well only logic which fits creation theory is that god got bored doing nothing and so created universe for fun..so god's creation is entertainment means and nothing else...
seems like he can't keep up with the explosion in population - maybe that's why he doesn't answer prayers?
prayer has nothing to do with god..prayers do get answered depending on faith...faith works at brain level and doesnot need god entity...if there is god it has formed an automatic system and is not concerned about how human live their life and why should god be concerned considering there are so many species out here and we are mere one of them...
why should a god that is not involved with "his creation" expect to be worshipped?
well that is religious god and religion was formed by humans...humans gave attribute to god like those which humans had...being praised , being worshipped , getting angry , getting happy etc etc..those are emotions which humans have and since humans formed religion , even religious god does have that attribute...if god is real it doesnot make sense for someone like god to interfere in daily life of one species...we cannot count out so many species which existed before humans and which still do exist...so when god doesnot intefere in their lives , why would god do that in human's life...but since we humans want to add meaning to our lives , we create god which is interested in us much like our parents are interested in us...
the assumption that God is not involved with his creation is your opinion. My opinion is that God is very involved with his creation. As far as worship goes, that is merely thanksgiving. When your favorite sports team scores a goal and wins the game, do you just sit there or get a little excited? God scores goals all the time, but aside from that... upon salvation, the saved person is permitted entrance into all that God has for them, yes from disneyland tickets to hunger, depending on the job God HAS to do with His child who is growing In Him. When an aspiring jesus like individual enters into Gods rest, for not by our strength or might but by His spirit, do we obtain a glorious reward and we did not have to struggle to get this. God is worthy of worship, its a humility thing. lol, but heavy on the team scoring the goal aspect.
ofcourse it is my opinion hanging out and i have my reasons for that opinion...just like you have your opinion and your reasons...so it is fair enough...isn't it...btw how are you doing ?
He is involved with His creation,but he didnt create races of mindless robots.
Mankind has lousy morals and wrecks everything he puts his hands on.
At least a monkey will take care of his family,doesnt need to put up fences to protect his property etc etc...
And some people think we descended from monkeys
Ask the monkey ,bet hes got plenty to say about that.
God judges the hearts. Sounds to me like he is completely able to answer audible or silent prayers and even before we ask it, sometimes we never even asked for it.
I know what he did after creating this universe.
As per hinduism, universal creator created many demigods to make females pregnant on many occasions just to complete the dramatic story for 2-3 epic holy books.
As per Christianity, universal creator made one virgin pregnant and sent his son inside her to forcefully convert people under Christianity,oppose them for homosexuality and also by granting right to brainwash, preaching by sending non-believers to hell to prove his point. Universal creator also created cult like mormons, JW as part of highly intelligent christian culture.
As per islam, universal creator never appeared but sent pedophile prophet to marry little girl and post jokes in books called hadith and quran. If these jokes are boring for you then universal creator also created ahamdiya cult to let you enjoy your morning coffee.
thats a mouthful. lol.
grrr to the christian part lol so i will tackle the forceful issue.
God said to place seeds and God would give the increase. God said to love one another. God created a natural order, male and female created He them. The right to brainwash, well, unfortunately or not, islam, mormonism are two factions of religionism that DO indoctrinate. Most islam have memorized the koran by age 14, that's indoctrination!, christians are few who know the bible inside and out by age 40. Most indoctrination is done in sunday school at a young age but rejected by the preteen years or later. I am somewhat against the sunday school aspect and prefer a child to be a child, knowing childish things until they are older, until then, they may watch the walk of the parent at home.
Still a noteable post skyfire. Thanks for contributing that.
He was probably creating other Universes, and people, and stuff. That's probably what he's doing right now.
These types of questions are not covered in scriptures. Believers will have to fall back on their own imaginations to form an answer. You'll find those with the most vivid imaginations coupled with intellectual dishonesty to be the ones who attempt to answer.
the desire to answer such a question honestly would be the true compunction behind such action-IF the Christian is trying to be christ-like.
Anyone will have to assume that the person answering is trying not to be christ-like to conform to the scenario you have set up, with once again your derogatory and demeaning wordage, installed to cause division and anger as usual. It would be nice if you could post a post and not be condescending or insulting.
There is a thing called 'spiritual common sense', the unsaved have a thing called 'common sense' and their parents urge them from time to time to use this 'common sense' when engaging in matters of worldly concern. So in the spiritual realm WE are to use 'spiritual common sense', hence some who have thought long and hard and even asked God for help just might (in a christ-like scenario) come up with a good answer.
A fool disallows an answer to a question before having heard the result.
its a proverb somewhere ;0)
"Spiritual common sense"? You can't be serious? LOL. That's like saying it makes common sense that Tinkerbell had to spread pixie dust on Peter Pan so he could fly.
That's nice. Considering the spiritual realm can't possibly exist outside a fantasy world and no believer has ever shown this realm to exist, it is a simple matter of disallowing their answers as pure bunkum.
he was busy destroying what the other creator did before him.
The question presumes time is linear. May I suggest that our perception of time is linear, but time itself is not.
God came from nothing,
meaning there was nothing before Him
nor anything apart from him including all time.
So everything before and after are all within God.
To ask what went before God is to not understand these things?
I quoted the title to answer- I would first ask you to define "god", before insinuating real.
No one can honestly and legitimately say "god" actually exists. Because, it's actually unknown. The concept of a "god" is what exists. However, applying a person/place or thing, to the term "god" is delusional.
Nothing can do nothing.
The concept of a "god" was brought on, so that a perceived notion would never come to pass. The concept of a "god" was brought on by delusional images before human consciousness was gained.
in order to discover the definition of God you would have to read the previous posts in which God is clearly discussed in many many posts. To jump into a thread mid way and say "whats the definition of God" is kinda strange to put it mildly.
God actually exists.. there i said it and not just to prove you wrong but i believe that and so do 2 billion others around the world, to some degree or another. Of course you know there is belief, steadfast, unyeilding, unmovable, unswayable belief and then belief which rolls off the tip of the tongue when necessary and not to often.
A god who shows emotion and love through the body of jesus christ and shows anger and causes nature to bend to his power, works contrary to your assumption of delusional. It is in my opinion: delusional NOT to believe in God. So there. We are now two opinions and without backup or a knockout punch our opinions amount to nothing.
So in this case your nothing can do nothing is true. We both amounted to nothing.
But thanks for stopping by
have many great days.
I love this question! I'll bet this one would knock a televangelist on their ass. I'm guessing since our religion is based on God creating the universe, heaven, and earth, that there would be no question about what was going on before those events occurred.
This is almost like the what came first? The Chicken or the Egg?
We could also ask the same question of Scientist who stick to the big bang theory. What was going on before the big bang?
I don't really care that much either way. I am glad to be alive on this planet. I am more worried about people attempting to ruin it over nonsense like religion, than how we got here.
I think teaching people that there is a powerful being that may drop the ball on the planet at any moment, was a huge mistake. I think we would be much better off, if it stay burried in the past.
Being nothing, doing nothing. Infinite potential not yet realized. Who created God? Man did!
I'm guessing he was high on cocaine, lsd, and meth at the time.
trippin the light fantastic!
He and the other "impish" "gods" were sitting in the "board" room reviewing plans for their creation of the universe and considering theme park suggestions for the planet earth and it's clownish inhabitants...which by the way they created in their images. I can't remember for what purpose???
Wait for the next ... around Seven billion replies ... if you still do not have the answer ... try asking God.
What was God doing before creating the universe? He was doing what we all do... PRACTICING PROCREATION!
There will always be an unending chain of gods and also creation. This process of mortality and working out one's own life is being duplicated and going on all across the universe. It is those who prove themselves worthy through their life choices that are inherently exalted to such stations.
better first we know the real identity of God, who he is? and for your information God is Supreme Soul.
Was probably wondering who created him/her/it?
Your question involves the concept of time, God is timeless.
Very good question. I will look for answers from our theist friends.
while you're at it, ask them WHY god created a universe
tricky question. Suppose the universe were empty. Would not people say, why would god create so much space and leave it empty? Suppose the universe were full of celestial bodies, then people would say, "there must be life out there and therefore we are just a fluke in the universe.
Either way, God is condemned to folly. God is condemned either way.
I have a hub on it. feel free.
That's a very famous question. Theists always use it in their argumentative tactics to claim that they KNOW God, and to claim that we can NEVER KNOW God.
St. Augustine claimed that even when God reveals himself, God still remains a mystery beyond words. He claimed that we can NEVER KNOW God; we can't put Him in a box:
“If you understood him, it would not be God.” (St. Augustine, Sermo 52, 6, 16: PL 38, 360 and Sermo 117, 3, 5: PL 38, 663)
Then, of course, St. Augustine also invented the antidote to this tactic, so that he can use it to win BOTH sides of the argument. He argues that if you don’t KNOW God, then you are really stupid....of course everyone knows God!
“Those who say these things do not as yet understand Thee, O Thou Wisdom of God, Thou light of souls; not as yet do they understand how these things be made which are made by and in Thee.” (Confessions, Book XI, Ch 11)
And by using this antidote, St. Augustine claimed to KNOW EXACTLY what God was up to before the Creation of the Universe; even though he unwittingly implicated himself to eternal hellish torture with this knowledge:
“Behold, I answer to him who asks, ‘What was God doing before He made heaven and earth?’ He was preparing hell, saith he, for those who pry into mysteries." (Confessions, Book XI, Ch 12)
Quite the circus show
Was St. Augustine's cat dead or alive when he looked in the box? :-))
well, in that case, if god created all things, god created hell (which I've heard was "originally for the devil", and the devil was created by god), so god created sin, and suffering and called it free choice. Doesn't sound like very forward thinking for a god that's supposed to know everything including the future!
If one believes in devil.. small d not a proper name.
St augustine was catholic and there's a doctrine or three one cannot take to the bank. It does seem a contrary thing to know that God created a devil. So lets look at both sides.
The devil is a contained being that serves the purposes of God to sway mankind, inevitably bringing about the conclusion to things as God has revealed in Revelation. If the devil is a tool, then a tool is not to be considered wrong to be made if useful. Interesting.
And if the devil is just a catholic invention to control the masses (my preferred diagnosis) then the devil doesn't exist and people who blame God for making a devil are deceived.
God wins either way and he has revealed the future.
the point was - god created something evil/capable of evil/death/destruction, if god created anything at all
my point was, he didn't create something evil like the devil. And sin, well, lets look at that too.
what destroys society? wrongful behavior or sin. God didn't create sin, sin somewhat formed as a result of doing things wrong. Kinda hard to avoid since there is a right and wrong way. God created, molded, formed and instructed the right way, in fact went to extreme measures to ensure that sin was not a preferred choice, and well, sin manifested its ugly head anyway, by which came suffering, cause and effect, hmmmm. And well, free choice is what a loving parent gives to their children when they earn it, so, i guess that makes them evil too.. better to have robots living in a world that works than to have free will or choice. Would you like to be a puppet? I don't think so.
God knowing the future gave his only son that whosoever should call on him might be saved. plan b.
what I'm getting at, is it doesn't sound like a very good "design" if humans can go from "sinning" eating a piece of fruit to "sinning" murdering each other. Couldn't he have made humans more respectful and still have free choice?
Did God create Satan? (or is that made up too?) As for this fallen angel stuff, why didn't God create good angels
all angels are good. Angels were not made with the ability to sin. They are spirit and not made of flesh which has the ability to sin. There is nowhere in the bible where any free will action of an angel is described. An angel is told to kill 180,000 people, did it balk? run? say no? none of these, it went and did. Angels were created to serve God. So no fallen angels and hence no satan. If the OT and the NT are not broken and yet there are two completely different pictures presented in each, which pictures are opposites, then something is broken: most likely our gentile understanding is off base and we are not searching and asking God to give us the answer. We may be parroting what we were taught from a catholic offshoot churches doctrine. Many people believe that the book of enoch is an important book but i disagree but i will not get into that here, other than just to say, It was not written by enoch but by a literary student who used pagan literature to compile a book that became a best seller and much trouble to the early church, so much in fact the book of jude and peter deal with false teachers and false doctrines. God has never called an angel a son and therefore the sons of god cannot be angels but are people, yes even in job, the satan is a person who hated and cursed job and the wisdom writing here is, Curses are at the will of God as much as blessings. The mythical satan cannot call down fire, no angel ever has, God stirs up nations to war against nations and nature is totally at gods command. Satan is supposed to be an angel not a supernatural being with the equivalent powers of God and one extra... possessing humans.
Sorry that went on a bit more than intended.
Sin. Is the inclination of the flesh to want to do 'bad' stuff, since flesh rarely wants anything else than to appease its own wants and desires. The mind gives us the guidance we need to change the direction of the flesh, that flesh which only thinks of itself. The piece of fruit was not a piece of fruit but a course of action, sin and then another sin and another until God could no longer walk with adam and one day the sinning went to far and god said "Adam where are you?" God knew where adam was but God had not been walking with adam, and adam and eve did what was right in their own eyes, according to their own wills and sin, as it always does, ruins society and in this case, specifically, what God wanted to have.
from sining fruit to sinning murder, this is why i am not an advocate of "lets kill all christians and then the world will run smoother". Cain and abel were outside the garden; did god walk with adam and eve outside the garden? not like he did inside the garden so the two brothers were alone without God around and hence a murder. This is typical of ungodly mankind ruling themselves. The stock market needs a tweak so there is an induced 'crash' and murder/suicides occur and few call on the name of god for understanding. This is brief, sorry about that.
There is a new revelation in christianity, the take responsibility for yourself christian who does not believe in satan. Brotheryochanan has been the best to tackle this fresh concept, that i am aware of, and i have ordered the book Christianity, satans other god. But you are right, how can we marry the idea of a god that loves with a god that will make you burn forever and ever, which seems rather spiteful. We can grasp some sort of punishment, separation from God, but a God that loves will not cause endless torment. This does not make sense. If jesus says love your enemies, how can God torture forever and ever, would not say, 500 yrs be enough lol.. or a much much smaller time than forever and ever. There are examples in the bible of forever and ever being an era or a designated amount of time but rarely, eternity. It is much easier to marry a god of love with a god who will not punish forever and ever and yet, still judge sin, by a separation or a BY says, extermination, like the snuffing of a candle flame.
whew.. glad i took typing in highschool LOL
@fatfist. You quote Augustine, but didn't go to the Bible for the answer. Why am I not surprised?
At any rate, Paul says we only see dimly, as through a veil, but then (when we are fully in His presence) we shall see Him AS HE IS.
In another verse, it says that we shall know (Him) even as we are known (by Him).
At the moment, it is a paradox. We can't know Him, because of our fleshly limitations, BUT, when we shed these earthly bodies, we SHALL know Him.
So, yes, he is knowable, yet unknowable. My peace of mind on this is that I know Him in this bady of mine as well as I can know Him, as much as He reveals Himself to me, but this will change one day.
if you can't know him, then how can you claim to have a personal relationship with him/her/it?
BUT, when we shed these earthly bodies, we SHALL know Him.
So, yes, he is knowable, yet unknowable
only problem there won't be any "we" to know
Maybe each universe has its own god - maybe there are sh*tloads of universes out there too far to see. Maybe there are sh*tloads of supreme beings out there in the woods.
He had to be going something besides watching his sons....
Cause they snuck out of the yard and came down here to visit the daughters of mankind.
Before that he was making sons..
At least "So I heard"
well if one considers the sons of God in genesis 6:4 to be angels then
Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
Hebrews is wrong.
Hebrews is not wrong.
If one does a study about the sons of God, we will quite plainly see that in each reference people are the subject and not angels.
A thing not considered concerning creation is that God created the heaven and earth in 6 days but the rest of the cosmos may have been his canvass long prior too the making of our world and all that we see.
have many great days! :0)
Hanging out - Kinda hard to avoid since there is a right and wrong way
This is a major issue, for there to be right there must be an equal and opposite wrong, if your god made right then he could only do it by creating wrong. The same works with every aspect of any situation a god might find itself in - like prayer, you get the rain you ask for at my expense so any god cannot answer prayer - in fact a god can't do anything that does not produce an equal and opposite reaction.
In art when one draws the outline of an apple on a square sheet of paper and shades it entirely black. Is there not also at the same time a negative space around the apple. Was the negative space created after the apple? during the apple? or in spite of the apple? or was the negative space created at all and just happened to appear because of the apple?
Miracles do not interrupt the fabric of natural laws. in fact just the opposite. I have a hub about this too. When a sperm manifests in the womb of a virgin nature does not rebel but graciously accomodates, a pregnancy evolves and a child is born. In order to get you rain, God does not take clouds from brazil and quickly move them over, He creates new clouds which shower down rain and the earth accepts it just as normal rain. When jesus calmed the sea and wind, the wind did not back up and cause a tornado somewhere but dispersed and abated without ripple effect and the same with the waves, which were caused by the wind, they diminished and calmed, no fish were hurt in the process
Your black apple is only a black apple because of the white space around it - and it only became a black apple when you drew it. Before that it did not exist, and the white space was just a sheet of white paper.
Your clouds and wind can operate perfectly well with or without a god - and so do not add to the argument.
It's an inaccurate question "before..."
If God is eternal (and He is), then before is toally irrelevant!
Before is time related, and He is not BEFORE time, He is OUTSIDE of time.
God just IS.
In a sense, we can say that He "was" doing then exactly what He is doind now and will be doing forever future.
It shows very shalow and narrow tinking, to try and "pidgeonhole" God.
As gfor the question of good and evil, God knew exactly what was ahead for Him, and for all of us.
However, the point most, (I'd venture to say ALL) of you miss, is that to "FIX" the problem of evil, He had preapred a sacrifice. He took it upon Himself to pay the price for the ramifications of that evil, by way of His Son, Jesus Christ.
But, now I'm preaching th Gospel, which so many of you hate to hear. (Sorry,-not-, for it is part of the answer to the op question, and further posts).
well he thinks he knows...and that is fair enough...we all think we know but no body knows that what he/she knows is actually how it is or is personal understanding /interpretation...those who are convinced that they only know the truth start religion since conviction attracts people...
I just think the God did it and God isn't bound by the laws of physics etc is pretty lame; especially when creationists harp on about the scientists views are crap
well they have to start with constant...some starting point and that is called god by creationists...science doesnot know answer yet...so creationists have their way till science gets answer...once that happens new theory of god would emerge...that is part of human journey...
How can the laws of physics apply in a NON-material world?
Come on, your a free thinker.
If there was NO world, and He had to creat it, did He not also create the laws that (were to) govern it? Hmmmm
fair enough..nice point but no proof..it is mere concept and speculation...who says god created it?...we just think it might be one of possibility and we should be open to other possibilities too...may be god did or may be forces created god at first place...if world cannot come from nothing..there has to be something which creates god too...god too cannot come from nothing...if god is force or energy which creates ..that energy can't remain unconverted...so god was eternal is concept which doesnot have any proof as of now...and since no theory on how world was created has complete proof , we may believe what ever we want to without giving it tags like truth...tags should be i presume ...i think that is fair enough..isn't it?
You got my point, but also missed my point.
Read my post again, slowly, and see what the concept is.
Yes, it's a concept, and no proof is forthcoming. I don't have it. NO-ONE has it. It's a faith thing. (Youn gotta hate that, right?)
Scientists are no different. They have only hypotheses which they are trying to "prove".
Yes, it's a concept, and no proof is forthcoming. I don't have it. NO-ONE has it. It's a faith thing. (Youn gotta hate that, right?)
no i am not going to hate it..i understand your point of view...i only object to people's claim about they have the truth...it applies to people from all school of thought...religious or non religious...we are in journey of knowing what it is...till now in entire journey of human race , no body has reached to level where who created universe can be universally accepted truth...so it is my truth , your truth and so on...
so really, this force or energy or whatever is equivalent to God (but that doesn't necessarily make a personal God)
Obviously not to you.
He certainly presents Himself a personal God in the Bible.
If you reject it's teaching, you have no other choice but de-personalise Him, or deny Him. Not much option left, huh?
(He certainly presents Himself a personal God in the Bible. If you reject it's teaching, you have no other choice but de-personalise Him, or deny Him.)
A clarification, please. Do you mean a rejection of the teaching in the bible or do you mean a rejection of the inerrancy of the bible - or do you mean a rejection of your interpretation of the teaching in the bible?
Keep in mind that David Koresh taught the bible to the Branch Davidians at Waco. At the same time, there are many Christians worldwide who put little stock in the reliability of the bible and place their faith more in the institution of the church. Does that make Koresh right and other Christians wrong?
And really, this latter group has more in keeping with the earliest Christian churches who only had oral methods and the institution of the church iteself to offer them guidance. They had no bible.
And here is another oddity that I am sure you and other believers can rationalize away under the category of mysteries and such. Consider that the books that are in the bible were chosen by men, and even the divinity of Jesus is the result of a vote during Constantine's reign. There is not a single word of the original works of the New Testament to be found, the only surviving manuscripts being Greek language that are copies of copies of copies of copies, and it is estimated that between 200,000 and 300,000 discrepancies among the various manuscripts and parts of manuscripts available for study because all copies were hand done with legions of errors and many examples of purposeful changes made to texts.
Bottom line is that the bible is a most human book - so the question is whether or not you follow its general guidelines or whether you believe it is the inerrant word of God.
It is actually a worthwhile book if you accept it for what it is - human accounts of how each writer understood the oral teachings and legends of his day.
how can you have a personal relationship with someone and not know their history?
@baileybear science and religion differ only on living and non living nature of god...for science gravity is main hero...main force which supported by other forces created universe...now gravity and other forces can be defined as creator or in other words god...gravity cannot differentiate,judge , give eternal life , feel , react intelligently...religious god can...that is only difference...yes we do have a creator...for science gravity is the creator and for religion intelligent force which can feel , judge , react and above all think is creator or god...now when science says gravity created universe,religion counters who created gravity?...question is logical...but when science does ask who created god...religion answers god was always there..PERIOD..not logical answer...but since science doesnot have full answer yet...religion has its way...
(How can the laws of physics apply in a NON-material world?
Come on, your a free thinker.)
You obviously have paid a fee for your thoughts - and were overcharged.
You are correct that the laws of physics could not apply in a non-material world, including the physical laws of cause and effect. Yet, you then contradict yourself by saying that an immaterial being could then be a cause for the effect of a material world.
It can't be both at the same time. This violates the Law of Non-Contradiction. So your construct of an immaterial God who is capable of acting on a material world is a violation of both laws of physics and the laws of logic.
That pretty much places your story into the category of fairy tale.
How about....matter has always existed. I think this makes more sense than an eternal invisible being making something out of nothing
You have made these assertions:
P1: Before is time related, and He is not BEFORE time, He is OUTSIDE of time. God just IS.
P2: It shows very shalow and narrow tinking, to try and "pidgeonhole" God.
Conclusion: Therefore, God is eternal.
So basically your argument is this: if we can't explain it, it must be real?
no his argument was time was applicable to this worlds system and that God is outside of time, since, where the core of God is, in heaven, there is no time, hence, outside of time.
when we say that jesus is sitting on the right hand of the father, some may visualize a nice chair with jesus seated comfortably in it. This does not make our ideas silly or unreasonable or inaccurate and neither does it defy the viability of christianity as a whole. The scriptures say that jesus is seated in heaven on the right hand side of the father and this is true. Our vision or picture may be inaccurate but that does not negate this belief nor make us liars, if even obviously, jesus is not sitting on a nicely decorated chair. The right hand is the hand of power and authority which the metaphor references to and we have it correct even though the mental picture is somewhat different.
To say that God is outside time may be incorrect and correct both at the same time. Our comprehension puts God 'outside time' as God lives "over there somewhere" and, time is limited to our earthly abode and not His abode yet His Spirit is here also. And God is connected to time because he deals with us in our environment. He has been with us althrough our time and will also be in the future with us as he continues to exist and deal with us.
So just because we cannot explain something to your satisfaction doesn't make our point null and void or our belief stupid, its just that as christians and humans we have come to accept that we do not know all or everything and sometimes the picture we choose to embrace satisfies our comprehension as we move on to discover other parts of the puzzle and piece them together, hoping that one day to have fitted all the parts together and fully understand every tricky little bit about the spiritual realm which we as humans, in the flesh cannot know. This also is a part of walking by faith. As was mentioned before we see through a glass darkly but one day will see clearer than we see now.
hope this helped
thats like asking how come spongebob squarepants can talk when he is only a sea sponge.... you are trying to apply rationality to a cartoon...i figment of someone's imagination that is meant to be irrational. Kinda Like Star Wars Fans try nitpick everything about star wars... Its a fairytale and bears dont eat porridge in real life.
china man wrote ...
This is a major issue, for there to be right there must be an equal and opposite wrong, if your god made right then he could only do it by creating wrong. The same works with every aspect of any situation a god might find itself in -
- - - - - - -
Would this be true with or without a God having DONE IT ?
I would say so - in fact it would happen whether a god wanted to do it or not - it is just a fact that if you have good there must be bad.
Interesting that any god would NOT have any control over this phenomena ? Without it nothing would exist anyway - I would say. Perhaps someone full of science facts and stuff might want to comment on this?
I have told customers that there is no repair that is impossible to do. However The virtual "Impossible?" project costs more!
And quite often is not worth the price.
To have a world without opposites (good and evil) in my opinion wouldn't be worth the cost.
BUT having a world with less of both would be better - this is the same principle as the Chinese 'golden mean' or the best place is the middle ground in anything.
I agree with that concept.
Life is kinda like a road with a path running along both sides of it.
The unfortunate on the left side and the fortunate on the right.
If they were wise, those on the right side of the road would assist those on the main road because they are the ones that are maintaining the road. The road widens in their direction.
And those building the road, If they were wise would reach to their left to assist those that are in distress.
These then join the efforts of road building.
Pretty soon the ditches would be paved over and a big Tailgate Party would have been created.
Go Texans! Go Giants! Go Broncos! ETC!
Ah, you actually want evil to exist in the world. I certainly don't. Maybe that's why they have religions, to make sure evil continues to exist.
How many times have I heard scientific minded people insist that in this physical world, you can not have any reaction without having an equal and opposite reaction.
If we do away with evil ... according to the scientific minded such as yourself; we would have to do away with the Good.
So..it seems that you are putting up a sign and then argueing with it.
It seems that you are running in circles in your logic and laffing at those that are chasing you.
I knew someone that went to a wedding barefooted so that he could laff at the people that were laffing at him.
Was that you ?
Hilarious. What do the physical laws of the universe have to do with how people chose to react? The laws don't make choices, Jerami.
No, we would not have to do away with Good, that is ridiculous. People can chose to be good all the time.
Are you serious? Do you not see how utterly ridiculous it is to compare the laws of nature to the choices we as humans can make? You then have to admit to yourself that you too choose to be evil, Jerami.
If you could only hear and see yourself with the same attitude that you see everything else.
I chuckle ... but it isn't very funny.
I guess there is more wisdom in childish statements than first believed. "Takes one to know one"
Gotta go make pancakes.
In other words, you have to leave the discussion because you have no argument to offer as to why evil MUST exist.
yeah, some people are good most of the time, some people are bad most of the time. What does good and evil have to do with physics?
(....scientific minded people insist that in this physical world, you can not have any reaction without having an equal and opposite reaction.
If we do away with evil ... according to the scientific minded such as yourself; we would have to do away with the Good.)
You make a common error that concepts and objects are both subject to the same physical laws. They are not. Physcial laws govern "things". Concepts (good and evil) are ideas - the best one can accomplish with concepts is to show they are not illogical. However, since logic is a tautology to begin with, logic has no bearing on reality, and thus no physical cause and effect governs the manmade concepts of good/evil.
so i steal and go to jail is not a result of cause and effect?
concepts cannot show emotion. Well God does have emotion. The spirit shows love, joy, patients, etc.. these do not come from concepts but from a god who exists in this specific case. The only concept is the ability to believe. I believe in trees and trees exist so are trees concepts?.. nope trees exist. I believe in God so god exists. I know you will ask me to show you god but you don't have to believe in my concepts for my concepts to exist. My concepts exists as an object and thats as good as gold to me.
the God of the bible did not want adam to partake of sin, but as God said, ahh the man has become like us to know good and evil. If God wanted evil to exist in the world why would he insist that we love our enemies and the other 1,000 principles he states we ought to do to make sin flee from us? Why would god say, "be ye holy for i am holy". You take the bible out of context and then apply it to the christian, this is not fair and a twist of doctrine. You see now why there are so many bad christians, wrong interpretation comes easily to those who do not submit humbly to God.
Why would god have to create enemies in the first place? Why would he need to insist we love our enemies? Oh yes, the old "free will" argument. Funny how many have free will, yet they still choose to be good and have nothing to do with religions.
You missed the point entirely. Your hypothesis is that God is “something” rather than “nothing”.
Dj: “Paul says we only see dimly, as through a veil, but then (when we are fully in His presence) we shall see Him AS HE IS.”
Does God exist only when you “SEE” Him? Does the Sun exist only when you see it? How about light; does light not exist if you cannot see it and tell me whether it’s a billiard ball or a wave or something? Did the Sun and light not exist before you were born?
God exists or not irrespective of what your 5 senses tell you. Try to understand that! This is basic stuff.
dj: “In another verse, it says that we shall know (Him) even as we are known (by Him).”
Again, same issue.....God exists or not irrespective of what you claim to KNOW. Knowledge plays no role in existence. Basic stuff.
dj: “At the moment, it is a paradox.”
No, there is no paradox. You are “inventing” a supposed paradox because you want to play on BOTH sides of the argument like Augustine did.
1) When somebody questions you about God, you want to be able to say that: “We cannot hope to KNOW God. God is out of reach for humans. He is not a PERSONAL thing you can sense.”
2) But when somebody tells you there is no God, you want to be able to say: “Hey dummy! Of course God exists, we all KNOW our “PERSONAL” God and His good works! Just read the Bible and you will KNOW God. You can’t de-PERSONALIZE Him.”
The circus show continues to this day.....
Dj: “We can't know Him, because of our fleshly limitations, BUT, when we shed these earthly bodies, we SHALL know Him.”
Your argument is debunked. Just substitute anything invisible for “Him” in that sentence: light, air, atoms, gravity, magnetism,.....
Either God is SOMETHING or NOTHING.....take your pick. There is NO in-between!
But be VERY careful what you say.....because many theologians (William Lane Craig comes instantly to mind) say in no uncertain terms, that God is hypothesized to be SOMETHING. They say that God is BOUND by physical laws and CANNOT contradict them, and CANNOT contradict logic. They say that God is "bound" by the Law of Causality, except, that He was the First Uncaused Cause. You really need to do your homework, dj.
Can you de-bunk William Lane Craig’s statements, dj? Trying to do so would create a bigger circus atmosphere for you.
"What was God doing before creating the universe?"
Taking a nap.
When His experiment is concluded and He is ready for His next nap, He will delete this universe in preparation for the next one.
I don't know, but there was a big queue at the public toilets where he was and I think he was up to no good in them public toilets....George Michael was there too!
Who in the world could possibly answer this question?
I mean really???
IF: God is energy(pure of course) Then God was neither created, nor can He be destroyed. He wasn't born, nor does he die. He doesn't increase, nor decrease, The same amount was at (and before) the Big Occassion as there is now unto the end (and after) for God (energy) always has been, is, and always will be. Further, if you "removed" God, then all would cease to be, and every single element of this creation reflects aspects of God's personality, including the presence of intelligent consciousness. Einstein proved God.
Oh, and he was watching a tennis tourny between The Son and the Holy Spirit...6-love.
(IF: God is energy(pure of course))
Actually, God is the same thing - a concept. There is no object called "energy" anywhere in the universe. It is a descriptive term mathematicians and engineers developed as a shortcut for their formulas.
That means that if God is energy, then he was dreamed up by mathematicians and engineers, also. But I think early man dreamed up God well before mathematics was invented, so God cannot be energy.
God can rationally only be one of two things: matter or space. If God is matter, he has shape and is an object. If he is space, then he is nothing. The Law of Non-Contradiction does not allow God to be both at the same time. The Laws of Physics do not allow God to switch back and forth between matter and non-matter, as matter cannot be destroyed or created.
Therefore, the only way for God to exist and be eternal is for God to encompass all the matter that exists in the universe, which means he could not have created himself, could not have created the universe from nothing, nor could he have created the nothingness (space) that offers spacial seperation to matter because to be matter he first had to be encompassed by that very space.
It's kind of like a God-22.
Einstien also proved E=mc squared right? No Wrong. The more we learn the more we find we know nothing.
Like for example, those how make spurious claims about Einstein?
The more we learn, the more astounding it is that some people still cling to religion.
Cagsil wrote ...
No one can honestly and legitimately say "god" actually exists.
- - - - -
and no one can honestly and legitimately say that GOD does not exist!
Because, it's actually unknown.
- - - - -
Because we actually know very little about what he actually is!
The concept of a "god" is what exists. However, applying a person/place or thing, to the term "god" is delusional.
- - - - - - -
I think that to use the word delusional in this case is a bit misguided ??
though the sound of that word when used does feel empowering ... Hug?
It works for me It is better than believing in mans intellegence for my short life. :9
He is involved in creation and show's us daily. Once we all accept the fact that we are where we are in life good or bad from the decisions that we've made in the past. Take responsability for your life get off of the pitty train and start living. You'll meet God one day. We all will. I suspect that you already know the answers to your questions, but it's easier for you to blame someone else for your problems.
I know that I can look back at my life and take full credit for the decisions that I made, and the fact that those decisions did influence my life ... BUT ...
We can always say that "If I had only known .. such and such" But by then we wouldn't do anything differently because those "Bad" decisions produced our greatest pleasures; and made us who we are today.
Like finding yourself a 21 year old widower with two children. That will certainly send ya down a path that you wouldn't have chosen .. BUT ... looking back ? Ya wouldn't change a thing. Life is good!
Actually, gravitation is an "energy field", as is magnetism. Energy,inherent in all matter , is locked, as say, in a tree, and unlocked by burning said tree. Heat and light are forms of energy, as is the atom. Easy to say energy only exists as a concept. Wonder if Nagasaki could shed some light, or heat, on this subject.
I don't feel like going back through the entire thread to find our who said energy is a concept, but they probably don't remember the hullabaloo when the first atom was split! Wahlah! Energy!!
Could you please draw me a picture of this "energy" or point to me to a picture of energy on the internet? Not a result of the release of energy - I don't need to see matter coverted as in the fireball from an atomic explosion. I'm not talking about chemicals and metal, such as a battery.
No, I am talking about real energy. Please show me a picture of this object that is defined as "the ability to do work". All physical objects have shape. What is the shape of energy?
Love is the shape of this particular energy. Can you show me a picture of love?
The trouble with people who can only see with their physical eyes is that they do not have eyes to see with nor ears to listen with as jesus says.
Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
you are presenting the same argument over and over.
I started to say that I wish that he would.
But then there already is enough light on every subject, I think?
I know that if there was more light on any subject I'd go blind.
How much light can a body handle???
Please explain to me in detail how "energy" flattened Nagasaki. I truly would like to understand how the shockwave that was mediated by the molecules in the air and the heat and fireball caused no harm but this mysterious unseen hand of energy flattened all those buildings and caused all those fires to erupt.
Please explain to me how energy is a physical property (which it must be according to the Aristotle's Law of Cause and Effect) that can act on the physical world instead of simply being an idea that describes a condition.
If energy has no shape, it is not an object. It is a non-object. Non-objects are concepts. If you posit that a mysterious, invisible force called "energy" knocked down Nagasaki, you may as well say that the hand of God knocked down Nagasaki because both ideas are equally rational.
So what actually knocked down Nagasaki - was it "the invisible hand of energy" or was it the force of air molecules moving at tremendously high rates of speed?
I will give you a hint: the first is a belief in non-objects, something that does not exist in nature, i.e., the surreal; the second is a rational explanation.
I find your reasoning that there are no "non-objects" in nature a little flawed. While I might consider a photon to be an object, the wave manifestation of the photon certainly is not. The force generated by magnetism is not an object, nor is it just a concept (concepts do not move matter). An X-ray is not an object, but again a concept cannot change a photographic plate. The force of gravity is not an object, either. There are many, many "things" in nature that are not objects, and that our eyes (equipped only to receive light of certain frequencies) cannot detect, but that does not mean they do not exist. Nor does it mean they are only concepts that exist only in our imagination.
"The force generated by magnetism is not an object, nor is it just a concept"
Just listen to yourself. If it is not an object AND not a concept, as you claim.....then WHAT is it??
Force is a VERB; a dynamic concept - to force! It is not an object, and there is no other option than space.....and it is not space either!
"There are many, many "things" in nature that are not objects"
You need to learn the difference between an object and a concept.
Absolutely ALL phenomena in nature are mediated by OBJECTS. Just because you can't see them does not mean they do not exist.
Wind is a CONCEPT that is mediated by AIR molecules (atoms).
Magnetism is a concept that is mediated by an object in matter, which imparts "surface-to-surface" contact. Did you think that magnetism is mediated by "ghosts" or "spirits"?
If a concept has no relation to any object, we call that an "abstract concept".
"Nor does it mean they are only concepts that exist only in our imagination"
All concepts, by definition, absolutely are conceived by human imagination. If you disagree, then please draw an image of "magnetism" for us. Concepts do not exist. Wind does not exist.....it is AIR atoms that exist.
Amazing. Let me post a copy and paste from a dictionary:
/fɔrs, foʊrs/ Show Spelled [fawrs, fohrs] Show IPA noun, verb, forced, forc·ing.
physical power or strength possessed by a living being: He used all his force in opening the window.
strength or power exerted upon an object; physical coercion; violence: to use force to open the window; to use force on a person.
strength; energy; power; intensity: a personality of great force.
power to influence, affect, or control; efficacious power: the force of circumstances; a force for law and order.
Law . unlawful violence threatened or committed against persons or property.
persuasive power; power to convince: They felt the force of his arguments.
mental or moral strength: force of character.
might, as of a ruler or realm; strength for war.
Often, forces. the military or fighting strength, esp. of a nation.
any body of persons combined for joint action: a sales force.
intensity or strength of effect: the force of her acting.
an influence on a body or system, producing or tending to produce a change in movement or in shape or other effects.
the intensity of such an influence. Symbol: F, f
any influence or agency analogous to physical force: social forces.
binding power, as of a contract.
Baseball . force play.
value; significance; meaning.
Billiards . a stroke in which the cue ball is forcibly struck directly below the center in such a manner as to cause it to stop abruptly, bound back, or roll off to one side after hitting the object ball.
–verb (used with object)
to compel, constrain, or oblige (oneself or someone) to do something: to force a suspect to confess.
to drive or propel against resistance: He forced his way through the crowd. They forced air into his lungs.
to bring about or effect by force.
to bring about of necessity or as a necessary result: to force a smile.
to put or impose (something or someone) forcibly on or upon a person: to force one's opinions on others.
to compel by force; overcome the resistance of: to force acceptance of something.
to obtain or draw forth by or as if by force; extort: to force a confession.
to enter or take by force; overpower: They forced the town after a long siege.
to break open (a door, lock, etc.).
to cause (plants, fruits, etc.) to grow or mature at an increased rate by artificial means.
to press, urge, or exert (an animal, person, etc.) to violent effort or to the utmost.
to use force upon.
to cause (a base runner) to be put out by obliging the runner, as by a ground ball, to vacate a base and attempt to move to the next base in order to make room for another runner or the batter.
to cause (a base runner or run) to score, as by walking a batter with the bases full (often fol. by in ).
to compel (a player) to trump by leading a suit of which the player has no cards.
to compel a player to play (a particular card).
to compel (a player) to play so as to make known the strength of the hand.
to develop (a print or negative) for longer than usual in order to increase density or bring out details.
to bring out underexposed parts of (a print or negative) by adding alkali to the developer.
Archaic . to give force to; strengthen; reinforce.
I have left out a similar list of the verb usage of the word.
Notice the 4th line. It says "noun", not "verb". I used the word as in definition 12(a).
Wind is movement of air molecules, mostly in the same direction. It is indeed a concept, not an object or other "thing" (I use the term "thing" as apparently the terms "force" or "energy" are an anathema to you.
Magnetism, on the other hand is a "thing"; a force but not an object. That force may act upon an object, producing a change in momentum or other changes, but that does not make it a physical object. (Nor does it require or necessarily produce surfact-to-surface contact. Bring two north poles close together and feel the force without contact!). Nor does magnetism only come into existence upon the appearance of an object to act upon. It is present continuously.
Making new definitions for words in order to argue is not conducive to either learning nor debating. To claim that gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces, magnetism, etc. are only human concepts and therefore not real does a great disservice to their power and utility. They are, indeed, quite real even though you can neither see nor touch them. They can be used for various purposes, they can be measured, and they can (sometimes) be created. They are not imaginary, nor are they only invented concepts. They all existed long before man did, even though they did not have a name at that time.
“Notice the 4th line. It says "noun", not "verb". “
Typical mistake made be newbies. They copy definitions from dictionaries without so much as understanding anything.
If force is a NOUN in your religion, you would have no problem illustrating it or referencing a picture of it online. In physics, all terms are consistent and unambiguous. In religion, force can be both an object and concept. In physics, it is only a concept. This is why you cannot illustrate it, got it?
“Magnetism, on the other hand is a "thing"; a force but not an object.”
Too many errors!
First of all....magnetism is a concept. It is a relation that embodies at least 2 objects which mediate what we call attraction or repulsion between them.
Something, thing, substance, matter, particle, physical, entity,....are all synonyms for OBJECT.
There is NO such thing as ‘a’ force. ‘a’ force does not exist. What exists is the physical object which mediates this VERB you call force! You are using ordinary speech because you are a newbie who doesn’t understand that Science is about consistency of terms. You pick up a dictionary and you think you are doing science, but don’t even understand the errors you made by copying defns.
Force is what something DOES – not what something IS!
Your wife can FORCE you off your bed. ‘wife’ and ‘you’ and ‘bed’ are the objects. ‘force’ is a verb (concept) or causal action, that was mediated by ‘wife’ upon ‘you’. Force is casual action as described by the Law of Causality between a minimum of TWO objects.
Learn the basics! You are embarrassing yourself in public.
“feel the force”
Feel the force??? What planet are you from?
Please tell me what a concept like ‘force’ feels like? Does it feel like Heaven? Does it feel like love?
When my Pastor groped me last week in the washroom of our Pentecostal church, I only felt HIS HAND....not ‘a’ force. Get real.
“Nor does magnetism only come into existence”
What do you mean by existence? Please explain what it means to ‘exist’. Otherwise you’ve said nothing.
“To claim that gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces, magnetism, etc. are only human concepts and therefore not real does a great disservice to their power and utility.”
Meaningless gibberish! Can you even illustrate any of those ghosts or spirits? If not, then you’ve said nothing.
Learn the basics......all those are concepts which are mediated by physical objects in nature which stem from matter. Do you even understand what I just said?
You are arguing with the mirror because you don’t understand the difference between an object and a concept. You don’t understand the difference between Science and Religion.
I find that it is impossible to discuss anything when the two people use a different language. You appear to use the standard English language I learned in grade school, but to assign different meanings to the words. When you make up your own meanings ("verb" to indicate a "thing" or "mediate" to indicate something I do not comprehend at all) I cannot understand you and you cannot understand me.
It would appear that you believe that the energy form we know as common "matter" is the only thing you accept as "real" - nothing else exists except as mankind's imagination. I trust that is not the case, and the problem is merely that I cannot understand your particular brand of English.
I suggest you either return to elementary school or purchase a good English dictionary and study it well.
“You appear to use the standard English language”
No my friend, I am using Scientific Language where each term has ONLY ONE CONSISTENT meaning. You are using ordinary speech and layman’s terms with hundreds of contexts so you can go BACK & FORTH between contexts to suit your argument. That’s what Religionists do!!
So the point of our discussion went over your head.
“When you make up your own meanings ("verb" to indicate a "thing" or "mediate" to indicate something I do not comprehend at all) I cannot understand you and you cannot understand me.”
Oh I understand you loud & clear. You are using VERBS as both OBJECTS & CONCEPTS, as indicated by the million pointless & irrational dictionary defns you posted. That doesn’t concern science. That’s what they do in grade school, like you said. In science, we are consistent with our terms. We learn this in Science 101 on the first day. In science we don’t pull meanings out the air, we make sure we use CONSISTENT and rational ones.
“it would appear that you believe that the energy form we know as common "matter" is the only thing you accept as "real"”
In science we don’t believe. In science we only use the scientific method to explain. What don’t you understand about that?
This is what you never learned in school: Energy is a concept....”the ability to.....”
The only nouns of physics are objects – nothing else! You confuse science with religion, like a neophyte does.
“cannot understand your particular brand of English”
Yes, scientific language eludes you.
This is the third time I tried explaining this stuff to you but you refuse to learn because you place a lot of value in your grade school education and online dictionaries with a million meanings per word.
Too bad......if you want to continue this discussion, ask me to explain details offline.
A concept is descriptive. You say the force of gravity is not an object, but I ask you what then causes a dropped apple to hit the floor instead of the ceiling? You can ASSERT the cause as the "force of gravity" but you have not explained the phenomenon, right? Not all objects are visible, either. We do not see air molecules but can witness their combined strength when the roof blows off the house.
Likewise, we do not see gravity but we do have Aristotle's Law of Cause and Effect. Nothing cannot act on matter to alter matters course, can it? I have not yet seen the Star Trek episode where they load the "nothing" torpedo.
We may not see what causes gravitational attraction, but it is up to science to explain it in unambiguous, non-surrealistic terms, isn't it?
To posit an invisible, unknowable force that makes apples fall to the ground is no different than positing an invisible, unknowable god who makes apples fall to the ground.
(While I might consider a photon to be an object, the wave manifestation of the photon certainly is not.)
Please explain rationally how a particle can move as a wave when wave is again a descriptive term for motion though a medium? There is no such thing as a wave in the ocean - there is only wavelike motion of water - the descriptive term wave simply allows us to conceptualize that movement.
And can you please rationally explain how a photon exists, when existence is dependent upon an unambiguous definition to be useful (physically exist=object plus location), and a photon is supposedly 0D. How can something without LWH be rationally explained to exist?
Again, when you posit that a non-object that has no LWH still exists you are positing the same type creatures as do theists and deists who posit invisible, immaterial gods. 0D is not a rational explanation but a surrealistic one. Mathematics does not equate to reality, nor does logic.
Our modern world likes its ghost stories and goblins, likes to vote on American Idol and give opinions, while mathematical scientists posit all kinds of surrealistic claims about possibilities and potentials, none of which is bound by our understanding of the actual nature of the physical world or the laws that govern it.
It is our new religion - you hear it all the time - Anything Is Possible.
Sorry, but no, it's not.
You appear to request a total understanding of something to believe it is real? I would suggest that as of yet, we (mankind) really understand almost nothing. We can describe the effects of forces, and measure them, but we do not understand them.
Likewise you do not understand everything about, say, a baseball dropped to the ground. You cannot describe the internal construction of an atom in the ball, nor the movement of the electrons of that atom. Yet you accept the baseball as a real object but not gravity as a real force. Why not? You understand neither one (nor do I!) but will accept one but not the other.
To demand science explain something in non-surrealistic terms....I might suggest that you would not find them surrealistic if you took the necessary years to study and understand them. Very few people even speak the language of advanced science studies, let alone understand them. That is not the fault of science, but of you and I.
An example is light as a wave. When the word "wave" is used in this context it is not as an ocean wave (which certainly moves, at least close to shore), but in an entirely different sense, and one I do not understand. I can barely contain the thought that the wave becomes a physical particle, a photon, at times.
In any case, note that existence is not dependent on your, or my, or anyone else's understanding of the description. It need not be unambiguous, it need not be described at all, to exist. It (whatever it is) need not be useful to exist.
Nor does something need length, width and height to exist. LWH is not applicable to forces all around us. Best guess is that a black hole is a singularity with no LWH. LWH would appear to me to apply only to newtonian matter - it may be that some subatomic "particles" have no LWH and certainly gravity doesn't.
However, to posit such a thing (without LWH) is not the same as to posit God. One can be used, interacted with, measured, etc. It can be detected with certain instruments. The other cannot. As a prime example, consider magnetism, or EMF (electromotive force). No LWH, but it is present all around us; our civilization would collapse without electricity. No electric motors, no transformers, no almost everything operating on electricity - it obviously exists, explained or not, surrealistic or not.
If you look dispassionately at what you just wrote, you will find yourself making the same argument as the theist who claims an understanding of God is impossible. "It's too hard to know God" has little difference from "it's too hard to know 0D".
Your are certainly free to believe any way you wish, but to continue to claim a "non-material force" can act on matter without a medium of transmission is an irrational explanation.
( it obviously exists)
Existence cannot be obvious, it can only be defined. Obvious is a subjective term. Can you offer an observer-independent definition of exist so that those sitting in the back row and cannot see what you are pointing to will know what you mean when you say, it exists?
God cannot be seen but moves things, i assume therefore He is real.
Thanks for proving OUR points.
those forces might be invisible, but we are able to measure them, demonstrate they are there etc, which is more than we can for god
Jerami, did you have control over being a widower? Wasn't your decision, so bad example - with respect. I can think of tons of bad decisions I would change. My experience would be different and I wouldn't be who I am today, working to balance the consequences of all those bad decisions. Fortunately, I have become enlightened by the multiverse and realize that I do not need to cling to the mistakes of the past. My present is my future.
WHILE watching a tennis match! A better question would be WHAT WAS HE THINKING!!!
God didn't exist until humans needed to be able to come up with explanations for where it all came from - so basically your question is spurious!
I think that you are thinking about the light bulb.
To say that God didn't exist until we needed him is like saying that the morning sun wasn't there until I woke up.
well, you're certainly a believer! to me your god is just an explanation - a convenient force you use to explain your world. The sun is a physical living thing and indisputable, but your idea of a creator is all a creation of human minds - it makes it easier for some folks to get along in the world - but not me. so why try to make some argument out of it? endless nonsense
To me, your science is just an explanation. If God is invisible and undetectable, then how does anyone know HE WASN"T THERE?
I wouldn't want to make an argument about anything.
But if someone asks a question I will attempt to answer truthfully what I think.
And if someone makes a statement professing it to be the only answer, I will offer my opinion.
I hope that we all find the answers to our own questions.
I think that when we find them it will be because someone shared their opinions with us and their opinion seemed to answer our question.
Happy hunting to us all!
Didn't God create heaven before he created universe & earth?
He never created anything called "universe" but he also didn't create anything called "Hell". For that matter, he didn't create anything called "automobile" Knowledge still evolves.
To answer the original post, I think He was creating other "worlds." Of all the planets, why would this one be the only one with life?
200 billion galaxies just in our neck of the universe!
If you consider how God interacts with this world and the people on it, might i suggest that we have his full attention.
If God is creating other worlds we have to ask two questions:
1) is their means of salvation different than ours? Are they flesh and blood or metal or what else? Is jesus on a cross in their world also?
2) is God correcting mistakes he made here? If God is infallible, we have to answer this question with no, he is not correcting mistakes.
if god makes a universe that contains only our sun and moon and earth then will not some say, "why did he leave all that space empty?" and if the universe is full of other celestial bodies will not some also say, "we must be a fluke in the universe!" Either way this shall be used as evidence against him.
and also as evidence for Him.
if only a few planets then He must be watching
If many planets how powerful he is
For eternity GOD was deciding and forming ideas of creating GOD Self through beings and through creation; so a forming and a fusion of ideas was developing over eternity and then a blast of creation and evolution of all that is.. We were in GOD's mind was what GOD was doing thinking...
God is he,what,and how. God is all and all is he, he was doing everything before and after the earth. God is when indeed he feels to be. God is how and if he should be. God is he ,and all is he that he is, when or how he can be at any given time.
The question is not what god was doing before he created the earth? The question is, what can god be what and when he wants to?
The answer is... "No Where" There was no design so how can there be a before?
but he had nothing to do ...let us see what is HIS job responsibility...to make sure universe operates smoothly....well before universe ...this job could not exist...2) to judge , punish , reward humans?...without universe this job could not exist...what does god do any way?...operation of universe is via natural forces...now if we assume god made those forces ...now they are in auto mode...so god doesnot need to see that aspect...coming to judging humans ,well that is why god needs humans more than human needs him...because god becomes jobless without humans.
He was sunning himself in Queensland with and occasional side trip to Port Douglas
Contemplating his navel. What else could he have been doing? (Or maybe he was struggling to decide which should come first: the chicken or the egg.)
As Stephen Hawking said in his book "The Grand Design" there is no need to have a God to start the universe. The universe started on it own with no divine intervention.
He created and gathered another universe. It is his stock in trade.
God didn't create the universe. The universe created God. Anti matter proceeds matter.
God wasn't created til after the formation of tribes and early civilizations when early mankind invented religion.
Working his day job...the Universe is just a hobby for him!
you assume that there was any end to the nature of universes in needing creation or when we say God that there was and is any end to his existence. It is a theory not fact that antimatter preceded matter. That theory is based on a premise that mathematically cant be proven.
The Islamic Belief Is ... "The Lord, Createth by Command." ...
Well ... Let me also tell you, what your
Note: the renegades are supposed to infer the bracketed text, below, considered helpful in Denying God, and His Act of Creation
[ Gathering and Compressing unimaginable Quantums of Matter, Time, Space and Energy, into the state of an almighty ] god Particle ...
[ Working out the Logistics, and Mathematics, of the Command ] Big Bang ...
[ Charting the Course of Creation ] the Universe ...
[and then Wait for Life to self-Evolve, in a Perfect] Evolution.
For all of this, could not have happened, without One, doing it.
well basic question is not what god did...basic question is is there any god?..if yes who created god?..is god name given to energy which creates or is combination of energy and natural forces...if there is god...is god intelligent force or force which doesnot even know that it creates...believe systems do try to give answers and so do other systems...religion assumes that god is by default ..was always there...no assuming a constant is good thing to assume other answers but that doesnot mean assuming constant is right...but science doesnot have many answers either ...
btw - it is not my science or your science...science is not religion that can be mine or yours...it is collective one...it is from humans , for humans...
In the human sense of the Concept, Biological evolution, Involves the Sin, of Procreation.
I reproduce here the Quranic Text , of Chapter 112, composed of four short verses ... I quote:
" [I begin] With the Noun, Allah, the Most Beneficient and Merciful.
1. Say ... He Is [One].
2. Allah, The Everpresent ...
3. He begets not, nor... [of the] Begotten.
4. His is not one, of The [Created] Totality. "
Hope, may you find time, to reflect.
In the human sense of the Concept of Biological evolution, the Sin, is involved in procreation. ...now from where did you get this Sin concept?...first let us look at this...what u call as creator or god gave ability to humans to reproduce and formed a method for it and if human use that ability and method it is sin?????????...didnt get that...
coming to another point ...scriptures were written by good intent ...i have no doubt about it...they were meant for human good but we dont have to take it word by word...because scriptures are has too small views of things...it doesnot take into account of thousands of other species , forget universe...
secondly scriptures comes into picture only if we have concrete proof about there is god ...once we know there is god , then comes question whether that god is intelligent force or mere creative force...if we comes to conclusion that is it intelligent force then comes question about which scripture it gave to humans...was it torah or bible or quran or other...and what did he do for humans before torah?...
problem is we dont have first question answered yet with concrete proof ...in same way science too hasn't come up with what before big bang and so answers are speculations..whether it comes from science or religion ...upto now...
so what u say is truth is your conclusion of truth and what i say as truth is my conclusion of truth...what is truth , no one knows and would know till we have definite , universal accepted thing...
It is not valid, to postulate, the impulsive ... as confession.
Please Reflect on the four Verses, then write, in a proper defining ... what you understand ... we cannot reach any sensible conclusions ... if we go on debating the validities of our beliefs ... these can never be the basis of an intellegent ... discussion..
what is more intelligent way?...to reflect on something which is one of many books claimed to be divine or to reflect the very premise on whether there is something divine or not...if one breaks the god code then scripture selection can be made...first proof of god is something which needs concrete answer...quoting verses is not solution...you may quote from many books but premise of all those verses is constant called god...it is assumption ...god exist...PERIOD...now this is not so intelligent thing to do...is it?
God does exist and has surrounded us with enough evidence of himself (something science has not successfully proven) and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. So we can find out and believe.
We are mere humans and will only continue to ask these kind of questions until we connect with him in faith
He spent the first 13.7 billion years chilling out with Buddha, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, John Frum and Guru Nanak Singh playing poker, drinking beers and eating nachos.
Fortunately, God lost all his money when he went in with ace-jack and caught Nanak with pocket bullets. It was deeply disappointing for god as he believed he'd gone in with the best hand and generally believed he would win because of his omnipitence and because nanak wasn't even a proper god.
Confused, he set himself a challenge to create a planet within a week. He did. This was 6000 years ago, and the rest as they say, is history...
What was God doing before creating the universe?
Creating is a permanant attribute of the Creator-God; He never ceased creating.
Hence it is not a valid question
You know how on weekends your alarm goes off and you don't bother getting up?
My alarm does not go off on weekends; I get up as I do on normal days.
What is there to be sorry for? Waking up earlier is attuned to life's evolution.
To create is a permanant attribute of the Creator-God; he has alway been creating and this process does not wear him out:
[2:256] Allah — there is no God but He, the Living, the Self-Subsisting and All-Sustaining. Slumber seizes Him not, nor sleep. To Him belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth. Who is he that will intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is before them and what is behind them; and they encompass nothing of His knowledge except what He pleases. His knowledge extends over the heavens and the earth; and the care of them burdens Him not; and He is the High, the Great.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … ;verse=255
Are you quoting from the same book that says the Sun sets in a "pool of muddy water" every night? (18:85-87) Why should we believe that?
What was God doing?
We simply don't know. You expect to know everything? then you expect to be as smart as God...hmmm you expect to be a..God! typically human.
Who created God?
How the first creator (i.e.: original source of energy of our universe) came to be is beyond our understanding, again, humans by nature, are not expected to understand/know everything. You have to accept there are things beyond your perception...
Just look at the universe, can you even begin to realize its extent (not to mention understand)? how about the one who created it?
We are very small...we are just humans!
science always brings us to questions.
what created the atom?
what created the sub atomic particle?
what created the gases that mounted up to cause the big bang?
what created stem cells?
what created the smallest known thing?
what created the basest particle?
where did the flatworm come from?
why does a tree even bother to photosynthesize sunlight?
why are the colors of nature calming to our nervous system?
how did the angler fish get his angler?
In other words, the fact that you have not researched any of those questions, you assume others don't know the answers?
Btw, science offers answers.
and since you are not an advocate for these answers you just type another blanket statement and expect me to just say okay.
sorry but for lack of any definition or evidence
sound of the buzzer
probably making another one, and another one, and another one, ad infinitum...
he's so busy creating universes he doesn't know what else to do.
I suppose the question should be what would God do if he wasn't creating universe ?
He would probably start re arranging the universes around and stressing about whether this universe should go here, or that one there and then get angry and put all the universes into a very small box and go and sulk for billions of years
that's why when we look out into the universe we see darkness because God has placed our universe in a box
if he opened the box we would be flooded with super bright light and have to wear sunglasses 24 hrs a day
since the universe is so vastly big how about we conjecture that God was making other earths in other galaxies and has been doing so for a very very long long time.
This earth may be only 6000 yrs old but that does not speak of the entire cosmos.
food for thought
WOW! The earth is only 6000 years old?! Now that's some food for thought. Although most sane people would certainly regurgitate it as unfit for human consumption.
Japan's coastline moved 2 m in big earthquake, which isn't much given how big Earth is. Would take a long time for all those continents that fit together like a jigsaw puzzle to end up where they are now - intact with dinosaur bones etc from when still joined
I'd heard there were people who believed this, but wasn't sure whether it was just an urban myth. Do you really think the world is 6000 years old?!
Hardly a bread crumb there. So, you aren't aware of civilizations that are much older than that? Or, do you just deny they existed, despite the hard evidence?
Such boring remarks.
thanks for noticing my typo
As if adding a mere two thousand years makes any difference, when we are talking about billions.
Of course you know this. You're either in denial of reality on a grand scale, or a brilliant comedian!
then add another 1000
there are arguments for both sides of the fence, both scientific. the moons distance for one. Ive read both sides
i'll trust in God and if i am wrong, well i have just put my more than excellent, highly moralized foot forward and made a lot of peoples lives including my own, better.
I think i will call that good management, of course lets not eliminate from the equation that God has answered so many of my prayers and in better ways that i contrived to obtain. And lets not leave out of the equation ... GOD
Again, are you not aware of civilizations that are much older than that or do you just deny it?
Believing that the world is 8000 years old - and not 4.5 billion - is out from the truth by the same factor as believing that the distance between New York and LA is 17 feet.
What was God doing before creating the universe? Why contemplating the lint inside his navel of course, which is probably where he got the idea for the big bang in the first place.
Do you think god has blue belly button fluff too?! Why is it always blue?
You'd think and omnipotent creator god would have some sort of answer to this and put a reference to it in the bible or something.
superwags, God doesn't need to explain why belly button lint is blue, but sometimes it's grey too. God is God and therefore is not accountable to anyone. The bible as well as all other "holy" books and the religions they represent were invented by man, not God. And the men who wrote those holy books, being imperfect, obviously left out that very important answer. Probably because they didn't know, or maybe because they didn't care.
God sits up there in the heavens, playing with his blue and grey belly button lint, yawning, while we down here on earth argue amonst ourselves about different prespectives of the same thing.
Too late - I've sent my copy back to my church with a post-it note attached explaining my displeasure.
and if god is male, does he have a penis? Why, if it never gets used?
Haven't you asked this one before?
God is spirit.
and exactly, whats the point of having one if it never gets used. If there are no bodily functions as we have or a need to procreate. This is why the sons of God whom are referred to as angels in gen 6:4 cannot have come down to mate with humans because they. like God have no need of our earthly bodily functions or our humanistic desires and they the SoG there are not angels at all. fyi
Based upon nothing but an insane imagination.
Of course, when you create imaginary characters, they can have any attributes you'd like them to have. They can be a Pan, Mermaid, Sphinx, Satyr, etc. It's mere mythology.
I created nothing.
The bible was around long before me.
The names of false gods and The God were already in use before i was born.
All that you have mentioned are false gods from, yes you are correct, mans imagination.
If you cannot imagine what angels must look like or what the form of spirit must be and if you lack enough information to be able to surmise the beings of the bible, then i conjecture that you have no ability to getitrite.
a very comedic post.
Speaking of comedic posts, it's not the imagining of invisible super beings that's the problem.
What does a painter do before he paints? What does a composer do before he composes? An athlete before he does his athletics? What does an architect do, before he lays the first brick. He makes a plan. An infallable plan. He looks for the apparent flaws, and corrects them. Then, he looks for the flaws that aren't so apparent, and corrects them, too. Once he has the perfect plan, then, and only then does he reveal it to the light of understanding. Wouldn't want anyone peeking! He turns on the light, and begins the MASTERPIECE!
There is one main god I guess but there are many more gods.
God is just god we will never know for sure where he (they)came from of what they were or are there are many questions out there that we will never know the answer to. But this is the most asked question I would think in the world.
...and how do you know there is even a God at all? This too is only an assumption. And really the truth of the matter is that we just don't know if there is even a God to begin with.
Gods were invented by men with an agenda to rule over and control the masses.
The OT of the Bible was written about 4,000+ years ago. The geneology goes like this.
adam to abraham 2000yrs
abraham to christ 2000 yrs
God was not available to Gentiles (those who are not jewish) prior to christ. So all this God stuff was going on way before we ever got to hear of it around 1611 ad when the bible was wrenched out of catholic hands and put into the hands of ordinary people to read for themselves.
Now the farce behind the 'opiate of the masses' statement is that: Gods ways were set before that statement ever existed. This is like saying that kettles are meant to boil grass when they are meant to boil water and they have been boiling water for years.
God was doing his thing long before that phrase was ever coined. We cannot say the point of the thing which existed long before is such and such when the point of the thing was totally not that way to begin with.
Gods only purpose is salvation and relationship and that is strictly it. God is not concerned with opiating the masses, He is concerned with how we handle the next life of which He lives in, since it is His domain.
it was written more recently than 4000 years ago - was oral stories passed down until they figured out how to make scrolls & write - you have played the game chinese whispers?
Yes i suppose i will have to be more accurate in my numbers.
I suspect the oral stories you are talking about is the oral law (which came way after the written Pentateuch) which differs from the books of the Pentateuch in that they were written on mount sinai during the 40 days of Moses being on that mountain top. Do you think it took 40 days for just the 10 commandments to be written?
As far as the Pentateuch goes, it was not written via anything oral except the oral which dictated it was, God.
My point of course which you seem to have sidestepped was that the book was written so long ago and the phrase about opiate coined so very recently. This does not imply the purpose of the book but rather some persons sloppy interpretation.
Finishing off his last botched world, try, try until you succeed. He has moved on from ours long ago
That would be interesting
Your opinion hinges upon how one defines 'botched'
God is happy in the returns he gets.
I do not for a moment consider this a botched world concerning the plans for salvation and additional members enjoying eternal life.
The purpose of God was not just a lovely planet, clean of pollution, although that is nice and certainly closer to godliness, His purpose, after the fall of adam was to restore people onto himself.
The book of revelation does not show God being sad at only a small percentage of all humans entering the kingdom but it shows celebration at the ones who have.
So, he curses and banishes Adam and all men thereafter. Such a well thought out purpose.
thanks for showing me that you know less than i thought you did and that you are able to surmise even less
This is my final comment to you for an undetermined amount of time
The words of your scriptures are there for all to see. But, since you like to point out how wrong the interpretations are, I can only only assume your interpretations are the only ones that are correct, yes?
Yes, I understand that you are getting tired of being corrected all the time. No worries, the corrections will continue as well as the pointing out of inconsistencies, contradictions, hypocrisy and logical fallacies. You need not respond if that's what you want.
thanks for proving my point
Mostly i tell you, YOU are wrong in your sloppy interpretations and yes i am right concerning all i have ever said about your biblical ineptitude. Sorry, fact is fact.
Some of my viewpoints are different (some are more elaborate expansions coinciding with christendom mainstream) than mainstream christiandom, yes. Glad you noticed and you criticize me for this aspect, then if my viewpoints were the same as mainstream christendom, you would also criticize me for that. So with you its a situation of damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Its a no win situation.
Since you enjoy insinuating misinformation and now i see just bold faced lies its more obvious to me and many many others that you are only in here to destroy.
See why i cut you off.
have a nice day
In other words, you have self-appointed yourself to be the arbiter of biblical interpretation.
I understand you are unable to distinguish the difference between you and your beliefs and that criticizing your beliefs is not the same as criticizing you.
However, just as you have self-appointed yourself to be the arbiter of interpretation of biblical scripture, so has every other Christian.
And, that is the no win situation of which you speak.
Yes, I understand you believe we are here to "misinform, lie and destroy" when we criticize your beliefs, but often we must also quote the words of your scripture so that we can all see what it says, as opposed to what you believe it to say, you know, the actual words compared with your arbitrary interpretation.
What's funny is that you are unable to respond when this is presented to you other than what we usually see, like this post, for example.
Planning to create Universe.
This was a major creation so everyone need planning to create.
If nothing else, the number of varied responses to this initial question proves one thing. None of us have the slightest knowledge of where we came from and where we are going to. All we can do is speculate. From specualtion, comes Belief, or non-belief.
Accept the mystery, and enjoy this life as best you can. Do what you believe to be good for you and for others. Resist the temptation to force your opinions onto others. Never assume that you are right and 'they' are wrong, for you are no wiser than those with whom you argue.
Enjoy your life, and help others to enjoy theirs.
by peterxdunn3 years ago
Does this image prove - beyond all doubt - that God does not exist and that the Bible story...cannot be true?Look very carefully at this picture. It was taken by the Hubble Space Telescope (a true miracle of the modern...
by graceinus3 months ago
The Bible states that God created the Waters, but when did He do this?If you notice in the book of Genesis Chapter 1 it does not state the day in which God created the waters within the 6 days of creation. Between...
by shuck723 years ago
If God created the universe, what was God doing before he created the universe? Thoughts?I recently watched the documentary The Unbelievers where the reknowned Atheist, Richard Dawkins posed this question.
by Mahaveer Sanglikar5 years ago
In a forum, I asked a question: Why God created atheists? Now I ask, why man created God?
by Mahaveer Sanglikar5 years ago
Why God created nations and religions and why he made them to fight with each other? Does God enjoys wars?
by r-o-y2 years ago
The Luciferian gospel:Genesis 1:1 we read, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…” So, if Satan was a murderer from the beginning, then God created him that way. This gospel states that God is...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.