God: begotten not created.

[phsyxx]

That's right.

God was begotten not created, is eternal, and the ever-lasting creator of the universe and humankind.


So, obviously, although this question may seem fairly irrelevant (trust me it's relevant) and naïve, I want to stress the fact that it's a legitimate question - and shouldn't be given a quick dismissal:



I want to know how God CAN exist.
The explanation's already been given "begotten, not created" - but this means that God exists JUST BECAUSE HE DOES.



If you can't accept the universe "just existing" and have to have some form of first cause - then surely God is open to the same criticism?


Please help me on this issue.
Thanks,
phsyxx

 

[DailyBlessings]

That's right.

God was begotten not created, is eternal, and the ever-lasting creator of the universe and humankind.


So, obviously, although this question may seem fairly irrelevant (trust me it's relevant) and naïve, I want to stress the fact that it's a legitimate question - and shouldn't be given a quick dismissal:



I want to know how God CAN exist.
The explanation's already been given "begotten, not created" - but this means that God exists JUST BECAUSE HE DOES.



If you can't accept the universe "just existing" and have to have some form of first cause - then surely God is open to the same criticism?


Please help me on this issue.
Thanks,
phsyxx

Not really. I would argue that in the terms of the creed you are quoting, the universe would be considered "everything that was made". God then, is either unmade or he is a component of the universe and thus not God in any meaningful sense. The Nicene Creed is more about what God isn't, than what God is.

This dilemma of yours, though, is why I tend to avoid claiming that "God exists." It creates a bit of linguistic confusion, since God does not exist in the same sense that anything else we might refer to exists.

 

[phsyxx]

Not really. I would argue that in the terms of the creed you are quoting, the universe would be considered "everything that was made". God then, is either unmade or he is a component of the universe and thus not God in any meaningful sense. .

Right. So why worship him?

This dilemma of yours, though, is why I tend to avoid claiming that "God exists." It creates a bit of linguistic confusion, since God does not exist in the same sense that anything else we might refer to exists.

Right. So the creator of everything that exists is unlike what exists - even though God "created man in his own image".


I can't fail to see the contradiction.

 

[Emmy]

Dear phsyxx. For a long time I was searching for the same explanation, but now, thanks to DailyBlessings, I understand. That also explains God telling us who He is: " I AM" not created as we are, and everything else, but Begotten, one with the Universe. Universe without God is Chaos, nothing tangible. When God tells us we were made in His image, we were created in His image, we have a will of our own, we know the the difference between Good and Not Good, and we have free will to choose either. I thank for asking this important question, physxx, and thank DailyBlessings for the answer. I say this humbly and with love, and send greetings. Emmy, sister in Christ.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

Right. So why worship him?

We all have our reasons

Right. So the creator of everything that exists is unlike what exists - even though God "created man in his own image".


I can't fail to see the contradiction.

That's because you're looking in the wrong places. Ask around, and you'll get a variety of answers as to what "image" of God we inherited.

 

[phsyxx]

We all have our reasons





That's because you're looking in the wrong places. Ask around, and you'll get a variety of answers as to what "image" of God we inherited.

What are your reasons?
And it wasn't a direct question - it was the result of someone saying, "God is the universe" -
well if God's the universe, then God is everything, which means God is part of me; which means when I worship God I effectively worship myself - which means surely it would be more worshipful to do with myself whatever I can and I'm best at, rather than spend week after week in a building that is the house of the Lord, yet is tangible unlike your intangible God, worhsip him, then go outside and be totally unChristian and patronising to those who ask questions.

 

[DoubtingThomas29]

I like what Daniel Dennett said about God one time, that there are so many ways to define what God is, who God is. When we say "God" what do we mean?

If we mean the creator of the universe and all life on the Earth, then yes I believe in God because evolution is what made all of life on the Earth, and I believe in evolution.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

What are your reasons?

I hope you don't mind if I keep those to myself

And it wasn't a direct question - it was the result of someone saying, "God is the universe" -
well if God's the universe, then God is everything, which means God is part of me; which means when I worship God I effectively worship myself - which means surely it would be more worshipful to do with myself whatever I can and I'm best at, rather than spend week after week in a building that is the house of the Lord, yet is tangible unlike your intangible God, worhsip him, then go outside and be totally unChristian and patronising to those who ask questions.

Obviously your view of Christians is rather tainted (or is it? maybe it's just me), but that's not how I do things.

 

[R3quiem]

That's right.

God was begotten not created, is eternal, and the ever-lasting creator of the universe and humankind.

So, obviously, although this question may seem fairly irrelevant (trust me it's relevant) and naïve, I want to stress the fact that it's a legitimate question - and shouldn't be given a quick dismissal:

I want to know how God CAN exist.
The explanation's already been given "begotten, not created" - but this means that God exists JUST BECAUSE HE DOES.

If you can't accept the universe "just existing" and have to have some form of first cause - then surely God is open to the same criticism?

Please help me on this issue.
Thanks,
phsyxx

Well the universe has the physical property of time. Time is linked to space, and space began with the Big Bang. Therefore, time also began with the big bang (or at least the concept of time that is relative to this universe).

If a god exists and is eternal, he would be outside of "time" because time is a physical property that would have been created by him. It isn't therefore logical to think of a god as a linear being, but instead a being that exists outside of time and therefore the concept of "being created" wouldn't apply to him.

It sounds weird, but then again it also sounds weird that our massive universe came out of nothingness with an as-of-yet unproven reason for beginning.

 

[phsyxx]

Well the universe has the physical property of time. Time is linked to space, and space began with the Big Bang. Therefore, time also began with the big bang (or at least the concept of time that is relative to this universe).

If a god exists and is eternal, he would be outside of "time" because time is a physical property that would have been created by him. It isn't therefore logical to think of a god as a linear being, but instead a being that exists outside of time and therefore the concept of "being created" wouldn't apply to him.

It sounds weird, but then again it also sounds weird that our massive universe came out of nothingness with an as-of-yet unproven reason for beginning.

Yes, but it also sounds weird talking about a God which exists "outside" of time - then talking about a moment prior to the universe being created, and there being only God.
And there being a moment after God created, and there being the universe.

If you look at it - that's cause and consequence. Thomas Aquinas even used God as the "first cause" argument.
If there was no time prior to the universe - there can be no cause/consequence - because there is no time, and no delay in time between one and the other to cause something, and for something to react.


For the universe not to have existed, and then existed, as a finite creation - suggests that there was a moment prior to this that God did nothing.

Now, if you tell me "God exists outside of time" - that's not possible, and I've shown why in the paragraph 2 previous.
Equally, this would mean that since there WASN'T a moment before the universe was created - which means that God is synonymous with the universe.


And here we come full circle on what we were talking about previously.
God then, IS synonymous for the universe, and if what I've said hasn't convinced you of that -
then try this:

God is infinite (omnipresent) - the universe is finite.

How then, can a finite substance be outside of infinity?

 

[R3quiem]

Yes, but it also sounds weird talking about a God which exists "outside" of time - then talking about a moment prior to the universe being created, and there being only God.
And there being a moment after God created, and there being the universe.

If you look at it - that's cause and consequence. Thomas Aquinas even used God as the "first cause" argument.
If there was no time prior to the universe - there can be no cause/consequence - because there is no time, and no delay in time between one and the other to cause something, and for something to react.


For the universe not to have existed, and then existed, as a finite creation - suggests that there was a moment prior to this that God did nothing.

Now, if you tell me "God exists outside of time" - that's not possible, and I've shown why in the paragraph 2 previous.
Equally, this would mean that since there WASN'T a moment before the universe was created - which means that God is synonymous with the universe.


And here we come full circle on what we were talking about previously.
God then, IS synonymous for the universe, and if what I've said hasn't convinced you of that -
then try this:

God is infinite (omnipresent) - the universe is finite.

How then, can a finite substance be outside of infinity?

I don't think "moment before the universe was created" has any meaning. There were no moments because time did not exist (unless of course the theory of the oscillating universe is correct, or possibly if M-Theory is correct.)

It's impossible for man to fully wrap his mind around the idea of time not existing.

As for God being the universe, some religions believe that. There are many different understandings of the concept of infinity. Perhaps omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent would be enough to be considered to be infinite, in which case he would not be consisted out of the very particles that the universe is made of. If he is the universe himself and nothing else, I don't think calling him god would mean anything- might as well just call him the universe.

 

[Skavau]

Well the universe has the physical property of time. Time is linked to space, and space began with the Big Bang. Therefore, time also began with the big bang (or at least the concept of time that is relative to this universe).

If a god exists and is eternal, he would be outside of "time" because time is a physical property that would have been created by him. It isn't therefore logical to think of a god as a linear being, but instead a being that exists outside of time and therefore the concept of "being created" wouldn't apply to him.

And the key word there is if.

Being unable to explain the origins of the universe does not give one logical reason to assume a creator by divine decree who created it all and is not subject to all criticism applied to everything else because he is beyond it.

 

[R3quiem]

And the key word there is if.

Being unable to explain the origins of the universe does not give one logical reason to assume a creator by divine decree who created it all and is not subject to all criticism applied to everything else because he is beyond it.

I agree. This thread, however, is more about the nature of god, not whether one exists or not.

I don't believe in gods, but I'm discussing the concept from a point of view of it existing.

 

[phsyxx]

I agree. This thread, however, is more about the nature of god, not whether one exists or not.

I don't believe in gods, but I'm discussing the concept from a point of view of it existing.

Right. Same here, but I'm also arguing that the properties attributd to God are seemingly impossible - and also do not fit logically when looked at.
Plus, I wanted to explore the idea of the use of God as an explanation, and how this fails in principle, for the existence of the Universe.

Then, taking what people have given me, I am trying to demonstrate in a kind of Basil Mitchell kind of way, that what the religious believer purports and claims of God - are not actually anything more than nothingy guesses.

 

[phsyxx]

I hope you don't mind if I keep those to myself



Obviously your view of Christians is rather tainted (or is it? maybe it's just me), but that's not how I do things.

No, not "is rather tainted", has been rather tainted, due to a series of unfortunate incidents with a series of so-called Christians that officially "put me off" the faith - and now having read alot on the subject, I find myself with a streak of apoplexy every time they judge for no reason.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

I can understand that, those kinds of people don't make me terribly happy either, though I was just checking to make sure you understand that not all Christians are hypocritical fools.

 

[Emmy]

Dear phsyxx. May I quickly point out, God is who He says He is," I AM." He made us in His image, we are NOT part of the Universe, we are different. We are in God`s image: capable of reasoning, capable to know the difference between GOOD, and NOT good. We live in the Universe, and God put us in charge of some things. We can think and act, we have marvellous brain-power. God is the Creator, we are created in His image, not the same as God. Jesus is Part of God, the Son-Part. Greetings from Emmy, sister in Christ.

 

[phsyxx]

I can understand that, those kinds of people don't make me terribly happy either, though I was just checking to make sure you understand that not all Christians are hypocritical fools.

Oh no, my apologies if that's the way I came across.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

No problem

 

[DailyBlessings]

Right. So why worship him?

Because I desire to.

Right. So the creator of everything that exists is unlike what exists - even though God "created man in his own image".

It could be seen as a paradox of sorts, yes. Like most things in Genesis, trying to understand it in literal terms is likely to lead to problems. I think it is fairly clear that the verse does not intend to describe God's physical appearance or form, but something a bit more abstract. When in the rest of Scripture the bit about being in God's image is brought up, it tends to be in relation to the possession of a will, and the consequent freedom to sin.