Who Created God?

  • Thread starter Iacchus32
  • Start date
  • #76
P.S. I have the math for it - SIMPLE ALGEBRA -
but the .999--- = 1 thread IS LOCKED.
 
  • #77
1,515
0
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?
 
  • #78
857
2
Canute said:
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.
 
  • #79
114
0
Canute said:
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.

PIT2 said:
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.
 
  • #80
1,515
0
PIT2 said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #81
1,515
0
Eric England said:
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
 
  • #82
114
0
Canute said:
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.

Canute said:
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.
 

Related Threads on Who Created God?

  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
3
Replies
51
Views
4K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
52
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
69
Views
8K
Replies
41
Views
5K
Top