What Created God

[CalUWxBill]

I agree with your point of view for the most part.

I know I will be the subject of ridicule among atheisits if I say this, but I will say it anyways....

Reality is not only what is observed, or even thought of.
Relativity masks the absolute and at the same time hints at it.

Well I won't posit God to your statement. But sure I think this relates well to the Tree in a Forest thread. We do not know everything that is reality, we are only given a glimpse, a blink of an eye to the eternal nature(maybe, maybe not) of existence in our lifetime. But can we reason what we don't observe? Or, in reality what I am trying to say is that is reason done to explain something that is observed? If not, then reason is used to explain something that has never been observed. If your trying to explain how we came into existence, you are still trying to explain the observation of existence. It is still the explanation behind an observation. Maybe though I am blind to using reason for it's own pursuits.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

Well I won't posit God to your statement.

Thanks. And thanks for understanding. Whenever I try to talk about the absolute, people think I try to prove God's esxistence.

But sure I think this relates well to the Tree in a Forest thread. We do not know everything that is reality, we are only given a glimpse, a blink of an eye to the eternal nature(maybe, maybe not) of existence in our lifetime. But can we reason what we don't observe?
Or, in reality what I am trying to say is that is reason done to explain something that is observed? If not, then reason is used to explain something that has never been observed. If your trying to explain how we came into existence, you are still trying to explain the observation of existence. It is still the explanation behind an observation. Maybe though I am blind to using reason for it's own pursuits.

I am trying to explain that there is no coming into existence, since it is my view that whatever that is existent could not have been non-existent to suddenly come into existence one day.

 

[CalUWxBill]

I am trying to explain that there is no coming into existence, since it is my view that whatever that is existent could not have been non-existent to suddenly come into existence one day.

Of course I threw in my disclaimer (maybe, maybe not) because I was assuming the nature of existence to be eternal. I think it makes sense that nothing can just come into existence. If that is the case though, one can still question the nature of existence, or not necessarily how we "came" into existence, but why we exist, and why we are experiencing the part of existence we now experience. Obviously we are getting away from the nature of the original question. What created God? and you are saying that whether or not God exists why does something have to create God?

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

Of course I threw in my disclaimer (maybe, maybe not) because I was assuming the nature of existence to be eternal. I think it makes sense that nothing can just come into existence. If that is the case though, one can still question the nature of existence, or not necessarily how we "came" into existence, but why we exist, and why we are experiencing the part of existence we now experience. Obviously we are getting away from the nature of the original question. What created God? and you are saying that whether or not God exists why does something have to create God?

Yes,you are right.

To be frank, I come from a tradition which can go to any extent if you want to discuss existence and non-existence, but just stops short of denying God. 'God' is a convenient concept my tradition uses to avoid becoming obsolete in my part of the world. what happened to Buddhism in India will not happen to my tradition simply because of my tradition's acceptance of God.

My tradition is different from the classic God-believing traditions.

Just wanted to say something about my tradition.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

If you want my personal opinion(not necessarily that of my religious or philosophical path) on what created God, I would say it is man's feeling of helplessness, feeling of being limited and being unable to lord over nature, his hoping that justice must be served, his wish to deny death and transcend it are some of the reasons that led him to conceieve of an Almighty God. I don't know if this happened long after humans appeared on earth or it happened within a short time after the appearance of humans.

 

[SuYen]

Hmm I noticed theres a lot of topics about this. I posted one about this somewhere but I'll posted anyways -

IMO. For God there was no start nor the end. We humans have a mind that expects to see the start and the end of everything.

When we see something that is great, out first thing comes into our mind -

"Where is it from?"
"How made it?"

You can't relate that with God because, he is God. And I believe its how our brains of thinking were made. Or how we all started to think long long time ago. And to think that we have so many ways of thinking in terms of being curious and having so many ideas, imaginations and theories, God made an amazing creation. The Brain.

 

[Telephone]

I wanted to discuss philosophy. I didn't realize philosophy means scientific philosophy in the western world. My bad, now I know.

Do the western philosophers have no guts to think? why do they hide behind science?

And thank you very much for your insightful info about me.

Tell me did I talk about religion anywhere?
Did I talk about God anywhere?
And what is an heaven?
Do you know me?


It is not my problem that Christianity has nothing intellectual to offer that people have to become atheistic.

I come from a different part of the world. There free thinking is allowed and people don't have to give too much importance to God and such.

My mistake I misread your intentions !



Please apply my more judgmental comments to your local Christian inerrantist.

Accept my apologies.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

My mistake I misread your intentions !

Its alright.

Please apply my more judgmental comments to your local Christian inerrantist.

I can feel ya.

Accept my apologies.[/quote]

It is you who should accept my apologies, Telephone. I should have been more patient in my reply.

 

[quatona]

I know I will be the subject of ridicule among atheisits if I say this, but I will say it anyways....

Will you be very disappointed if I won´t act upon your predictions and refuse to ridicule you for what you said?

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

Will you be very disappointed if I won´t act upon your predictions and refuse to ridicule you for what you said?

Its past experience that led to me use words that I used. My 'predictions' were met with categorical dismissal of them with a solid dose of sarcasm when I talked about it sometime ago.

Talk of an absolute is shunned like the virus by the atheists, or so it seems. May be I should wait for quantum physics to unravel new insights into the nature of things.

 

[quatona]

Its past experience that led to me use words that I used. My 'predictions' were met with categorical dismissal of them with a solid dose of sarcasm when I talked about it sometime ago.

Yes, we all have our experiences with persons who we subsume under certain categories.

Talk of an absolute is shunned like the virus by the atheists, or so it seems.

Maybe it seems so. Yet, the fact that plenty of atheists keep discussing ideas like Gods existing pretty much shows that they - although in most cases not convinced of absolutes (some indeed are) - are willing to discuss such hypotheses.

May be I should wait for quantum physics to unravel new insights into the nature of things.

Whatever. That was not my point, though. Making a claim and predicting unreasonable, ridiculing or aggressive responses from a certain group is usually not well received by this group and is likely to work as a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is not an accepted method in the fine arts of communication.
I´m sure you and those who share your views will crucify me for this post.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

Yes, we all have our experiences with persons who we subsume under certain categories.


Maybe it seems so. Yet, the fact that plenty of atheists keep discussing ideas like Gods existing pretty much shows that they - although in most cases not convinced of absolutes (some indeed are) - are willing to discuss such hypotheses.


Whatever. That was not my point, though. Making a claim and predicting unreasonable, ridiculing or aggressive responses from a certain group is usually not well received by this group and is likely to work as a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is not an accepted method in the fine arts of communication.
I´m sure you and those who share your views will crucify me for this post.

Point taken.

I just did not want to give anyone an opportunity to think that I am running on the road shouting 'Eureka, Eureka' and it is their responsibility to bring me to my senses.

From the responses (or lack thereof) so far, I tend to think that it didn't turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy after all.

Once bitten, twice shy...

 

[quatona]

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

Looking at your profile, I see that you'd have seen and experienced more in life than me.

I always respect the wisdom gained by life's experiences, whether you believe in such things or not.

Just wanted to share.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Talk of an absolute is shunned like the virus by the atheists, or so it seems. May be I should wait for quantum physics to unravel new insights into the nature of things.

You might want to hope that something more foundational supplants quantum physics if it's absolutes you're looking for.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

You might want to hope that something more foundational supplants quantum physics if it's absolutes you're looking for.

I am not looking for absolutes. My interest lies in The Absolute, the philosophical one.

 

[happygrl35]

If 'eternal' means to exist forever into the past and forever into the future - how can god be 'eternal' and exist outside of time ?

Maybe you had better recheck your deffinition

If an entity is removed from time (whatever this nonsense could possibly mean!) how could it then display a facet of the very thing it is said to be divorced or discrete from?

StrawMan

Practically what does it mean to say something is "non-material", is it the same as saying "it does not exist" ?

Are you denying the extsence of the non-material,you had better think about that one again.

You may replace the word with "supernatural", but this is just semantics and the question remains, What does "supernatural" mean to any of us other than something we don't understand.

I don't use the term,I ask it be deffined by the person using it.

You may find true enlightenment when you, at least consider, that you just may have been wrong all along about these superstitious beliefs.

I think I will be the judge of where I fine *true enlightenment*

In the field of quantum mechanics we have events such as 'virtual' particles popping into being without cause,

So you are suggesting that virtual particles absolutely have no cause or origin and just appear out of nothing for no reason?

 

[Telephone]

If 'eternal' means to exist forever into the past and forever into the future - how can god be 'eternal' and exist outside of time ?

Maybe you had better recheck your deffinition

My understanding of 'eternal' is to exist forever, both into the past and into the future, to be without end.

That 'end' eternal is without, that future eternal exists in and that past it has existed in are all facets of time.

If you have a different interpretation of the word perhaps you could share it, and explain your understanding of it.

StrawMan

It is your god who is Straw.

Are you denying the extsence of the non-material,you had better think about that one again.

It was a question, It questions the ideas of spirit and the supernatural, angels and holy ghosts, all of those things we cannot see, hear or sense in anyway.

Practically what does it mean to say something is "non-material", is it the same as saying "it does not exist" ?

What might supernatural mean ?

you are suggesting that virtual particles absolutely have no cause or origin and just appear out of nothing for no reason?

No, I am not suggesting this, our leading scientists are suggesting this.

Recent discoveries in quantum theory, along with research conducted by Stephen Hawking and his team in the UK, has shown that matter (particles) can and does arise spontaneously from the vacuum fluctuation energy of empty space (they live for only tiny fraction of time and spontaneously disappear). When I use the word 'spontaneously ' here, I mean it in the sense that these particles are not prompted into existence but appear without cause, these are real effects, and they can be demonstrated experimentally.

 

[Code-Monkey]

No, I am not suggesting this, our leading scientists are suggesting this.

Recent discoveries in quantum theory, along with research conducted by Stephen Hawking and his team in the UK, has shown that matter (particles) can and does arise spontaneously from the vacuum fluctuation energy of empty space (they live for only tiny fraction of time and spontaneously disappear). When I use the word 'spontaneously ' here, I mean it in the sense that these particles are not prompted into existence but appear without cause, these are real effects, and they can be demonstrated experimentally.

There are problems with finding a cause, but when leading scientists try to suggest that there is no cause, then they have left the realm of science and have entered the realm of philosophy. There will never be a scientific theory that says there is no cause to some event... It's an argument from ignorance. I don't know what the cause is, so therefore there is no cause.

 

[Telephone]

There are problems with finding a cause, but when leading scientists try to suggest that there is no cause, then they have left the realm of science and have entered the realm of philosophy.

I am sure a scientist with any kind of integrity would hardly claim there was no cause because he simply could not find that cause.

I am sure people were equally incredulous when told that there was a 'cap' on speed, that nothing could travel any faster than 300,000 kilometers per second.

There will never be a scientific theory that says there is no cause to some event...

Steven Hawkings proposed a theory that avoided a beginning to the universe, instead proposing a mathematical relationship where the time domain (square root of -1 times time) is related to real time in such a way that the time domain does not have a singularity (beginning) because it has the shape of a sphere (3).

Here is theory that postulates an event (the universe) has no cause.

There are many others.

It's an argument from ignorance. I don't know what the cause is, so therefore there is no cause.

There is no argument from ignorance at all, the experiment did not leave the scientists looking for a cause, it showed them that there was no need for a cause for the event.