View Full Version : Who Created God?
Iacchus32
Sep13-04, 03:55 AM
So, how do we in fact get something from nothing, when in fact nothing is all there is? ... Nay, nor even the slightest potential for something. Wouldn't there at least have to be some sort of basic structure or matrix already there? If so, then how did that get there? Sounds to me like we're speaking about some basic structure which has always been, indeed, a highly intelligent structure. Which is to say, how else could it not be intelligent if, in fact it was the basis for all there is?
Hey, did you know that consciousness is merely the end-result of that which is highly structured? Think about it. How could we possibly do anything, let alone think, without a tremendous amount of structure in our lives? Whereas if these immutable laws that govern this structure have always been, what might it possibly suggest? That the Universe has always been self-aware, and was designed specifically as an outcropping of this?
Well, that certainly dispells any need to ask who created God now doesn't it? :wink:
Iacchus32,
It is my understanding that without matter, the material universe, there is no time or space; therefore, it is not appropriate or meaningful to speak of begining, end, before or after. Temporal words or thoughts have no meaning or reference where time does not exist. This of course is totally foriegn to us temporal beings who can think only sequentially and in cause then effect mode. To us if something exists now it must have had a beginning, a cause and eventually an end. We find it difficult if not impossible to wrap our mind around and accept the idea that something can have always been and always will be, without beginning and without end.
While our material universe may have had a begining and thus an end the begining includes the beginning of time and space along with matter; it does not logically or necessarily follow the the creator and master must therefor have a beginning and end.
Of course, as you suggest, it is not absolutely known nor is it necessary that the universe itself has a beginning or end. The so called Big Band Theory is only speculation, a hypothasis at best and should not be rightfully termed a theory. It is simply one philosophy that is currently widely accepted. Issac Asimov thought that possibly the universe was pulsating rather than expanding from a singularity forever or eventually fall back into the Big Crunch.
olde drunk
Sep13-04, 02:20 PM
sadly, it is an intuitive knowing that there is more to existence than just our physical existence that breeds 'ideas' about a god. this inner awareness can not be proven. ergo, no scientific acceptance.
with QT we are glimpsing how our consciousness can reach out and can both effect our reality and affect our reailty (we create and change our reality). once we get a good handle on how this occurs, we will no longer need the olde, traditional myths about a god and all the biblical stories.
i agree that the universe is more a state of consciousness (awareness - being) as opposed to just physical matter. it seems that 'energy' would be the our true essence and who the hell knows what the real 'god' will prove to be.
love&peace,
olde drunk
pocebokli
Sep25-04, 12:31 PM
in my theory, god is merely a trick performed by our sub-consciousness in order to convince us that there CAN be god - *that is the ultimate and prime goal of mankind, our final destination*. think about it, GOD's ultimate power as described is the sum of our potential and our wishes, instincts.
"once we get a good handle on how this occurs, we will no longer need the olde, traditional myths about a god and all the biblical stories."
exactley. we won't NEED them anymore indeed, our CONSCIOUSNESS will slowly take over as we develop or evolve ourselves even further towards our goal. we won't need a commitional belief in a greater being, it will be kicked out by belief in our growing capabilities.
it is like with imagination and creativity.
pocebokli
Sep25-04, 12:31 PM
so we will create god. or better, since god is timeless, we are already creating it and it is already created.
pocebokli
Sep25-04, 12:32 PM
hey, i think i just proved the existance of god:-)))))
pawanmakadia
Oct3-04, 10:10 AM
Why didn't we find answer related to the existence and creation of god?..
One reason i feel is that perhaps we never asked right questions?
We do agree that, in Science we can never find right answers unless we ask right questions?
So to understand Existence of god ( unsolved mystery of world) i think we should change the approach of questioning or observing the phenomena.
Reasoning and Imagination are inappropriate tool to prove or disapprove the existence of god/divine/super natural powers.
"I am", is a truth.
What "I am" is part of all there is.
Lack of a part would mean non-esxistnece for the whole.
Hence creation is a transmutation of its parts.
Nothing created God. God is the alfa y omega.
Everything that exists always existed.
Creation transmutes transformation.
Change changes the changed.
Who created God is untenable.
Ubiquitous has no place.
Hence is everywhere.
Therefore "I am".
In my theory, god is merely a trick performed by our sub-consciousness in order to convince us that there CAN be god - *that is the ultimate and prime goal of mankind, our final destination*. think about it, GOD's ultimate power as described is the sum of our potential and our wishes, instincts.
Not neccessarily a trick performed by our sub-conciousness. What if religion and therefore God was created by humans as a law? this gives you moral values to think.
The world as it's known as would be total chaos if there weren't any laws. A powerful law is religion, by no means I'm saying I believe in it, but think about it.
Believing in God, just like the majority of our worldwide population does, prevents total chaos. More crimes would be commited if God wasn't suggested.
--------------
so we will create god. or better, since god is timeless, we are already creating it and it is already created.
I don't fully understand your point.
-------------
Why didn't we find answer related to the existence and creation of god?..
One reason i feel is that perhaps we never asked right questions?
I disagree. There are many reasons to not finding answers related to the existence and creation of God.
For instance, one of the possible reasons for not finding any answers is because God doesn't even exist.
--------------
Reasoning and Imagination are inappropriate tool to prove or disapprove the existence of god/divine/super natural powers.
What kind of tools are we suppose to use?
Religion?
Religion = Faith = no evidence for the existence of any religious moves and therefore God(s)
selfAdjoint
Oct3-04, 02:12 PM
How about this. Many people are not comfortable without some kind of "Big Brother" in their lives. Some surrogate parents who will not go away and die like their physical parents, but stay with them all their lives, and be with them at death, rewarding them (somehow) when they are good and punishing them (somehow) when they're bad. Look around at the religionists you know. They are happy and comfortable because they have this idea in their heads, and they don't see how anyone can be happy and comfortable, let alone moral, without that idea in his head.
It is my understanding that without matter, the material universe, there is no time or space; therefore, it is not appropriate or meaningful to speak of begining, end, before or after.
How do we make that assumption, if everything thing that preceeds, is of the same essence? Time and space would be eternal. Why would matter, put a existential limit on time and space? I am interested to know why we come to the same conclusion for different reasons.
Temporal words or thoughts have no meaning or reference where time does not exist.
If we assume this, then where and why would time, get the idea to move in a direction, towards natural perfection?
While our material universe may have had a begining and thus an end the begining includes the beginning of time and space along with matter; it does not logically or necessarily follow the the creator and master must therefor have a beginning and end.
Then you would assume that the Creator was not of the same essence as its creation?
Iacchus32
Oct3-04, 03:25 PM
"I am", is a truth.
What "I am" is part of all there is.
Lack of a part would mean non-esxistnece for the whole.
Hence creation is a transmutation of its parts.
Nothing created God. God is the alfa y omega.
Everything that exists always existed.
Creation transmutes transformation.
Change changes the changed.
Who created God is untenable.
Ubiquitous has no place.
Hence is everywhere.
Therefore "I am".Might I suggest that God exists in the immaterial structure of thought, you know "ere" the Big Bang, from which the potential of everything has always existed?
Might I suggest that God exists in the immaterial structure of thought, you know "ere" the Big Bang, from which the potential of everything has always existed?
If so do you know of a son that was not of the father?
Iacchus32
Oct3-04, 04:24 PM
If so do you know of a son that was not of the father?We are all sons of the Father so to speak. I am not sure what you mean?
They are happy and comfortable because they have this idea in their heads, and they don't see how anyone can be happy and comfortable, let alone moral, without that idea in his head.
They don't even consider, let alone act, of God being a moral law. They just practise their religion and claim that everyone around them who do not have faith in a God are unhappy.
I'm a christian. I believe in God but always saw the scientific way. I accept it and will always believe it.
To me, when people say, who created God? my answer is scientific; The big bang.
But it is at this point where things get really rusty because nor I and nor anybody else in this world will ever know whether men kind had powers that science has the power to provide or not.
If the universe is infinite, so is everything. Just like succeeding, failing also counts as an infinite part of everything.
Science tells you that. I in this case don't believe it.
The universe is not infinite, for it an explosion created it, more or less like a gigantic bomb. It doesn't matter how big the bomb is, there will always be the core and the end of that bomb.
Scientists claim that the sun is just a star. Fair enough, but what if the sun is the actual core of the big bang?
There's more meaning than a simple star...
Philocrat
Oct3-04, 05:52 PM
So, how do we in fact get something from nothing, when in fact nothing is all there is? ... Nay, nor even the slightest potential for something. Wouldn't there at least have to be some sort of basic structure or matrix already there? If so, then how did that get there? Sounds to me like we're speaking about some basic structure which has always been, indeed, a highly intelligent structure. Which is to say, how else could it not be intelligent if, in fact it was the basis for all there is?
I have gone down on record for consistently maintaining that, eternally, there is no relation that can be found between what constitutes the general term 'SOMETHING' and what constitutes the general term 'NOTHING'. If both exist, and can be proven so, then one must have always been without the other. If this is true, it is impossible to derive one from the other.
I continue to maintain that:
'Nothing', if it exists at all, cannot give rise to 'Something'
'Something' remains what it has always been - 'Something' - and it can never decline into 'Nothing'
'Something', if change is part of its nature or 'metaform', always changes from one thing to another, and never to 'Nothing'
Hey, did you know that consciousness is merely the end-result of that which is highly structured? Think about it. How could we possibly do anything, let alone think, without a tremendous amount of structure in our lives? Whereas if these immutable laws that govern this structure have always been, what might it possibly suggest? That the Universe has always been self-aware, and was designed specifically as an outcropping of this?
I think you should look at the Compositional or Informational Theory of Consciousness' for an alternative account. Defend it or deny it!
Well, that certainly dispells any need to ask who created God now doesn't it? :wink:
The PRIME MOVER thesis argues that God created Himself/Herself/Itself! Look it up and defend it or deny it!
Philocrat
Oct3-04, 06:12 PM
But one fundamental Question remains, and it is the benchmark for every theory that makes claims in this very department:
Can anything, regardless of how many times it can change, take a final unchangeable form?
Or equivalently:
Can a Physical thing, regardless of how many times it is able to change, finally survive physical destruction?
Answering this question would be the highest point in the human intellectual pursuit.
You can not get something out of nothing. Cause and Effect cannot be applied to God. God is outside of time.
In our lives, we observe time. Since we are subject to Cause and Effect, we can trace things back to a Prime Mover, the first effect without a cause. We cannot say that God created time because he is outside of time. The only solution I can think of is that we are an aspect of God. We exsist as part of Him/It and never change. We cannot prove that we change. We only think we remember the past, are in the present, and therefore must have a future. As best as I can figure, we only exsist in the present and exsist thinking there is a past when there is not. For example, a man who is 90 thinks he has had 90 years of experience, when he only exsists as a 90 year old with 90 years worth of knowledge put inside him. I think Descartes had a similar theory. But in all, its kindof depressing thinking that all my past life is a lie. I could have sworn I actually wrote this post and not just had the experience of writing it planted in my head as I click submit
We cannot say that God created time because he is outside of time. The only solution I can think of is that we are an aspect of God. We exsist as part of Him/It and never change. We cannot prove that we change.
I like your theory.
Could you expand it?
I agree, God is out of time but doesn't mean he's just a story.
The best solution I can think of is God being created after time, when all explosions occured and we know it as the universe.
But one fundamental Question remains, and it is the benchmark for every theory that makes claims in this very department:
Can anything, regardless of how many times it can change, take a final unchangeable form?
Or equivalently:
Can a Physical thing, regardless of how many times it is able to change, finally survive physical destruction?
Answering this question would be the highest point in the human intellectual pursuit.
Answer 01=Only if all forms might be in the image and likeness of the final unchangeable form.
Answer 02=All physical forms are of the same essence. We now know that all forms reduce down to relationships. Nothing is ever created or destroyed just transmuted.
Iacchus32
Oct4-04, 09:10 AM
But one fundamental Question remains, and it is the benchmark for every theory that makes claims in this very department:
Can anything, regardless of how many times it can change, take a final unchangeable form?How so? And what if it contained the potential for everything?
We are all sons of the Father so to speak. I am not sure what you mean?
What i mean is, there is no proof and a lot of evidence that there is no real seperation between God and what exists. Everything transmutes nothing is created or destroyed. What exists came forth from that what already was.
Philocrat
Oct5-04, 12:59 AM
If nothing changes, why does it appear as if things are changing? Or if they do really change, would they ever take final unchanging forms?
Iacchus32
Oct5-04, 06:39 AM
Without change, no-thing is realized. And, if no-thing is realized there would be no-thing. :rofl:
If nothing changes, why does it appear as if things are changing? Or if they do really change, would they ever take final unchanging forms?
According to the following definitions of words through language, the description of reality as we now know it today, may be as follows.
Nothing is was or will be either created or destroyed. One single essence may be all there is. Substance does not constitute all there is to reality. Although forms of substance change so do thoughts, which do not appear to have substance. There is therefore a constant transmutation between essence and substance, which makes the world appear the way it does.
Form=The body or outward appearance of a shape and structure of an object.
Change=To give a completely different form or appearance to; transform.
Transmute= To change from one form, nature, substance, or state into another; transform.
Substance=That which has mass and occupies space; matter.
Essence=The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something.
Creation=The fact or state of having been created.
Destruction=The condition of having been destroyed.
In answer to your question. Things change because I experience it. The Essence appears to be experiencing through substance. Transmutation of nature appears to be a ongoing process, with a purpose.
If we look at the linear evolution of nature it appears to be heading towards natural perfection.
fizzzzzzzzzzzy
Oct13-04, 06:05 PM
God doesnt have a creator. God having a creator would make God not God God had a creator God wouldnt have a God
God exits by himself. And this is a mystery that noone on Earth can explain or understand it fully. I myself don't think we should try to explore this mystery since it's so far beyond our knowledge.
XMLT
Could no one realize the simple nature of this question?
The main statement to be analyzed is:
Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
However,
God has no beginning nor an end.
Therefore, God -- without a beginning -- has no cause.
...The only solution I can think of is that we are an aspect of God. We exsist as part of Him/It and never change. We cannot prove that we change. ...
It proves, that the problem has no decision.
Shouldn’t one tiny part of God is capable to cognize God - infinity?
Other aspect will be, that “tiny part of God”, which tries to find out secret of God, actually wants to find out secret of his omnipotence.
Shouldn’t God can allow such fault, so as this “vile tiny part” in the image of people, could seize his force?
Existence of human civilization speaks, that the life in the universe is continuous, but her forms are changeable.
Therefore, the question passes into a practical plane – how a lot of time God gives for our form of life?
Preator Fenix
Oct13-04, 10:05 PM
If indeed there is a God, then I agree that "he/she/?" may or maynot have begining or end. It all depends on what "god" is made of. If is physical and material in nature ( albeit in some utterly complex and impssibly hard to understand way ) then "he/she/?" has a most definite start and end. If "god" is "made" off the same "stuff" as say gravity or time,... well that opens the possiblity of no start or end.
In both cases I am hard pressed to see a way said entity can somehow manage selforgizned beavihor to the level of somehow having human like neural networks and consentquently uncannanly human like thoughts and emotions like "love" "hate" "imagination".
Consciousness is awareness of the Self: Who an I, What am I? Where was I during sleep? Why did I regain the same world awareness after sleep etc.
Why do I perceive and differently than others, why I am more lovung , more peaceful and happier than others etc
Finally, what is the cause of my existence, where was I before I took this body, where will I go after I leave the body etc.
Eventough I have the same physical constituents what makes me different and so on.
Albert Einstein: "God does not play dice"
To deny words by Einstein it is possible by one way only – to prove that the God does not exist.
In the age of 11 years I have been sent to special school. It was half the militarian, half the craft. In the first day our group of beginners have been led in the big educational building. In a hall of this building, on walls, the big portraits of members of the government (approximately 20 portraits) were hung. We went along walls and with curiosity examined portraits. In front of one of portraits I was stiffened. All has shuddered inside me. I was the child and consequently did not know, who is represented on this portrait. The name – Beria for me spoke nothing.
After many years I have learned, that it is that executioner, who made bereave of lives of my relatives and have deprived with the normal childhood millions other boys.
I want to ask, who and how have transferred to me the truth then through a canvas with painted physiognomy of this executioner?
Therefore, I think – the God exists also Einstein of the rights.
Fredrick
Nov18-04, 10:20 PM
Albert Einstein: "God does not play dice"
To deny words by Einstein it is possible by one way only – to prove that the God does not exist.
Ever since I first heard that Albert Einstein said that god does not play dice, I have thought a little bit less about our wonderful scientist. To state that god does not play dice requires that the speaker knows god fully; otherwise the speaker cannot make a statement which portrays certainty about some'one' else. No matter how highly I regard Einstein, I never thought he would make such statement that would make him claim that he fully knows god. Shows that he was human after all.
Material Universe is just a projection of our mind. Mind is a depository of thoughts. Thoughts are what make the universe happen. All creation has its origin in thought. Thought is ever changing and all that comes out of thought is bound by the law of time, space and causation. As some one rightly pointed out God is a trick played by the mind. In fact each one of us is potentially God and God there is only one. What appears to be many is only a delusion like the many rising and disappearing waves in an ocean. God- we all are covering the vast ocean of conciousness, without beginning or end. Unbound by the laws of time, space and causation which have beginning and end. Only by crossing the boundaries of time , space and causation can we realize that we are GOD.
Absolutely truly, Reena!
God is placed inside us.
Recently I wrote the big and rigid poem, which is to the devoted tragical events in Russia in 1917. As an epigraph of my poem, I used the poem "Prediction" by Lermontov.
I have decided to finish my poem with words from Alexander Pushkin's letter to his uncle in 1816. These words: "God grant, with mercy of the sky, the mind revived in Russia … ".
But I did not remember the name of the letter. Therefore, I looked through tables of contents of all of six volume of works by A. Pushkin. But I did not find this letter.
Then again I have taken in hands the first volum and have opened it at random.
At once, in open page, I have seen this letter by A. Pushkin. It begins with words: "Christ has arisen! Alumnus by Feb! …"
Now I should tell, that it not a miracle and not concurrence.
I have in house many books, both art, and scientific, but I badly remember – where necessary citations are located. God very much frequently helps me to find instantly the helpful information.
God also has helped me to glance inside of my consciousness, and I have seen, how elementary cells of human mind work.
http://www.sinor.ru/~polytron/index.html
I am astonished with, how many full fools among representatives of the exact sciences, who do not understand, that the God is placed inside us!
No-where-man
Jul7-05, 04:12 AM
Answer 01=Only if all forms might be in the image and likeness of the final unchangeable form.
Answer 02=All physical forms are of the same essence. We now know that all forms reduce down to relationships. Nothing is ever created or destroyed just transmuted.
You're all forgrting something.God can't exist eternally,everything that exists are only forms of energy,no form of energy lasts forever,God dies and transforms into another form of energy where properties of God no longer exist,so no form of energy can exist forever.
Perhaps, I can agree with you only in part.
Because, here the answer is not given – how the organizing basis is arranged?
Maybe exists the universal carrier for all forms of energy, including spiritual energy?
No-where-man
Jul12-05, 04:58 AM
Perhaps, I can agree with you only in part.
Because, here the answer is not given – how the organizing basis is arranged?
Maybe exists the universal carrier for all forms of energy, including spiritual energy?
That's the same question I was wondering,it must incredibly complex process,honestly I don't think science will ever find out,sure there are laws of physics under which processes occur,but how are these laws of physics made,if there were no laws of physics there would be no universe,I think what laws of of physics do to our universe is to keep the balance.Plus everything vibrates,just imagine you find energy vibration resonance of God,you would be able to destroy him(you would be able to destroy God)...
Pengwuino
Jul12-05, 05:36 AM
I created God and then i resurrected a 9 month old thread!!!
Jameson
Jul12-05, 07:13 AM
The Einstein quote wasn't really meant to be religious, it was saying more that Einstein saw things in exactness, not probability. I think people misinterpret that all the time.
There was and interesting story some years ago when Eisenhower entered a room full of computers and posed the question "is there a god" Well after a few minutes of lights flashing and bell ringing, a voice comes forth and says "NOW There Is"(smile). Lesson point; It may not be too wise to go arround asking a question with such an obvious answer :zzz: :smile: .
Certainly, alone physics cannot answer this incredibly complex question. Especially since, the theoretical physics is in deep crisis.
We are too silly, if we think, that we can become stronger, than the God.
The God can destroy us at any time, including by means of vibration.
It is the most destructive force, which can operate from the microcosm outward.
No-where-man
Jul15-05, 02:56 AM
Certainly, alone physics cannot answer this incredibly complex question. Especially since, the theoretical physics is in deep crisis.
We are too silly, if we think, that we can become stronger, than the God.
The God can destroy us at any time, including by means of vibration.
It is the most destructive force, which can operate from the microcosm outward.
And God can be destroyed,too,since he vibrates,too.Even every form of energy vibrates.
Geneticists who thought that they had tiger by the tail, and felt too high about knowing the secret of creation have egg on their face. DNA which originated from the Nature cannot claim supremacy over Nature! Sily ego makes scientist fragment themselves into pieces!!
Man with a destructible material body can never know the truth about God nor know that he is God himself until he becomes egoless. It is he who has birth nor death and one who is beyond time, space or causation knows that he himself is God. Look within and you shall find the truth. Every material entity is changeable with time and therefore it cannot be real. What is real never changes.
DNA does not express biological life. It is only a blueprint that repeats itself and its expression depends on You .........Your Thought. Thought is the basis of energy and matter. thought alone became primal energy and primal matter which combined to form multitude of galaxies and species.
]Geneticists who thought that they had tiger by the tail, and felt too high about knowing the secret of creation have egg on their face. DNA which originated from the Nature cannot claim supremacy over Nature! Sily ego makes scientist fragment themselves into pieces!!
Man with a destructible material body can never know the truth about God nor know that he is God himself until he becomes egoless. It is he who has birth nor death and one who is beyond time, space or causation knows that he himself is God. Look within and you shall find the truth. Every material entity is changeable with time and therefore it cannot be real. What is real never changes.
DNA does not express biological life. It is only a blueprint that repeats itself and its expression depends on You .........Your Thought. Thought is the basis of energy and matter. thought alone became primal energy and primal matter which combined to form multitude of galaxies and species.
Neurons created god. Before neurons, no god(s) in universe. Thus, god exists within collective neurons of humans, i.e., the Kingdom of God is within you (all of you, and me)--a nice warm fuzzy philosophy to hold.
Iacchus32
Sep18-05, 08:22 AM
Neurons created god. Before neurons, no god(s) in universe. Thus, god exists within collective neurons of humans, i.e., the Kingdom of God is within you (all of you, and me)--a nice warm fuzzy philosophy to hold.So, who created the neurons? Or, would you have us believe there is something about neurons which go uncaused?
Bio-Hazard
Sep18-05, 01:52 PM
Want created God. It's more of a glitches fault, but eh.
Jarvis Bull Dawg
Sep18-05, 02:31 PM
No one created God, thats why God's God. God's self existant.
Men created god, first in verbal storytelling and then later in writen stories.
And who created men? Perhaps they don't need creator!
StykFacE
Sep19-05, 01:17 AM
good topic, always a debate going on here.... i'm new but would like to share....
Evo, i have to disagree, and to all the others that think we created God in our own minds. I find a lot of times people tend to think on the level, or higher, than our creator, which is silly. How can you even begin to comment toward the very creator? lol, beats me....
Here's something to think about.... many, many people will dispute, however its a solid argument....
If something does not exist, how can the mind think it true? Having said that, if God does NOT exist, then how can any one person "think" even the thought of "a God" into existence? The human mind is incapable of such thing as a true 'original thought'. No matter what, every single thought the human mind thinks of has some truth to it, or has come from some other comprehensible thought. For instance: There have been families that have locked up their child since birth in a room due to manic depressions and other very odd mental behaviors. when CPS services found the children, they had the intellect of a 1 yr old. they couldn't speak, never knew what anything was, never even had an idea.... because they were never taught anything. The mind is a learning box, so to speak. So if there never was a God, how could the mind ever think of it, if there was no such vision, story, or even idea ever to come about?
try to think of something that doesn't exist. without any truth to it, or coming from a previous thought. really try.... it's impossible. example: ever see a pig with wings??? doesn't exist right??? of course.... however we know what a pig is and we know what wings are. so there's still some truth, no matter what. bottom line is, if it doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist... not even in the human mind. at some point in time, someone had to "learn" the knowledge of God. but from who? or what? not a human mind, that's for sure.
think about it.... for all you non-believers..... ;-)
saltydog
Sep19-05, 06:45 AM
And who created men? Perhaps they don't need creator!
Non-linear dynamics created man: In my opinion, get a bunch of marbles behaving in the same non-linear fashion as biological life, and marble life will emerge. From this perspective, life is independent of the inconsequential trappings of Biology, Chemistry, and Physics but rather a reflection of dynamics.
Evo, i have to disagree, and to all the others that think we created God in our own minds. I find a lot of times people tend to think on the level, or higher, than our creator, which is silly. How can you even begin to comment toward the very creator? lol, beats me....Because there is no such thing as a creator, in my opinion.
If something does not exist, how can the mind think it true?Very easily, it's done all the time.
StykFacE
Sep19-05, 12:49 PM
Very easily, it's done all the time.
then show us.
one example... please.
:biggrin:
try to think of something that doesn't exist. without any truth to it, or coming from a previous thought. really try.... it's impossible. example: ever see a pig with wings??? doesn't exist right??? of course.... however we know what a pig is and we know what wings are. so there's still some truth, no matter what. bottom line is, if it doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist... not even in the human mind. at some point in time, someone had to "learn" the knowledge of God. but from who? or what? not a human mind, that's for sure.
think about it.... for all you non-believers..... ;-)
So I guess you are arguing that just like a pig with wings, god exists only as a figment of the imagination? I like that!
StykFacE
Sep19-05, 02:01 PM
So I guess you are arguing that just like a pig with wings, god exists only as a figment of the imagination? I like that!
oh no, now you know better than that.... ;-)
of course i dont think that. just giving an example that any thought you and any other person has ever had, has truth to it no matter the case.
:-)
By any thought having "truth" you just mean that the thought exists in the mind (the brain) as a thought. (I hope that's not a surprise to anyone. :rolleyes: ) That's a rather unusual use of the word "truth". This says nothing about whether there exists a corresponding referent outside of the mind. (Which is where the real action is!)
StykFacE
Sep19-05, 02:13 PM
By any thought having "truth" you just mean that the thought exists in the mind (the brain) as a thought. (I hope that's not a surprise to anyone. :rolleyes: ) That's a rather unusual use of the word "truth". This says nothing about whether there exists a corresponding referent outside of the mind. (Which is where the real action is!)
so you are implying any thought that relates outside of the mind doesn't have truth?
so you are implying any thought that relates outside of the mind doesn't have truth?
Seems like a fairly meaningless statement to me.
StykFacE
Sep19-05, 02:26 PM
Seems like a fairly meaningless statement to me.
i think original thouhgt is a great topic of discussion. ;-)
try to think of something that doesn't exist. without any truth to it..., really try.... it's impossible. My dead parents are "things" that I "think" of, that do not "exist". Lots of truth in the statement for me.
"Who" created God?
Not possible.
"Who" was on first at the "time".
Believe me, I've checked everyone's alibi and they all check out, except for "one", and that one does not have a particular name or address.
The tough part was trying to find that one to ask the whereabouts at the point of creation. Every time i tried to get that one's attention, i lost sight of that one.
Finally, after an exhaustive search of trying to find that one "out there", i gave up. Turns out, that one never was "out" there.
That's all "I" have to say about that;
Because I am a created being does not necessarily mean all things are created.Becaus I am finite does not mean all things are finite.The infinite,eternal is not me or you thats for sure.
The infinite,eternal is not me or you thats for sure.
You may not know you and I may not know you, but you know the infinite,eternal is not you, and I know the infinite,eternal is not you, yet, and you may not know me, yet, but I know me and that's infinitely, eternally for sure.
miss-hunni
Jun3-06, 05:32 PM
when you think about the creator of God it's not who created it, it's what humans thought of life . back in time im talking around mesopotamian era, many humans didn't understand concepts of how we see it now . For example, weather patterns back then could be seen as extraordinary compared to now . It has also got to do with the cycles, and habits people pick up, as long as theres been humans theres been a fascination of the stars. For example lets say people see rain, and rain is good because it gives you life . A person might think, " i remember walking 2 miles that day it rained" and they might think if they did it again the rain would come down, from that derives rituals, some higher being is helping humans with rain ( for an example) - hope that explains some stuff
Lars Laborious
Jun4-06, 01:51 PM
Here's the author Douglas Adams' idea of God's birth: "Imagine an early man surveying his surroundings at the end of a happy day’s tool making. He looks around and he sees a world which pleases him mightily: behind him are mountains with caves in—mountains are great because you can go and hide in the caves and you are out of the rain and the bears can’t get you; in front of him there’s the forest—it’s got nuts and berries and delicious food; there's a stream going by, which is full of water—water’s delicious to drink, you can float your boats in it and do all sorts of stuff with it; here’s cousin Ug and he’s caught a mammoth—mammoth’s are great, you can eat them, you can wear their coats, you can use their bones to create weapons to catch other mammoths. [...] But our early man has a moment to reflect [...] Man the maker looks at his world and says ‘So who made this then?’ [...] Early man thinks, ‘Well, because there’s only one sort of being I know about who makes things, whoever made all this must therefore be a much bigger, much more powerful and necessarily invisible, one of me and because I tend to be the strong one who does all the stuff, he’s probably male’. And so we have the idea of a god.
Then, because when we make things we do it with the intention of doing something with them, early man asks himself , ‘If he made it, what did he make it for?’ Now the real trap springs, because early man is thinking, ‘This world fits me very well. Here are all these things that support me and feed me and look after me; yes, this world fits me nicely’ and he reaches the inescapable conclusion that whoever made it, made it for him. This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ "
Eric England
Jun5-06, 05:11 PM
It seems like there's a misunderstanding about nothing. Nothing (in it's absolute sense) is impossible.
If nothing existed, there wouldn't be nothing.
Consider it a play on words or not.
Any individual exposed to actual nothing would report it as being black and silent. The lack of stimulus, such a visual or aural stimulus, is associated with a representation, black and silence respectively. Someone standing in front of a block of actual nothing, will report a black and silent object, and will certainly identify it as something. However this doesn't change the fact that it is nothing, the individual is the one making something of it. So the fact that the individual thinks the block of nothing is not actually nothing, doesn't hold any water.
The individual will always report nothing as something that is identifiable and thus, in the individual's interpretation, must exist.
Hence, the premise:
If nothing existed, there wouldn't be nothing.
... is not meaningful because it is the fruit of a flawed human interpretation. Do you understand what i'm getting at Eric?
This thread is the ultimate non sence, AFAIk no one can define (life) it may be that is so entangled with the rest of (all there is) that any thing you think is in an eternel loop (i have seen this question many times before) and it will be asked again and again, tell me if one can define a ground hog day without external references.
Eric England
Jun6-06, 12:05 PM
The individual will always report nothing as something that is identifiable and thus, in the individual's interpretation, MUST EXIST.
In this thread and the other, you are still misrepresenting what I've said and are indirectly making my point.
I have clearly stated that nothing (in it's absolute sense), DOES NOT exist. It is NOT a something.
If absolutely nothing does not exist, then something absolute does. This is what we commonly refer to as God.
If absolutely nothing does exist, as you mistakenly quote me as saying, then God doesn't exist, we don't exist, etc.
To drag a point over here from the other thread, there are three types of nothing. The nonexistent absolute nothing. The relatively absolute nothing, which is the partner of the relatively absolute everything. And relatively nothing, which is the partner of something relative.
Everything & nothing are the state of potential outside (before) the universe. The so-called boundary. Something relative & relatively nothing are the state of potential of an infinite universe. The universe without a so-called boundary.
Absoulutely nothing does not exist... God does.
Any individual exposed to actual nothing would report it as being black and silent...:confused: You sit at your desk with pen and paper. A toy car is placed in front of you on the desk. You are asked to "report" (in text) on its "being". Words appear on the paper ... Next, the toy is taken away. You are asked again to report on the being of the "no-thing" to which you are now exposed. Now, according to your false statement all humans when placed in this situation will report these words " the no-thing toy car is black and silent". :bugeye: Sorry, your logic just does not hold. Here is what I suggest, "any individual exposed to actual "no-thing" would report "no-thing".
quantumcarl
Jun17-06, 01:05 AM
So, how do we in fact get something from nothing, when in fact nothing is all there is? ... Nay, nor even the slightest potential for something. Wouldn't there at least have to be some sort of basic structure or matrix already there? If so, then how did that get there? Sounds to me like we're speaking about some basic structure which has always been, indeed, a highly intelligent structure. Which is to say, how else could it not be intelligent if, in fact it was the basis for all there is?
Hey, did you know that consciousness is merely the end-result of that which is highly structured? Think about it. How could we possibly do anything, let alone think, without a tremendous amount of structure in our lives? Whereas if these immutable laws that govern this structure have always been, what might it possibly suggest? That the Universe has always been self-aware, and was designed specifically as an outcropping of this?
Well, that certainly dispells any need to ask who created God now doesn't it? :wink:
In answer to the question that is the title of this thread I'd have to say that there was a small number of people who "created God". Today there are many who believe this creation is real. Its like believing "the sun came up" in the morning when the earth rotated toward the direction of the sun. Its mythology that has been kept alive toward one purpose or another.
Structure has a deeper root... yet it is simple.
Because all events (vacuum, matter, anti-matter, electromagnetic spectrums) are homogenious when examined at the nanoscopic levels of electromagnetic radiation this is an example that there is really only one very reactive and influencial structure. It is the "field" of em waves that give rise to more complex emergent properties such as gravity, mass, matter and other incidentals.
But say you take all the complex emergent phenomenon that populates this universe and boil it down to its common denominator which is electromagnetic radiation. This means what appears to be separate planets, suns and other events is really all one morphic mass of ectoplasmic-like em wave.
This singular em wave has areas of higher density and lower density and they all support each other in complimentary harmonies. As it has evolved the densities have become structured by interaction and in response to their counterparts which are also their compliments (some would call opposites). This arrangement supports the maintainence of structures as we see them today. Otherwise there'd be nothing to see or any seeing of any kind:uhh: .
Parabox
Jun18-06, 01:02 AM
"God is a concept, in which we measure our pain"
- John Lennon
semi-enlightened
Jun18-06, 01:05 AM
Just ask yourself
What was BEFORE creation?
Answer: Nothing.
But read it correctly - it's a compound word.
No THING
That which was before creation, that which DID creation
was never created (a being unique in that quality as every
other thing WAS ... by IT).
semi-enlightened
Jun18-06, 01:06 AM
P.S. I have the math for it - SIMPLE ALGEBRA -
but the .999--- = 1 thread IS LOCKED.
Eric
Absolutely nothing does not exist... God does.
I agree with you that the first of these statements is simply a matter of logic. But how do you get to the second statement?
I agree with you that the first of these statements is simply a matter of logic. But how do you get to the second statement?
I wouldnt even be sure about the first one...
Today i read an article in newscientist in which a guy called Victor Stenger claimed that the laws of the universe are also the laws of nothingness. I cant remember exactly how he reasoned this (strangely it did make sense to me when i was reading it), but it was something about the laws of physics being symmetrical and this indicated they were all actually the same law, which happened to be absolutely nothing.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19125581.800-review-something-from-nothing.html
Apparently he also uses it all as an argument that god doesnt exist, "the universe has no beginning so it wasnt created"...
Maybe i will open a topic about it and see if someone knows more about this.
Eric England
Jul11-06, 11:27 PM
I agree with you that the first of these statements is simply a matter of logic. But how do you get to the second statement?
It's a two-part answer.
1. Since absolute(ly) nothing does not exist – something absolute does. The Absolute – God.
2. Absolutely nothing not existing – is not the cause (outside) of the absolute. "Absolutely nothing is impossible" – is inside the Absolute.
As an additional note – the only thing that is impossible inside the Absolute, is the Absolute itself. That would put the Absolute outside of itself. This has major implications for science, philosophy, and religions.
Apparently he also uses it all as an argument that god doesnt exist, "the universe has no beginning so it wasnt created"...
The universe having no beginning (not created) is not proof that God doesn't exist. Genesis isn't necessarily entirely accurate –nor is taking it literally vs. science, proof that God doesn't exist.
There is no logic that says God had to create the universe. In fact, it is entirely illogical that there was a creation – when would that have been? What was God doing before the universe – playing with itself? What was inside God before the universe? And when will God destroy the universe and why?
There is a level of of relativity outside the universe I won't get into at the moment – but the universe itself, is an infinite intermingling of something relative & relatively nothing. This is why we will never find mass to contain any literal substance or space to be literally empty.
God is outside infinity. The idea that God is infinite is inaccurate. God is outside having no beginning or end. Infinity (from infinitesimal to infinite) has no beginning or end. This means is that the universe (infinity) never began to, is, or will end to literally (actaully) happen. It is forever in a state of potential of "will happen". This is why the arrow of time seems to move forward.
The universe is "figurative" – in every respect. All "phenomenon" is figuaratively three dimensional. Matter, energy, space, and time are all three dimensional. There is no fourth dimension. It's easy to imagine matter and space having three dimensions – but energy and time do to. Energy goes up and down and back and forth, but it also goes sideways (90 degrees). That's what it does when it "changes" into matter. Time can seem (figuratively) to speed up or down, we can think back as it goes forward, and when it seems to stop (which is does), it's going sideways.
This whole "literal and figurative" idea is important. It's not often if ever discussed as such, but the question of what is and isn't – applies to science, philosophy, and religions as well.
I know I've digressed, but what the heck.
I wouldnt even be sure about the first one...
Today i read an article in newscientist in which a guy called Victor Stenger claimed that the laws of the universe are also the laws of nothingness. I cant remember exactly how he reasoned this (strangely it did make sense to me when i was reading it), but it was something about the laws of physics being symmetrical and this indicated they were all actually the same law, which happened to be absolutely nothing.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19125581.800-review-something-from-nothing.html
Apparently he also uses it all as an argument that god doesnt exist, "the universe has no beginning so it wasnt created"...
Maybe i will open a topic about it and see if someone knows more about this.
Thanks for mentioning this it sounds very interesting. I'll go read the article.
However, from what you say here I'll make a bet beforehand that the author assumes that because nothing 'scientific' exists nothing at all exists, and does not mention the theory of emptiness, the cosmological scheme expounded in the literature of Mahayana Buddhism in which nothing really exists and nothing really ever happens.
If you start a thread I'll certainly join in.
Canute
PS. Just read the brief summary of the article. Is there a full version online somewhere? My view, from the summary, would be that his ideas are spot on. I'll be interested to hear what Eric thinks. If Stenger has managed to prove his conclusions then he'll have joined a select group of people who have proved the same thing, most notably the Buddhist philosopher Nagarujna.
It's a two-part answer.
1. Since absolute(ly) nothing does not exist – something absolute does. The Absolute – God.
2. Absolutely nothing not existing – is not the cause (outside) of the absolute. "Absolutely nothing is impossible" – is inside the Absolute.
I'm ok with 1. - as long as we leave 'God' undefined. But I can't make head or tail of 2. Could you unpack it a bit?
As an additional note – the only thing that is impossible inside the Absolute, is the Absolute itself. That would put the Absolute outside of itself. This has major implications for science, philosophy, and religions.
Are you sure that it makes sense to say that the Absolute has an inside and an outside? I'd argue that it's not a logically coherent idea. Could we not say that the Absolute is a phenomenon beyond such distinctions, inconceivable in terms of such dualistic concepts?
God is outside infinity. The idea that God is infinite is inaccurate. God is outside having no beginning or end.
Yes, this is what I mean. Why not the same for inside/outside?
The universe is "figurative" – in every respect.
What would 'figurative' mean here?
All "phenomenon" is figuaratively three dimensional. Matter, energy, space, and time are all three dimensional. There is no fourth dimension.
I feel if you argue that there is no fourth dimension you have to also argue for the (absolute) non-existence of the other three. But maybe not. There is a decent argument for a fifth dimension in addition to spacetime, by the way. This would equate the fifth dimension with the Absolute. But whether this would really count as a dimension would depend on how we define a dimension. There's a book around titled 'The Church of the Fifth Dimension' about this idea, but I've never read it. This dimension would be like the 'hyperspace' used by science fiction writers to get around the universe, thus accounting for nonlocality.
This whole "literal and figurative" idea is important. It's not often if ever discussed as such, but the question of what is and isn't – applies to science, philosophy, and religions as well.
If by figurative you mean something like metaphorical then this seems an important point. It's absolutely crucial in religion and mysticism, but I've been overlooking just how important it is also in science and philosophy. Thanks for that.
regards
Canute
Eric England
Jul13-06, 11:45 AM
I'm ok with 1. - as long as we leave 'God' undefined. But I can't make head or tail of 2. Could you unpack it a bit?
Are you sure that it makes sense to say that the Absolute has an inside and an outside?
Canute... I'm enjoying this. You have such a good inter-disciplinary understanding.
I think you missed something, if it seems to you that I'm saying the Absolute has both and inside and an outside.
The Absolute has no outside whatsoever – both of itself and to itself.
Number 2 is subtle, but important. Actually, I shouldn't say "but" – subtle is of the greatest importance, as you well know. But I digress.
The absence (impossibility) of absolute nothing is not the cause (reason) for the Absolute. The Absolute doesn't exist "because". That would be giving the Absolute an outside.
Take the following two phrases and turn them around in your brain:
Absolutely nothing doesn't exist.
Absolutely nothing is impossible.
This is the fundament for all of "existence" within the Absolute (which has no outside whatsoever).
Yes, God (the Absolute) is undefined in two senses. It is not the God of one religion, but not of others. We can't step outside of it to turn around to look, to see what it is. Within it however – it can be "seen" to be literal, indivisible, and invisible. The reason we can logically see that it has no outside – is because we can see right through it – it's invisible.
If by figurative you mean something like metaphorical then this seems an important point. It's absolutely crucial in religion and mysticism, but I've been overlooking just how important it is also in science and philosophy. Thanks for that.
The answer to this is yes and you're welcome.
All "points" inside the Absolute are metaphorical, and have both an inside and an outside. They also fall within a hierarchy of "relative" that has the universe at the bottom. The universe is last and least, but it doesn't seem like it, because being figurative ourselves, we have a natural tendency to see things backwards.
Which brings me to one last point. A single (R)elative that has an outside but doesn't have an inside (of itself or to itself). It is at the center of the Absolute. The center is the only place inside a point with no outside – so it's everwhere.
The Relative is also literal, indivisible, and invisible. It is the only point in direct respect to the Absolute. It is inside each and every figurative point. It's presence is what leads us to believe there is an absolute inside the Absolute – scientifically, philosophically, or religously.
The Relative is zero and the Absolute is one – neither can be divided nor "detected". When the day comes that science, philosophy, and religions realize this – we will all realize that the "absolute" we think is inside of the universe is the Relative (false absolute) and it just sits there pointing outward to the true Absolute.
The Absolute is not inside of itself.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.