Something Deeper than God

[The_Horses_Boy]

Perhaps no one. They may not necessarily have been made by any living being. They may have come into existance by natural processes without any living beings' involvement. They may also have always existed, never having a beginning, in the same way that some theologians believe God has always existed.

Both scientists and theologians agree that this universe had a beginning, and so must have the laws that govern it. As such I want to point out to you that matter of "always". If this universe had a beginning then, to the extent of our knowledge, that was the beginning of time. It's hard for the human mind to grasp a beginning of time, but one can not have it without a higher power.

 

[angela 2]

That may be just fine, because God may not be fond of worship in the same way that I am not.

My advice would be to give some thought to whether you and God really have that much in common.

 

[relaxeus]

Both scientists and theologians agree that this universe had a beginning, and so must have the laws that govern it.

Many scientists also believe that there are an infinite number of universes. The universe may only be one form which matter takes, among a wide range of other possible forms which may exist. The laws that govern these things may not necessarily have had a beginning. It is hard to imagine anything without a beginning, but it is indeed possible - and for me personally, I am convinced that this is the case.

As such I want to point out to you that matter of "always". If this universe had a beginning then, to the extent of our knowledge, that was the beginning of time. It's hard for the human mind to grasp a beginning of time, but one can not have it without a higher power.

It's certainly possible that a being of great power may have created our universe. But it's also possible that this universe was created by natural means.

I don't see why a higher power is necessary in order for there to be a beginning of time.

Also, consider that time had no beginning or end. Things have always existed. Personally, I am convinced that this is the case. The other possibility, that there was a beginning to everything, falls apart when the idea is put forward that there must have initially been completely nothing and then something came into existence. It is impossible for something to come from nothing. Therefore the idea that there was a beginning to everything is impossible.

 

[relaxeus]

My advice would be to give some thought to whether you and God really have that much in common.

I can't say - I've never met him

 

[Tynan]

It is impossible for something to come from nothing.

This may not be the case.

 

[Namaste]

Both scientists and theologians agree that this universe had a beginning, and so must have the laws that govern it. As such I want to point out to you that matter of "always". If this universe had a beginning then, to the extent of our knowledge, that was the beginning of time. It's hard for the human mind to grasp a beginning of time, but one can not have it without a higher power.

That is not necessarily true.

 

[Namaste]

Theologians have explored "rules", such as C. S. Lewis in "Mere Christianity", but if the rules are there then who made them?

If I'm your boss and I tell you not to sleep on the job, but you notice me frequently dozing off in my office, then you will think I'm a hypocrite and most likely will lose respect for me. Similarly, even if such a God merely created some rules for the universe, would we not consider him to be hypocritical if he himself didn't abide by those rules? Why does he get to break the rules?
And then, if you assert that a God did make the rules, you are forced to admit that they are at best completely arbitrary.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

It's certainly possible that a being of great power may have created our universe. But it's also possible that this universe was created by natural means.

What is the real difference between a god and "natural means"?

How do you know that the "something deeper" isn't the very same God being referred to in the Bible?

elman declares that God is love. What is unnatural about love??

 

[relaxeus]

Hi Reluctant Prophet,

These are some good questions, although I'm not sure what you mean by the first one.

What is the real difference between a god and "natural means"?

The real difference?

How do you know that the "something deeper" isn't the very same God being referred to in the Bible?

I don't think anyone knows this with certainty. If a god is really as deep as existence gets then God might have power over everything in existence. It's also possible that even though God might be the deepest as existence gets he may still only have a limited amount of power. God might only be able to control certain aspects of existence, but certain things in existance, such as, I dunno, some super blackhole, may be beyond god's power to control. These super blackholes may be composed of super-gravitationally-magnetized particles that may be beyond the control of even the deepest foundations of existence, kinda like a very powerful King who has ultimate power within his domain, but can't control his own arrogant son.

elman declares that God is love. What is unnatural about love??

The way I see it is that anything that exists is natural, so love is natural.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

The real difference?

I meant "the significant" or "substantial" difference, if any.

I don't think anyone knows this with certainty. If a god is really as deep as existence gets then God might have power over everything in existence. It's also possible that even though God might be the deepest as existence gets he may still only have a limited amount of power. God might only be able to control certain aspects of existence, but certain things in existance, such as, I dunno, some super blackhole, may be beyond god's power to control. These super blackholes may be composed of super-gravitationally-magnetized particles that may be beyond the control of even the deepest foundations of existence, kinda like a very powerful King who has ultimate power within his domain, but can't control his own arrogant son.



The way I see it is that anything that exists is natural, so love is natural.

I suspect that you might benefit from loking up the word "god" in the Webster's (10th edition) dictionary and also "pantheist".

In both cases, God is defined as something that most certainly MUST exist and is implied to be the very thing that you are talking about as "the most foundational controlling principle of existence".

I don't have the exact wording of Webster's, but I remember that you have to also look up their use of the word "being". A "being" is merely an existence even though as commonly used, a being represents something with life involved in it. The living being aspect is merely a connotation popularly applied, but not a requirement.

And I can easily accept that anything existing is natural, but the poplular use of "natural" implies non-man made and not supernatural or "above nature".

 

[relaxeus]

I meant "the significant" or "substantial" difference, if any.

Perhaps the most important difference is in how humanity would be affected by this knowledge.

Many religious people would lose their faith if they knew that the universe was not created by any life-form. This would have huge implications. Our global culture would experience dramatic changes in how we think, what our morals are, how much free time we have for non-religious activities, etc...

On the other hand, if we found out that a being of great power created our universe many people would become religious. How much we would know about God would be very important. If we just simply knew he exists but beyond that had no knowledge of him it may be bad for our world because religious wars may rise. This is because people would not have faith anymore, instead they would have certain knowledge and would be far more zealous for God. It would be Christianity vs Islam vs Hinduism times 10. However, if God introduced himself and told us who he is, what he does, what he has done, how he has influenced our past, if there is a religion with truth in it - then humanity would be much more united and religious terrorism and all these negative events may cease.

I suspect that you might benefit from loking up the word "god" in the Webster's (10th edition) dictionary and also "pantheist".

In both cases, God is defined as something that most certainly MUST exist and is implied to be the very thing that you are talking about as "the most foundational controlling principle of existence".

It's all subjective. There is no one true definition for the word God. The way Websters defines it is only 1 way of probably thousands. The idea of god changes from person to person.

I don't have the exact wording of Webster's, but I remember that you have to also look up their use of the word "being". A "being" is merely an existence even though as commonly used, a being represents something with life involved in it. The living being aspect is merely a connotation popularly applied, but not a requirement.

Is the god you believe in life-less? That would seem strange to me just because of what the word God means to me in that God is alive and is sentient like us. Apart from involving the word God in such a belief, the belief itself is grounded in logic and easy to accept. But again, it's all about what the word God means to different individuals.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Perhaps the most important difference is in how humanity would be affected by this knowledge.

Many religious people would lose their faith if they knew that the universe was not created by any life-form.

On the other hand, many non-religious people would gain their faith if they discovered that your "something deeper" actually was life.

Define "life". Make sure that you can define any critical words you use in that definition. Don't be SLOPPY. Then see for certain that even in concept (scriptures are all about concepts) that "something deeper" truly could not be said to have life.

It's all subjective. There is no one true definition for the word God. The way Websters defines it is only 1 way of probably thousands. The idea of god changes from person to person.

Then communication on the subject cannot take place without serious error. Once so many errors have spread, then how do you know that everything you have heard isn't simply miscommunication compounded to the point that you have to do a great deal more careful analysis just to be able to conclude anything on the subject at all.

If everyone has a different definition for a word, then the word has lost usefulness. But this has nothing to do with the reality of the subject.

Is the god you believe in life-less?

Define "life". Or perhaps you wish to say that life also means different things to different people in which case, how could you declare anything to be void of life?

Without ensuring the definitions, you cannot communicate without error. If you cannot communicate without error, then you cannot receive information without error. If you cannot gain information witout error, then you cannot think without error. This holds true even if the communication is merely between your surroundings and your senses.

 

[Kleptin]

The idea of god, a christians have it, is actually quite shallow. Let us assume that I agree with Theists on one notion: that God is somehow responsible for the formation of the universe. This of course, is as deep as god goes. However, Christians narrow god down to a creator, a creator who has emotions, the urge to create. Oter religions, Greek and Roman mythology especially, also share this notion of a human-like god. In essence, Christians propose that the creator of the universe (deep) is actually human (shallow).

And before you attack me...

Note that if you consider my viewpoint, that humans anthropomorphize concepts that they view to be "above" them in order to understand them. Ie. The sun is pulled across the sky by a chariot develops from
A. The sun appears to be moving, so it is moving,
B. The sun is not a person, and most things don't move by themselves
C. Someone is moving the sun
D. Chariots move things. This "someone" is using a chariot.
E. This someone is of utmost importance, let us call him a GOD.

We can apply this notion of humans humanizing the complex to all aspects of Christianity, such as descriptions of God's character, Creation of humans from dust, what happens after people die etc.

 

[relaxeus]

Define "life". Make sure that you can define any critical words you use in that definition. Don't be SLOPPY. Then see for certain that even in concept (scriptures are all about concepts) that "something deeper" truly could not be said to have life.

Define "life". Or perhaps you wish to say that life also means different things to different people in which case, how could you declare anything to be void of life?

Without ensuring the definitions, you cannot communicate without error. If you cannot communicate without error, then you cannot receive information without error. If you cannot gain information witout error, then you cannot think without error. This holds true even if the communication is merely between your surroundings and your senses.

Nevermind the word life...

Here's the question again rephrased -

Is the god that you believe in aware that he exists, in the same way that we are aware of our existence? Can your god think? Can your god feel?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Nevermind the word life...

Here's the question again rephrased -

Is the god that you believe in aware that he sesxit, in the same way that we are aware of our sesxitence? Can your god inthk? Can your god efle?

Most certainly, doesn't everything?

 

[relaxeus]

Most certainly, doesn't everything?

What's with changing the spelling of those 3 words? lol

I hope the question doesn't make you uncomfortable. You don't have to answer if you dont want to.