? Does this god have a purpose? Where does evolution fit in? Rattling along about cause and effect has little meaning without the originating cause. Ayn Rand considered philosophy as a practical intellectual / behavioral tool of survival. She had little use for “floating abstractions,” divorced from reality. The belief in a god, or not, establishes one’s relationship with reality. This doesn’t mean that all atheists are rationalists, or committed to reason. Many atheists simply place The State, or some other collectivist non-entity as a substitute for a god. But, whether or not one believes in a god forms the fundamental basis in determining one’s relationship with reality. So, if this thread has any productive meaning, you might consider dropping the sempiternal blather, and simply state your belief on the origin of everything.

You state no premise, so there is no basis for an objective discussion. State your basis for belief, surmise -- or whatever. I simply stated that based on the laws of physics, no god is required. You fail to consider that the properties of matter have an inherent nature, and nothing is required to make matter come into existence. I'm not sure what your point is. You simply focus on words and not concepts.

Egophile I agree, thanks for your comment -- provides some perspective. I should have referred to the individual within this thread. I see most of the participants within this forum reside in a different (“rational”) gene pool. I just started in this forum, and was wondering what this individual was doing here – seems far from an Objectivist’s view of the universe (and our more local environment).

You will have to excuse me for assuming this forum represents a scientific and rational approach to philosophical issues. What is your basis for any debate, other than attacking things like "god particle" (don't you understand the context?). I'll use the term "fundamental particle." Does that help remove the religious context? What is the basis for your belief in??? Where is the straw man? Why not cut the linguistics nonsense and buzz word clutter, and state SOME objective basis for the existence of a (your) god. One thing for sure; the rapid and recent expansion in human population has generated complex mutations within complex systems (like the human brain) with little differential reproduction resulting in objective selection. This has resulted in a human gene pool with an overt bias towards irrational brain functioning within human populations,due to random mutation of DNA molecular transition. NEWS FLASH! Researchers recently concluded that brain size is undergoing reduction within the human population. Early Homo sapiens populations (as Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon) had generally larger brains, and a bigger cerebral cortex.

First, the argument as to whether or not a god exists begins on an irrational premise. There are no observations that provide a hypothetical model of a god, let alone a theoretical body of knowledge. Even a wild surmise is beyond the grasp of a reasonable attempt to rationalize the existence of a god. The question of “does a god exist?” is, at best, only an academic exercise in logic. Gravity can be considered the primary force in nature, as it is inherent to matter in all contingencies of matter/energy interactions. Even the photon, a particle with pretty much a zero mass, can be deflected by gravity – indicating the photon has an “infinitely” small mass component. If one positions the original singularity as the basis for our universe, then one has to conclude that this theoretical singularity consisted of a super dense body of the particle that forms the basis for all matter and energy in the universe (sometimes referred to as “The God Particle”). This fundamental particle has no “life span,” other than it interacts and forms other particles and structures. All its resulting states of matter could be theoretically reduced back to this fundamental state. What kept this super dense mass together was a gravitational field that, in comparison, would make the density of a large black hole equivalent to a hydrogen filled balloon. The density of this gravitational field maintained everything that had / has the potential to exist in this universe. Then it expanded. Somehow that gravitational field distorted, and the enormous energy of creation began. It is possible that some super dense black hole, through an enormous acceleration due to super dense gravitational fields, struck the singularity at a good percent of light velocity. The resulting collision created a distortion of the singularity gravitational field – thus begins The Universe. A god has no place in this universe, and no rational argument can justify the existence of such an entity. The existence of a god would invalidate virtually everything we know about the nature of nature. The existence of a god also requires the question of; “where did this super complex, all knowing, omnipotent thing come from in the first place?” Why do so many people have such a difficult time extending what we actually know about this universe, to the conclusion that every structure and particle has an identifiable, inherent property? Yet, many people can dismiss the available evidence, and will accept an utterly absurd conclusion that some complex god thing, which has infinite existence, created this universe. People believe in a god because they want to. They see their finite lives, and want more – even though, it seems, a good percent of them don’t even know what to do with the time they actually have.