Who Created God? Understanding the Universe's Self-Awareness

[Lisa!]

And who created men? Perhaps they don't need creator!

 

[StykFacE]

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 anyone 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]

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]

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]

Very easily, it's done all the time.

then show us.

one example... please.

 

[Doc Al]

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]

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 don't 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.

:-)

 

[Doc Al]

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. ) 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]

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. ) 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?

 

[Doc Al]

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]

Seems like a fairly meaningless statement to me.

i think original thouhgt is a great topic of discussion. ;-)

 

[Rade]

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.

 

[jimmie]

"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;

 

[mark52]

who created God

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 that's for sure.

 

[jimmie]

The infinite,eternal is not me or you that's 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]

looking back

when you think about the creator of God it's not who created it, it's what humans thought of life . back in time I am 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 there's been humans there's been a fascination of the stars. For example let's 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]

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]

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.

 

[-Job-]

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?

 

[wolram]

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]

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.

 

[Rade]

Any individual exposed to actual nothing would report it as being black and silent...

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". Sorry, your logic just does not hold. Here is what I suggest, "any individual exposed to actual "no-thing" would report "no-thing".

 

[quantumcarl]

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?

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 .

 

[Parabox]

"God is a concept, in which we measure our pain"

- John Lennon

 

[semi-enlightened]

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]

P.S. I have the math for it - SIMPLE ALGEBRA -
but the .999--- = 1 thread IS LOCKED.

 

[Canute]

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?

 

[PIT2]

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 wouldn't 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 can't 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 doesn't 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]

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 doesn't 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.

 

[Canute]

I wouldn't 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 can't 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 doesn't 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.

 

[Canute]

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]

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.