This is really an impossible question, but i wondered if any of the brilliant minds in here would take a shot at it.. ? Maybe if we tried to speculate on this, we might understand what, or whom God is... It really doesn't matter if God is omnipotent or not, something, or someone must have created him as well... Anyone?
If anyone can answer that question, it will be a first. Bible doesn't say that God was created. ------------------ God loves you and so do I!
This is a dangerous question to ask because it could lead to an infinite chain of creators who keep on creating one another : a super god creates god while this super god is created by a super super god and so on... In the christian tradition God is not created but is simply there all along, being infinite in time and space,and any other diminsion you can think of. You know what lets just give him the Hilbertspace with its infinite amount of dimensions, that 'll keep him busy for a while. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! In the words of Aristotle (who was Thomas of Aquino's most favorite philosopher even though he was a heathen): God is the Immovable Mover, the first instigator without being instigated himself. But as I have shown in an other thread I don't think this image of god is feasable so the question who created god also becomes obsolete. ------------------ "If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants." Isaac Newton [This message has been edited by Plato (edited September 28, 1999).]
Another possibility for this is that man created God for purposes we do not know. In many traditions, including Christian, unknown occurances are attributed to God. He could be a means only to explain the unknown and satisfy the human want to not be the highest being. For, if we were, we would have to hold ourselves accountable for our actions. It's just a thought. ------------------ Peace and Long Life; Live Long and Prosper. --Spock
How about this...time is a dimension which God transcends? We just can't understand that because we don't...as of yet anyway. So, God was not created. Not to say that jives in my head, cause it doesn't, it never did, and probably never will until I'm dead (first death). Later. ------------------ God loves you and so do I!
That is very good Lori, that means : 1) that you know what time really is 2) that you know the nature of god Could you elaborate a little more on these things ? ------------------ "If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants." Isaac Newton
I think that *God* in whatever form you make of it, is symbiotic with the universe. What else is there besides no God... OH, so it' a separate but infinite God, that controls the physical realm as it sees fit? Ok, so God has it's own rules I see. The only logical answer is that God is a function of the universe, as the universe is a function of God. There's no separating the two no matter what religion you adhere to. Who created God IMHO is not a valid question. Ps-- It's just a thought, feel free to let me have it if this sounds totally whacked. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, I can elaborate...The time I'm referring to would be the dimension of time, or the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues; the nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which suceed one another from past through present to future. God is a spiritual being who is omnipotent and omnipresent, which basically means that He is our creator and He transcends time as we know it. I say as we know it because I'm unsure if our concept of time is nonexistent or different in the spiritual realm, or if it is the same progression there, and God just has a way of trandscending it. Sometimes people do that too you know? Have visions of the future...that's how the prophecy in the Bible was written. It was actually shown to the prophets; they actually witnessed it. ------------------ God loves you and so do I!
GammaEridon has it right, and history will be his pillar of support. It is the only God-theory that is testable through physical evidence (artifacts and anscient rites demonstrating progression of faith) -- and so far it seems to come out in flying colors. Plato and Tiassa have already discussed the anthropological picture of the origins of faith pretty extensively in other threads. ------------------ I am; therefore I think.
Gods as a whole were created by our ancestors to explain what they could not explain for themselves. I try to imagine what the first of our kind to ponder a geyser or a volcano must have thought, assuming that it didn't kill the grinning idiot in the process. It would be very easy to imagine a great beast beneath the surface, where no man had gone before. I believe that the fiery terror of a lava flow must have started the image of Hell and the underworld, while the soothing rains that made things grow gave rise to a Heaven in the skies. Gods were created to dispel the shadowy world of "I don't know", and thusly to give us comfort in the face of the unknown and the terrifying.
That is a whole lot, Lori ! Let's go over them one at the time shall we ? Here you fall in a loophole, you try to explain time by way of a period which is a slice of time so this doesn't teach us a lot about the nature of time. Ok, so time is non spatial and it is a contiuum. I would agree certainly on the first part but raise doubts about the second. The truth is we don't know if it is a continuum, time could very well be discrete with such small intervals that we just can't measure them up untill now. What would the implications be for the transcendence of discreate time ? I don't know but we must bear in mind that time might hold some surpises for us. What ever you are doing here it is certainly not a valid conclusion from your premisses. Creator does not follow from omnipotence, omnipresence and being spiritual. As Boris has previously said the universe or multiverse if you prefer could have been there all along next to an omnipotent, omnipresent, spiritual being. suppose time is the same in the spiritual realm then god certainly won't live there because he transcendents time as we know it. So if there is something like a god who transcendents time there must be something like a spiritual realm that doesn't has the concept of time as we know it, in the very least god is the spiritual realm. That won't do for evidence I'm afraid. It takes an act of faith in the first place to accept the accounts of the prophets. Once you do that you don't have that much difficulties any more with accepting other peoples visions of the future. It is the first step that I don't follow, that I'm incapable of following since I believe there is an unsurmountable gap between the world of every day and the so called spiritual world. This urges me to refer the tails about the spiritual to the realm of fantasy ! However, what I can accept is that we are very much intertwained by the rest of the universe. Look at our planet for a start, all living creatures share the same heritage in the codes locked in their celluar nucleii. If we broaden the scope to the very elements that we are composed of then we can feel one with the intire universe since every where we look, we find the same chemical fingerprints in the spectra that we take from objects as far away as quasars. This means that we are not just foreign objects placed here by an even more foreign intelligence but we are the products of the forces and energies of the universe that surrounds us. Who needs a god with such a fantastical universe that surrounds us ? ------------------ "If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants." Isaac Newton
Oxygen, Prove your assumptions. Oh, that's right, you can't. Plato, If you have any problems with the definition of time that I gave you, then take it up with Webster's. That is the exact definition of time. Period. From omnipotence to creator is a valid conclusion. To be all knowing, and to be the only all knowing being, you have to be the creator. Why can't God be a spiritual being in the spiritual realm, where time exists, but he can trandscend it? Explain that to me. Also, it doesn't take faith to believe someone had a vision or prophecy, it takes common sense. It does not make common sense to assume that everyone on the planet throughout history who has had a spiritual encounter or experience is lying. It just doesn't, and I'm sorry to say that is the assumption that you and Boris make all the time. Both of your arrogance is borderline sickening. To think that you both are soooo much smarter than every person on the entire face of the earth throughout the history of man is a pipe dream at best. Listen you guys, if you want to continue to ignore the overwhelmingly huge amount of testimony regarding spirituality since the dawn of man, then go right ahead, but you are not doing yourselves any favors. It's impossible to debate this topic with you guys because your arguements make no sense. It is apparent that neither of you have any clue about what I'm talking about, and you're too vain and egofied to check it out for yourselves. Boris' statement regarding the fact that he thinks man is somewhere near the completion of knowing everything there is to know about the universe is hilarious. Makes me laugh. Also doesn't make any sense. Just take a look at the rate of increase in scientific advancement. It has INCREASED AT AN INCREASING RATE since I've been alive at least. So Boris, you're wrong, and mathematically at that. You pulled that statement right out of your ass and you know it. You guys are missing the most important thing in life. The meaning of life. You're missing it. You'll lose it. How in the world can you possible think that it is rational and logical to assume that most of the people on the face of the earth are liars or misunderstood? That's insane. I hate to break it to you guys, but you're not any smarter than the rest of us. Yea sure you can regurgitate a bunch of scientific mumbo-jumbo you learned out of a book, but anyone can do that. Your true level of intelligence is shown by the fact that you assume that you're smarter than any other religious person, alien abductee, or anyone else who's had a spiritual encounter on the face of the earth and throughout the history of man. I mean listen to that assumption!!!! That's insane!!!!!! ------------------ God loves you and so do I!
Lori, First I must apologise about my question for the nature of time, it was pure wickedness of my part bacause I know damn well that this is one of the most debated subjects in the past centuries where we will be going on with for quite a while... Then a question : why is it that you always think that people who don't see the world your way, they are egoïstic with an arrogance that is borderline sickening ? If I say that people are lying about having spoken to god then I don't mean this as a negative thing. Most of these people aren't doing this out of malevolence, they genuenly believe that they had an encounter, an enlightenment or some kind of contact with a spiritual being or divine presence. These people are not crazy but there are several other factors that need to be kept in mind. First of all, their environment. The profets of ancient times live in a society thorougly embedded with a concept of god. Atheïsm is a very recent development, a product of the 18th century so if these people had some kind of experience this was reïnforced by their surroundings and culture as truly being touched by god. Second the mind is a very strange thing ! We must be very careful to take everything that it tries to make us believe to hold for the truth ! Third the power of tradition and authority of certain people or sources. Once a whole bunch of people begin to agree that a certain book speaks the words of god himself, it gets very hard to make them think otherwise. For example, all through the middle ages scholars tried to reconsile the kosmologie of the ancients like Aristotle and Ptolemaus with the Holy Scripture. In the thirteenth century they succeded in the works of the scholastici like Bonaventura and Thomas of Aquino. Once this perfect harmony between the kosmos, god and man was established it stood there as an insurmountable mountain. It took several centuries before theologists realised that they could no longer hold on to it, the universe of the ancients simply was not right. Were these people morons ? Were they crazy ? Was it arrogance of Newton to dismiss the teachings of Ptolemaus or Thomas of Aquino ? It certainly took a great deal of courage to shatter this magnificent construct of the middelages but it had to be done. ------------------ "If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants." Isaac Newton
hi god should be plural.gods. thats what people thought they were,but they were the Nefilim (which means "those who came down") from the planet Nibiru,the 12th planet.when its close enough to earth,every 3600 years,they can travel here.when they came here they made us, genetically mixing their dna and certain monkeys dna. thats why theres a missing link-them. these "gods" are are big,12 feet tall.monkeys are short.we are in between.we were enslaved by the"gods" to do work,mining gold,building pyramids etc. Zecharia Sitchin explains it all in his books but hes also on the net...........check it out.........nik
JMitch: You wrote "I think that God . . . is symbiotic with the universe. What else is there besides no God ...." I would like to throw in the notion that the universe IS God, thus leading to the question "What else is there besides God?" It leaves the question just as open, and prevents people of any specific faith from restricting God to a single image. If we look, say, at Greek myth, the gods have much to say about the nature of human conduct. This does not seem odd to me, since civilization was still a novel concept on such a scale, and the rules of human conduct were still quite random. Hebrew Qabalism, for the paltry study I've given it, appears to me to be a large, representative philosophy inextricably linked with Hebrew language and alphabet; I have an affinity for the various theories that search ancient written Hebrew for mathematical advisements. What do the Ten Commandments tell us about human conduct? And is it fair to expect a church-as-political-entity to stick in a couple of arrogances? ("No gods before me" and "That's my name, don't wear it out.") Likewise, I'm fascinated by various Druidic ideas. For example, Dr. Barry Fell's "America BC" discusses the presence of Phonecian, Nubian, Tartessian, and Irish expeditions on the North American continent millennia before the arrival of the murderer Columbus. There are various temples scattered throughout the eastern United States which very strongly resemble temples in Ireland and Britain; there are alphabetic, linguistic, and stylistic correllations leaping from the data. What is important is to my point is that each of the temples is properly aligned with the sun, the moon, and the stars, accounting for ideas like precession, and the metonic cycle. Precession takes about 400 years to mark, but is constant worldwide. The metonic cycle takes 19 years to mark, and varies according to geography. Which meant that, after arriving on the continent, the priests had to spend 19 years figuring the temple alignment. Is there an iota of science here? Probably. But, in general, we write off some things because they are religion. I can't recall if any recent American or European has been credited with documenting the metonic cycle for the first time, but this religious idea's value to science has paid off greatly. I didn't mean to draw that out, so ... I'm unwilling to speak ill of the core religion itself, as there might be an inherent value I haven't yet figured. But I'm also unwilling to let other people dictate the terms in which I consider God. And in the modern day, religious zealots seem to care more about faith and dominion than the inherent value of their philosophy. So if we dismiss these people from consideration for a moment, and attempt to make "God", as an idea, synonymous with "universe", then we can say that learning about God involves learning about the universe, not going out and gathering petition signatures to ban books, movies, sex, drugs, or anything like that. thx, Tiassa ------------------ "Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock) [This message has been edited by tiassa (edited October 01, 1999).]
Tiassa, Thank you for adding that. I've had the same notion myself. It's not about dismissing anyone, or putting those of faith down. It's all about unity, my friend. On the premise of God=Life we should act accordingly. It's an everyday test. (philosopher mode: off)
Lori, You are putting words into my mouth again. Quote one place where I presumed that all spiritual "evidence" consists of pure lies. I do not exclude outright fabrications , street hoaxes, and "me too, me too" wishful tales -- however I never claimed that all "evidence" was of such a dismal origin. I do admit (and indeed am quite interested in) the possibility that a certain portion of "paranormal" experiences were artifacts of human brain function. I also believe quite a few "spiritual" phenomena reside in sensory illusion or misinterpretation of physical phenomena. I am even willing to admit, just for laughs, the remote possibility of certain unearthly visitations. What I do not accept as an explanation is the totally impossible and elaborate concoction of the "spiritual world". Likewise, I never said that scientific knowledge is nearing completion. What I did say is that knowledge of <u>fundamental phenomena</u> is nearing completion (even if only assymptotically.) Just because you know the laws of quantum electrodynamics that drive a computer, doesn't mean you have knowledge of all possible programs that this computer can execute. The same with physics: we are approaching a complete enumeration of all the basic building blocks (as in the Grand Unified Theory) -- but this does not mean we will soon perfectly understand the dynamics of every physical process in existence. Knowledge of the written world begins with the alphabet. We are only just about mastering the alphabet; the book of Reality remains largely unread. What I am saying is that you are confusing basic science with applied science. The technological and "scientific" explosion of the last decades has largely been in the applied fields. This is not to say that the observable universe constitues an ultimate expression of existence; there may be higher realities, even giving rise to our own like a ripple on the surface of a deep ocean. However, what this means is that we are heading for the point of collecting all the building blocks necessary to explain absolutely every single phenomenon we observe in terms of deterministic physical processes (thereby excluding anything "paranormal", and guaranteeing "mundane" explanation to everything that used to go unexplained in the past.) <hr> Once again, in attacking my and Plato's collective "arrogance", you juxtapose the modern perspective with that of the anscients. This is not a fair comparison because the anscients did not have the knowledge we do. If they did, I bet the majority of them would also have become atheists, or at least agnostics. Both you and I draw our knowledge from books of one kind or another. Though, my books are far better grounded in reality -- you <u>must</u> concede at least that. ------------------ I am; therefore I think.
Lori, what I would like to add. Your biggest argument for paranormal phenomena, talking to god and UFO's seem to be because there are so many testimonies. This is not really that good because each testimony doesn't stand on its own, there is correlation between them. If you want to see how easy it is to throw balls through a hole then you can take 100000 balls and throw them in the hole, count how many there are inside and divide that number by 100000. How ever suppose each time you get a ball inside the hole devellops a bit more of attractive force so that the next balls fall in more easily. At the end you will count a huge amount of balls inside but this number gives us not the same information as the previous one. People talk to one another, they like to exagurate their stories and thus other people compare their experiences with that of their peers and add something to the stories. This is not out of nastiness of with the evil intend to decive, it is simple distortion of information because of unreliable means of transferring it. I am quite confident that you are reading the exact letters that I typed here but I am less confident that their meaning is transferred as I intended. I'm not even sure if what I write is really what I want to say so if there is so much distortion, how can you be absolutely certain of anything ? tiassa, about presession : if you mean the time it takes for the earth axis to make one tour that takes about 25000 years, not 400 unless I don't know what you are talking about ofcourse which is very possible given the above mentioned distortions... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ "If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants." Isaac Newton [This message has been edited by Plato (edited September 30, 1999).]
JMitch-- I owe you a clarification. When I said "dismiss people", I merely meant that we cannot let others' ideas of God (whether "right" or "wrong") set the path we choose to follow. If I might: When I finally chose to not participate in the Christian process, I found that my ideas about the mysteries of the universe were still confined to the ridiculous dualism of Christ and Satan. When I dismiss those notions, choose not to argue "against" them directly, I'm allowing myself another path, rather than simply plunging down the trail into the dark mire of one church's political and philosophical shortcomings. Only when I chose to not call myself Christian or Satanist could I begin to see deeper questions, including the anthropological and historical aspects I explore in this forum. I agree that we cannot dismiss the people themselves, but there's no need to argue with a faith that cannot, by its nature, be given up. *** Plato-- Precession refers to inaccuracies in our measurements of orbital speed. Actually, it's much like a Leap Year. If we set the calendar we have, and follow it for four-hundred years or so, the equinoxes and solstices will, at the end of that period, occur a day earlier in the calendar. thx, Tiassa ------------------ "Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
