A Supreme Deity Versus Physics

Numerous theologians and other religious philosophers have over many, many centuries, provided a list of exactly what properties or traits a Supreme Deity or Maximally Greatest Being could have. Physicists expand because the listing in question makes little if any physical sense, as we are going to discover. A lot of what follows stems from the online debate I had with my old friend’s┬áthat the”Accidental Meta-Physician”. While I respect his gun’s blazing theological religion, his physics leaves much to be desired.

Writer’s Note: Instead of name names and so include and exclude particular critters from various theologies, I will only use an off-beat phrase”Supreme Deity” or”SD”. Persons of diverse faiths can substitute their own unique deities as they want.

Based on a well known modern spiritual theologian, William Lane Craig, the thing (i.e. – Supreme Deity) supporting the invention of the Universe needed to have been uncaused, beginning-less, changeless, eternal, timeless, space-less, and insignificant all-powerful being who’s a personal agent, endowed with freedom of the will. Hopefully, by the time you’ve reached the finish of the essays, these attributes will be seen as complete nonsense.

“Matters”, such as a Supreme Deity (SD), could have specific properties. Items with specific properties have substance and structure. Items with construction and substance are all physical things. Physical things might have an impact on other physical items. Non-physical things, such as Wednesday, don’t have any structure and material. The idea of Wednesday may have no physical effect on the state of a baseball match. A billiard ball may not influence the notion of Wednesday. Thus, non-physical things (theories ) can’t influence physical matters, and vice-versa. Considering that an SD, being, according to some theologies, a non-physical entity (a theory with no construction and material ), can’t, therefore, have any impact on or make or destroy physical objects. But, non-physical theories can have an impact on other non-physical theories. The notion of an SD may give a concept for a moral person, but this isn’t imposed on anybody by a non-physical SD but instead, that morality comes from inside. A physical deity of course can tell you to be moral or physical effects will follow.

When the Universe was state composed of a total of 1000 atoms, then some Supreme Deity (SD) who created the Universe could not be written of any atoms differently the amount total of atoms in the Universe could add up to greater than 1000. Therefore any SD, any supernatural creator, needs to be non-physical based on theists. Contrary to theists, I state that the non-physical can’t produce the physical. Not an SD can make something out of nothing, particularly if that Supreme Deity was non-physical.

Once upon a time, there was this Supreme Deity, that had been non-physical, who had been ceaseless but not boundless. For much unknown and unexplained reason(s), He / She / It chose * somewhere down the trail, to make a physical world, full with life and just what. How can you do this in case you’ve nothing physical to utilize? Even though this SD was physical in and of itself, then it would not have some raw materials in which to operate with or on. So, here is a variant of some conventional cosmology. The SD – a physical SD – went all to pieces, came apart at the seams, and sprinkled Himself / Herself / Itself to the emptiness, and became one with the Universe. The SD is that the Universe also goes by the title of Mother Nature!

*The way to pick anything if you’re non-physical and absent any neural system or infrastructure is rather beyond me.

So here we’ve got this omnipotent thing, this Supreme Deity (SD), who’s non-physical, that has existed for ages (but not so which sounds a contradiction for me but seemingly not to spiritual theologians), also at a timeless country to boot. Then for some absolutely unexplained reason, this thing spanned within the Rubicon to time by producing a physical cosmos, but not an infinite cosmos; made it from nothing for no apparently good reason besides”what the hell; why notI’s bored” (my quotes). Can you, the reader, have some understanding of just how utterly ridiculous that sounds? If you encounter that situation or concept for your very first time at a publication, you would be correct to question the writer’s sanity or their medication usage.

Timelessness is a ridiculous impossibility because that would need an operating temperature of absolute zero (virtually any potential shift, therefore motion happening, therefore making the idea of time meaningless). A condition of absolute zero isn’t really achievable. In case you have even the smallest quantity of change, so movement, then you’ve got time. I need those recommending pockets of timelessness may, with their powers of philosophical deduction, point out a location (s) from the Cosmos that now exist(s) at a state of timelessness.

The transition in the state of timelessness into some country of time by anybody is hopeless because a change (a psychological notion, electrons in movement in minimum is required) would have needed to have happened while nevertheless in a timeless condition which can’t be. You need to think of moving out of your classic state to a state of the period until you actually take action.