God or What?

[Max S Cherry]

One issue that I have been working with lately concerns the origin of everything, and I would like to get some more thoughts on it. I am not try to convince anyone that God is the origin of all, and I am not looking for arguments to convince me otherwise. I would like to know what other people think though.

Everything has a common origin. For me, I say that the origin is God. He has existed *always*. So my amended point is that everything other than God has a common origin, God. This is as far as I need to go. God's purpose in creating everything else is whatever it is, and His means of doing so were and are whatever they were and are.

Or....

Everything has a common origin. There is no God to have created anything, so how did everything get here? This is where I have difficulty. Before I was saved, I attributed everything to randomness. It was the most sensible solution I could find that did not break down under questioning. It meant that *stuff* (stuff being the pieces that everything is made from) existed, but randomness was the force acting upon them. Now, I am sitting on the other side looking back at it, and it seems to be loaded with difficulties.

First, randomness is as uncertain as God: one can be proven as easily as the other. Second, if randomness is responsible for everything else existing, the times that *creative forces* (I am clearly using the term to suit my needs for lack of knowing a better way) had to line up are astonishing. In fact, it is so astonishing that it becomes even more fantastic than the idea of God.

Before anyone gets his feathers ruffled, rest assured that I am aware that there are other options, but I do not see an option existing that does not rest on either randomness or purpose.

What, other than randomness or purpose could account for existence? Some things that I have thrown around are that everything has always existed, that nothing actually exists now, that there is no common origin and multiple sources exists, and a few other equally dissatisfying ideas.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Everything has a common origin. For me, I say that the origin is God. He has existed *always*.

Okay, I would say that physical reality is the source of everything, and it has existed at all times in the past.

Before I was saved, I attributed everything to randomness. It was the most sensible solution I could find that did not break down under questioning. It meant that *stuff* (stuff being the pieces that everything is made from) existed, but randomness was the force acting upon them.

"Randomness" isn't a force. It simply means that events are unplanned by an intelligent agency.

First, randomness is as uncertain as God: one can be proven as easily as the other.

Huh?

Second, if randomness is responsible for everything else existing, the times that *creative forces* (I am clearly using the term to suit my needs for lack of knowing a better way) had to line up are astonishing. In fact, it is so astonishing that it becomes even more fantastic than the idea of God.

Not to my mind. I can't imagine why you would think this.

What, other than randomness or purpose could account for existence?

Spontaneous order.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Cush]

One issue that I have been working with lately concerns the origin of everything, and I would like to get some more thoughts on it. I am not try to convince anyone that God is the origin of all, and I am not looking for arguments to convince me otherwise. I would like to know what other people think though.

Everything has a common origin. For me, I say that the origin is God. He has existed *always*. So my amended point is that everything other than God has a common origin, God. This is as far as I need to go. God's purpose in creating everything else is whatever it is, and His means of doing so were and are whatever they were and are.

Or....

Everything has a common origin. There is no God to have created anything, so how did everything get here? This is where I have difficulty. Before I was saved, I attributed everything to randomness. It was the most sensible solution I could find that did not break down under questioning. It meant that *stuff* (stuff being the pieces that everything is made from) existed, but randomness was the force acting upon them. Now, I am sitting on the other side looking back at it, and it seems to be loaded with difficulties.

First, randomness is as uncertain as God: one can be proven as easily as the other. Second, if randomness is responsible for everything else existing, the times that *creative forces* (I am clearly using the term to suit my needs for lack of knowing a better way) had to line up are astonishing. In fact, it is so astonishing that it becomes even more fantastic than the idea of God.

Before anyone gets his feathers ruffled, rest assured that I am aware that there are other options, but I do not see an option existing that does not rest on either randomness or purpose.

What, other than randomness or purpose could account for existence? Some things that I have thrown around are that everything has always existed, that nothing actually exists now, that there is no common origin and multiple sources exists, and a few other equally dissatisfying ideas.

Look at the great lengths or acrobats that one must go through in order to make things up. Infinite number of universes ect..

Ya know as I sit here and listen to people go to these great lengths, using the language of math to recreate their theories on the origin of the universe.... I can't help but see a contradiction. I mean, people use math to create a model - a computer program to reproduce what they say happened. Yet God, spoke the universe into existence... it appears to be a contradiction.

 

[quatona]

One issue that I have been working with lately concerns the origin of everything, and I would like to get some more thoughts on it. I am not try to convince anyone that God is the origin of all, and I am not looking for arguments to convince me otherwise. I would like to know what other people think though.

Everything has a common origin. For me, I say that the origin is God. He has existed *always*. So my amended point is that everything other than God has a common origin, God. This is as far as I need to go. God's purpose in creating everything else is whatever it is, and His means of doing so were and are whatever they were and are.

Or....

Everything has a common origin. There is no God to have created anything, so how did everything get here? This is where I have difficulty. Before I was saved, I attributed everything to randomness. It was the most sensible solution I could find that did not break down under questioning. It meant that *stuff* (stuff being the pieces that everything is made from) existed, but randomness was the force acting upon them. Now, I am sitting on the other side looking back at it, and it seems to be loaded with difficulties.

First, randomness is as uncertain as God: one can be proven as easily as the other. Second, if randomness is responsible for everything else existing, the times that *creative forces* (I am clearly using the term to suit my needs for lack of knowing a better way) had to line up are astonishing. In fact, it is so astonishing that it becomes even more fantastic than the idea of God.

Before anyone gets his feathers ruffled, rest assured that I am aware that there are other options, but I do not see an option existing that does not rest on either randomness or purpose.

What, other than randomness or purpose could account for existence? Some things that I have thrown around are that everything has always existed, that nothing actually exists now, that there is no common origin and multiple sources exists, and a few other equally dissatisfying ideas.

I think the origin of everything is Zisensontar. This is as far as I need to go.

 

[Max S Cherry]

Okay, I would say that physical reality is the source of everything, and it has existed at all times in the past.

This is one of the best ideas that I have toyed with.

"Randomness" isn't a force. It simply means that events are unplanned by an intelligent agency.

I understand what you are saying, but I am supposing that randomness could be a force. Okay not really a force I suppose. More of a thing that exists which offers to explain how other things got to be the way they are.

Huh?

I mean only that randomness cannot be known. What appears to be random may not be random at all.

Not to my mind. I can't imagine why you would think this.

As I understand it, evolution is built upon the idea that one thing can evolve into new things, but I am not an expert on evolution. I hope I can use it to explain what I was saying. If thing X evolves into thing Y and into thing Z, the creative *force or thing* had to happen twice, and it had to happen in two different ways. That is what I was thinking.

Spontaneous order.

This relies on randomness does it not?

 

[Max S Cherry]

Look at the great lengths or acrobats that one must go through in order to make things up. Infinite number of universes ect..

Ya know as I sit here and listen to people go to these great lengths, using the language of math to recreate their theories on the origin of the universe.... I can't help but see a contradiction. I mean, people use math to create a model - a computer program to reproduce what they say happened. Yet God, spoke the universe into existence... it appears to be a contradiction.

I think you are agreeing with my God as the origin idea. Correct?

 

[Max S Cherry]

I think the origin of everything is Zisensontar. This is as far as I need to go.

I think you are agreeing with the God is the origin idea. Correct?

 

[Freodin]

I cannot agree with "God" as the origin. At most, I could accept the idea of a creative force, though I would not have any notion about what or how that would work.

But "God" - in any concept that I have ever been presented with - is too much like a human.

Of course this makes sense... to a human. We understand human. We know what human are and what human can do.

But you should consider that: everything that we are - that IS human - we are because of where we are and how we got here. We are formed by the whole world: our perceptions, our thoughts, our ideas, our plans... everything that makes humans human.

If all that would not exist, because it had to be "created"... why would that creator be so human?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Look at the great lengths or acrobats that one must go through in order to make things up. Infinite number of universes ect..

Ya know as I sit here and listen to people go to these great lengths, using the language of math to recreate their theories on the origin of the universe.... I can't help but see a contradiction. I mean, people use math to create a model - a computer program to reproduce what they say happened. Yet God, spoke the universe into existence... it appears to be a contradiction.

Speaking of contradictions, who spoke god into existence?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I think you are agreeing with the God is the origin idea. Correct?

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha...




no

 

[Max S Cherry]

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha...




no

What is the point of your post? I did not even respond to you, so obviously, I was not suggesting your agreement.

Any useful comments?

 

[Max S Cherry]

I cannot agree with "God" as the origin. At most, I could accept the idea of a creative force, though I would not have any notion about what or how that would work.

I use God, because in my belief, the creative force is called God. I have no problem accepting that other people call this creative force something else or even call it God and mean something other than I do.

If all that would not exist, because it had to be "created"... why would that creator be so human?

I have no idea. It seems that you may side with the "everything has always existed" idea. Am I understanding correctly? I know you said that you could accept the creative force idea, but the last line seems to move away from that.

 

[Cush]

I think you are agreeing with my God as the origin idea. Correct?

Correct.

Shout Glory

 

[Cush]

Speaking of contradictions, who spoke god into existence?

Well the contradictions appear to have surfaced after the tower of Babel. When people were scattered and in their own tongue spoke of God. Before then, however, people held to a central truth, no wonder different regions of the world have similar creation stories.

Does God have doubt? I ask this question because I wonder if the universe exists in the mind of God - where does atheism come into play?

Shout Glory

 

[Dave Ellis]

This is one of the best ideas that I have toyed with.

I highly recommend you check out a book by Lawrence Krauss called "A Universe from Nothing". It's a fascinating look at how the universe can naturally come into being based on our observations of the actual universe, without needing to appeal to a creator of any kind.

I got the audiobook version, and I had to listen through it two or three times before I completely understood what he was talking about, but the work is quite brilliant.

As I understand it, evolution is built upon the idea that one thing can evolve into new things, but I am not an expert on evolution. I hope I can use it to explain what I was saying. If thing X evolves into thing Y and into thing Z, the creative *force or thing* had to happen twice, and it had to happen in two different ways. That is what I was thinking.

Not really, an organism itself is not going to change via evolution. For example, a tiger that needs to run faster to catch prey is not going to all of a sudden get longer legs to be able to stride longer, and therefore run faster.

What natural selection says is that within a population of tigers, there will be some with longer legs, and some with shorter legs. In this given situation, the ones with longer legs will have a better chance of catching prey to eat, and therefore will live longer and have a better chance of reproducing.

So, from that if we have the tigers with long legs reproducing more often than tigers with short legs, the next generation of tigers will tend to have slightly longer legs on average than the previous generation.

Now of course, that's a minor example. There's obviously a lot more factors that go into survival, but something like that would influence how the next generation turns out.

So generation to generation you aren't going to see significant change. However, over millions of years and hundreds of thousands of generations, and by extension hundreds of thousands of minor changes, you very well may wind up with an animal that looks nothing like the animal that existed millions of years in the past.

That's what evolution is.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Well the contradictions appear to have surfaced after the tower of Babel. When people were scattered and in their own tongue spoke of God. Before then, however, people held to a central truth, no wonder different regions of the world have similar creation stories.

You are aware that there's an incredibly vast number of creation stories in the world, most of which sound nothing like the Christian one.... right?

Oh yeah, and we know the Tower of Babel is a myth. That's not how languages diverged, nor how people spread around the world.

Does God have doubt? I ask this question because I wonder if the universe exists in the mind of God - where does atheism come into play?

What do you mean where does Atheism come in to play? I'm not sure what you're asking here...

 

[quatona]

I think you are agreeing with the God is the origin idea. Correct?

No. So far I´m not even seeing how you get past a mere tautology ("the origin is the origin, and I call this origin - whatever it may be - 'God'").
There is no epistemological nor explanatory progress in inventing a name.

 

[juvenissun]

I think the origin of everything is Zisensontar. This is as far as I need to go.

You do not know what you really need.
But, you DO feel that you still need something.

 

[Jade Margery]

One issue that I have been working with lately concerns the origin of everything, and I would like to get some more thoughts on it. I am not try to convince anyone that God is the origin of all, and I am not looking for arguments to convince me otherwise. I would like to know what other people think though.

Everything has a common origin. For me, I say that the origin is God. He has existed *always*. So my amended point is that everything other than God has a common origin, God. This is as far as I need to go. God's purpose in creating everything else is whatever it is, and His means of doing so were and are whatever they were and are.

Or....

Everything has a common origin. There is no God to have created anything, so how did everything get here? This is where I have difficulty. Before I was saved, I attributed everything to randomness. It was the most sensible solution I could find that did not break down under questioning. It meant that *stuff* (stuff being the pieces that everything is made from) existed, but randomness was the force acting upon them. Now, I am sitting on the other side looking back at it, and it seems to be loaded with difficulties.

I think it's fair to say that we don't know how everything 'got here'. And that that's okay. You act like there's only two options... or more accurately, like a person has to at least choose from the available options what they believe happened. It is entirely possible to admit that at this time, we don't have real knowledge of what happened or the means to find out. Yet.

What we do have, however... what things we have discovered, what theories we have proven, what activities we have observed... none of it requires a creative force of any kind to have happened. Unthinking natural forces that follow consistent physical laws are bound to make repetitive patterns of observable phenomenon; the superstitious see these patterns and claim intent. The skeptic sees the patterns and shrugs, for they are meaningless except in that they might be able to tell us more about the forces themselves. Then the superstitious stab the skeptic for angering the pattern-maker with his doubt. They then live happily ever after, attributing everything they don't understand to an imaginary being that is suspiciously similar to themselves and killing or converting anyone who disagrees with them. The end!

 

[Eudaimonist]

I mean only that randomness cannot be known. What appears to be random may not be random at all.

One can always say that something may not be what it appears to be, but that is a self-defeating standard of skepticism. It basically says that we can't ever know anything at all.

I'd prefer to look at this scientifically. Is there evidence that intelligent planning is at work? If not, then the default view is that what happens is unplanned and simply a consequence of natural properties, and this line of thinking can be studied and supported by research. This seems like a reasonable and a sufficient view.

For instance, do we really have to invent Jack Frost to explain how ice crystal "art" forms on one's window in wintertime? Isn't it enough to learn the properties of H2O under freezing conditions to see how crystaline structures form? Must we engage in extreme skepticism, wondering how we can possible be certain that Jack Frost doesn't exist, when our knowledge of chemistry is quite enough to explain the phenomenon? That strikes me as absurd and unproductive.

This relies on randomness does it not?

It fits into that category. Yes, spontaneous order is unplanned. However, it is not "random" in the everyday sense of playing the lottery. It is how order can arise from seeming chaos even when there is no planning agency, and how this may be likely instead of unlikely.


eudaimonia,

Mark