Here is an Interesting Article i found, that makes the exhistance of God a possibility, buy looking at science.
Asking “Where did God come from” is a lot like reading a John Grisham novel and saying “This book has lawyers and judges and secretaries, but what page is John Grisham on?”
The answer of course, is that John Grisham is not in the novel at all. He lives outside of the novel. He wrote it. He created the time line, the story and the characters. The novel is a book with a finite number of pages, a beginning and an end. But John Grisham lives a life that extends far beyond that book.
Similarly, God lives outside of space and time. He created space. He created time. He is confined to neither of these things. It’s somewhat of a stretch for most of us to imagine that, but a physicist or mathematician will attest that it’s entirely reasonable. There is nothing absurd or illogical to speak of dimensions outside of space and time; in fact additional dimensions are necessary to rationally explain the universe. String theory in modern physics defines 11 dimensions, four of which we experience.
Human experience, without exception, is that all effects have causes. There are no uncaused causes. The inevitable conclusion is that the laws of physics explain how the universe operates but they don’t explain how it got here. All explanations require an “eternal” ingredient. The existence of anything at all demands an uncaused cause. So we never escape the question ‘where did it all come from.’
A purely physical explanation (i.e. materialism, or an atheistic belief that says that there is no such thing as a metaphysical world) relies on as-of-yet undiscovered principles of physics. It requires faith, if you will, that someday we’ll discover a way for matter and energy to come from nothing.
Another problem faced by materialistic explanations is entropy. Entropy says that the universe is cooling down, that energy is being converted from usable forms to unusable forms, and that this process is irreversible. Processes with entropy happen, by definition, over a finite period of time. An infinitely old universe with entropy would now be cold and dead. Once again, the universe can’t be infinitely old. It had to have a cause.
So science as we know it now cannot possibly explain this. The only logical explanation is a cause outside of space and time – which of course is consistent with the definition of God that theists have held for thousands of years.
Science does not refute this; in fact a truly scientific assessment of the facts is that all purely materialistic answers to the origins question blatantly violate the laws of physics.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 11th, 2010 at 11:32 pm and is filed under Science, Science and the Bible.
from Internet Link:
http://www.bibleprophecyupdate.com/http … come-from/
so is it possible? Just asking here
An entity over 13 billion years old by our reckoning, that created the universe, is difficult for me to fathom, however it is certainly one possibility. We still have so much to learn.
But I'm not entirely sure this fits into the belief structure of theists. Their god couldn't live outside of space and time. They tend to imagine a personal god rushing about fulfilling wishes.
Agree Emile, theists tend to go to the supernatural side, the magic of the story, but...
if he exhists and has the creation power, he would have to exhist outside of what was created first, soooo...
he would have to exhist before he created it all.
Similarly, God lives outside of space and time. He created space. He created time. He is confined to neither of these things.
and I agree totally
And it is my understanding from scripture that Gabriel and Michael do not live outside of time and space.
When God gave Gabriel a message to deliver to "MAN"; the message was explained to Gabriel in terms that he understood.
God told Gabriel that in 62 of his weeks Mankind is going to kill their Messiah.
Gabriel then delivers that message to Daniel exactly as it was given to him.
If Jesus was the expected Messiah; ( and I believe he was) this is a clearly stated equation explaining that 62 weeks in Gabriel’s world is equal to approx. 568 years on our world. OR ? a prophetic week is = to approx 9.13 or 9.16 of our years.
If we are going to attempt to understand bible prophesy we MUST always consider that Gods message was first given to Gabriel in terms that he would understand. And then that message was passed on in those same terms.
Daniel 12:7 .... It shall be for a time, times and an half
(word translation change "and" when, to "from" when )
" ... it shall be for a time, times and an half from WHEN he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished…
This is talking about ONLY these prophesy contained in the book of Daniel. And not any other prophesy that is given at a later date.
When the Emperor of Rome (Hadrian) scattered the Hebrew Nation across the Empire, this Time , times and an half began. And this timeline was finished around 1820.
At this time GREAT numbers of the Hebrew people began moving back to their holy land as if they had been called with the sound of a trumpet. In 1844 the Caliphate signed the declaration of tolerance, allowing Hebrews entrance into the cities. This indicated to them the dawning of a new error!
Back to the point at hand; Daniel didn't understand (v. 7) and ask the angel to rephrase the statement.
The angel said " and from the time the daily sacrifice is taken away ... there shall be 1290 days .."
This indicates that a time, times and an half is the same as 1290 days. and when he has accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people is the same as when the daily sacrifice is taken away.
The daily sacrifice wasn't abolished ! It was simply taken out of Israel to another place when the power of the holy people were scattered. They took the daily sacrifice with them.
When we do the math we find that a "TIME" in Gabriel’s understanding is = to 52.25 weeks in his understanding.
We call 52.25 weeks a year! In prophetic terms they call it "A TIME"
A Time (in prophesy) is = to approx 480 of our years. If we are to use any time comparison analogy at all, we should use it consistently, not just sometimes.
So does this present a reason to believe in a supreme being, and if so, can we know anything about Him? Do we know that He wants us to worship Him? Do we know that he wants us to build churches? Do we know that He wants us to beileve that He used primitive goat herders from the Bronze Age to write a book for Him?
Yes there could be a God, but there is no sense in any of us even worrying about it.
If this God wanted to be known, He could have...and would have made His existence PERFECTLY clear to us.
I have to agree here getitrite, if He truly wanted us to know he would show up and prove it.
But to create all of this that we know know of, he had to exhist outside of what he made it to be.
Like a Painter, he creates a Portrate from outside of the Physical Canvas, but his mind is inside the Canvas, into the design, theme, layout and actual brush strokes he uses to create. But He, that Painter, can not physicaly fit into the painting.
And The painter is to vast for exhistance inside the painting, so he remains to the outside of it. But his hands created it.
So I ask; Is it possible that we can never see Him as he can not fit inside of His own creation?
Just a thought
so Is a God creator possible?
I can find the "author," and if he'll allow, touch him, chat with him, have coffe with him et all.
This man created "god" thing, is what?.. in any form but opinion?
When we humans can answer that question, in factual form and then provide proofs of "its" existence, I will hunt "it" down, as fair game, and have, "its" head mounted on my livin' room wall with a message under it which reads: "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."
you went deep on this one Qwark...
actualy in truth, what does the Universe really explain then? It truly exhists, but how was it created. In factual form science offers nothing but scientific postulance as to its creation. So...why would not then the exhistance of a God be possible. It is as probable as a Big Bang that showed up out of no where's. So God or science are both possible, not opinion at all.
Do not be ofronted by the question, but ponder all posibilities. How did all of this really start ?
True, but the problem here is that "mathematically" we can come up with all kinds of solutions to problems, such as explaining string theory with more dimensions, but the physical evidence does not support the math. The same could be said for time travel, for example, plenty of theoretical math to support it, but the physical world does not.
There is no reason to suspect that the physical laws of the universe cannot help explain the universe's origins. In fact, they MUST help explain it.
There are already several examples of matter and energy coming from "nothing", there is no faith required here because hard evidence is already available to support it.
There are no "as-of-yet undiscovered principles" in physics that will ever yield a 'metaphysical world' - quite the contrary, the laws of physics forbid such a world as it would violate many of the current laws.
The problem with introducing entropy into an argument is the fact the term is often misunderstood and then misrepresented. A watered down version of the thermodynamic explanation (dispersal of energy) was introduced to make it easier to understand. In this way, entropy is explained as energy dispersing over a larger area because it is free to do so.
Strawman fallacy. The state of the universe was such that the event of its origin held the necessary characteristics and properties that allowed it to create the universe, most likely those characteristics and properties no longer exist as they have been replaced with a universe which characteristics and properties are now based on the dimensions of space, time and matter/energy.
Hence, space and time could never exist equally with whatever caused the universe to come into existence. The cause therefore cannot exist outside of space and time, therefore the cause does not exist.
And, that is more relevant to what theists have actually believed for thousands of years; a nonexistent first cause.
Ahough I agree with you that, at this point, the physical laws are the ones we must adhere to in any attempt to explain the universe; I am confused by some of your points.
You state: ‘There are already several examples of matter and energy coming from "nothing".’ Could you list these examples? I have no reason to doubt, but I can’t seem to find the information to back up this statement.
You state: ‘There are no "as-of-yet undiscovered principles" in physics’.
Wouldn't it be logical to assume the explanation of the supernatural would be more likely resolved through quantum physics? Which is still in the process of attempting to find a unifying theory for everything?
You also state: ‘The state of the universe was such that the event of its origin held the necessary characteristics and properties that allowed it to create the universe, most likely those characteristics and properties no longer exist’
This is, as I read it, an affirmation of what the OP has suggested. Whatever caused the formation of the universe is no longer here.
Pair production and Hawkins radiation are a couple of examples.
Quite the contrary, in fact, quantum field theory prohibits the supernatural from existing, those laws would be violated and anything undiscovered will only support the laws.
Perhaps, but the OP is based on fallacious reasoning, so it can't be used to validate that suggestion.
I'm not 100% sure I am in agreement.
Pair production couldn’t reasonably be considered something from nothing. It’s the creation of an elementary particle and its antiparticle, usually from a photon. I realize those are all tiny little things, but they are not nothing.
And Hawking certainly has a theory on radiation emitted from a black hole, but Bekenstein-Hawking radiation is a prediction. Unless I've missed a breakthrough.
And, in all fairness, your statement on quantum physics is one of several different opinions. I am not a quantum physicist, so I can only go by what I have read on the subject.
Pair production can also occur in quantum foam without the need of firing high energy photons at particles.
The concept is such that although energy is required for the events to occur, the energy is "borrowed" from another system, but not returned to the system to satisfy the conservation of energy law, hence the production of particles.
Prediction or not, it still follows as theorized.
Borrowed and created are not the same. And there is, as yet, no evidence to conclusively prove Hawking's theory
Neither is a valid example to back up your previous statement of something having been created from nothing.
This is one of the "dilemmas" of Quantum.
The issue of borrowing does make very much sense.
As it questions: what and where are those "other" systems.
How did those systems come to order.
Where does a muon go when it collides with two other particles and all of a sudden appears a fourth from the same "path" as the original muon. do these collisions cause the 'destruction' of other particles and then the 'energy dust' reassemble at another instance? If yes, how and why?
I think he was on to something in line with a few other scholars: energy swapping. Much like a hydrogen atom unites with a like atom to form a helium molecule, so also energy at the subatomic and ultras subatomic level exchange properties based on necessity of any given instance of creation.
So many factors to inquire and take into account and no mechanic built by man can explain it.
Then I misunderstood his intent when he spoke of something from nothing. Your example is still an exchange of energy within a closed system, as I understand it. No matter how strange it may appear.
Yes, I believe it is a power exchange (not so much the kind in San Francisco's underground jeje) but certainly a swap of properties between even the tiniest of sub atomic particle parts.
No, you are correct: his intent was just that something out of thin air. But I don't believe he was convinced of it all together. And certainly my interpretation is quite different.
This is the essence of the "something from nothing" laymens explanation often misrepresented by believers. Yes, there is something, which is what scientists understand and would expect to find with the Big Bang theory.
If you say so.
Since we are in agreement, I am left to wonder why you made the statement in the first place.
We are not in agreement. You appear to be satisfied to just say so.
If you honestly believe that what you have said equates to the literal meaning of the term 'something from nothing' then I have misunderstood you; and do apologize.
As I mentioned earlier, whenever the term "something from nothing" appears in a discussion on the origins of our universe, it is widely misinterpreted and misunderstood.
Particles can all of sudden appear in a region of space and disappear as quickly as they appeared, it is understood that the energy required to create the particle was borrowed from somewhere and then returned. In other examples, the particles appear but remain intact, hence the energy required was not returned. In both cases, the conservation of energy is not violated.
The point is that prior to that particle coming into existence, there was no energy detected within that region of space, hence "something from nothing"
Yes. I do get that. But the fact that we don't understand this completely does not equate to the concept of the supernatural.
True, but we find believers who misrepresent this concept are apt to use it to describe the supernatural, even when the supernatural does not conform to the concept in the least. In fact, the concept prohibits their claims because laws get violated, like the conservation of energy, for example.
I don't know what goes through the minds of other people, and I have certainly never used that as am example myself; but has it occurred to you that the believers (who specifically are you referring to when you use that term, anyway) might know that it is a poor analogy but use it for lack of a better way to explain what they mean? It isn't as if they could offer a concrete example.
I would think it would be similar to comparing an emotion to something concrete. For example, love is like poison. It isn't really. But it makes the person visualize what you feel.
Maybe you just aren't giving people credit when they are actually thinking.
"Maybe you just aren't giving people credit when they are actually thinking."
Now that's an accurate statement. According to him, most, if not ALL believers "don't think for themselves".
So, who came up with the goofy terminology? I've never heard of diverse religions being lumped together and labeled believers. Is that Hub Pages lingo?
The definition of believer in my dictionary is :
A person who has religious faith.
That's not quite the definition you previously provided. Which is the one you use? Since one can have religious faith without fitting your first definition.
One simply follows the other. A person who has religious faith has been indoctrinated to have religious faith. There really isn't any other method used whether it be childhood or converted indoctrination.
So we indoctrinate ourselves? How, exactly, is that possible? Are you saying that simply by thinking, and reading the thoughts of others on the subject people are indoctrinated? How is that different from learning about any other subject?
Most believers have been indoctrinated from childhood, which is where they did not develop the capacity for logical or critical thought, but instead developed a system of accepting without question the religious beliefs of their parents and peers.
Learning about other subjects requires one to use critical thinking and to question that which is being taught, not to just accept it as true.
One of hallmarks of following a study of the sciences allows students to witness for themselves many of the very same experiments conducted that helped to form theories and understand the laws of nature. It helps give them a firm understanding of the subject matter and satisfies their queries.
We are not taking about science. Religion is more in the category of philosophy. This is a commonly understood fact.
A philosophy is the culmination of gathering information from many avenues and puting it all together, to see how they fit. You can't use science only. It must be an integral part and everything must be resolved with it, but it isn't the whole.
Sorry, I don't agree to much about philosophical information as it tends to get muddied and misrepresented, religions being the worst culprits.
Pythagoras. Socrates. Plato. Aristotle.
These names mean nothing to you? The information is muddied?
Yes, it is. In fact, there are many things those philosophers said that are pure nonsense. It's like that with anyone, even me.
Einstein said some pretty silly things when it came to quantum field theory, too.
Pythagoras was great mathematician but his philosophical position was ridiculous.
Well, I agree with you on Pythagoras. I find a lot of what I've read on him bizarre. But, and correct me if I'm wrong, his philosophy had a huge influence on Plato.
Einstein said 'He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.'
Wouldn't leaving all of the questions life has to offer to the answers science alone provides leave us marching in rank and file?
Not sure I understand that. All of our questions about the world around us ARE being answered by science alone. What more is required?
Not the world around us. The world inside of us. Our consciousness. I know you told me during the course of another discussion that you were not unique. I'm not sure what you meant by that, I'm certain there was a point. But we are unique, as a species.
Until we understand why, we'll always use every avenue available to search for the answer. Science being one of them. What is so wrong with thinking?
That too can be understood with science. What more is required?
Why is not a question science usually answers although when it answers the question 'how' we can sometimes find answers to the why. The problem is everyone's answer to why is going to be different as it often does rest with philosophy, which are often quite useless answers considering the disparities.
Well, if you are going to pick and choose what portions of my response to comment on, we aren't going to get anywhere. And that's the problem with choosing one avenue to resolve problems. We will always choose the path of least resistance. Always leaving the most difficult question unresolved.
Okay, what do you see as the most difficult question unresolved here?
Why are we unique? Out of all of the species we have on this planet, out of everywhere we've looked in this solar system, after years of SETI sending signals. Why are we the only ones we can find that are looking? Why didn't anything else evolve to this level? Why just us?
We simply don't know that, yet. Currently, astronomers are looking at other solar systems and the planets revolving around their stars trying to find those planets that are in the Habitable Zone of those systems to see if life there may also have potentially started and evolved.
If it looks like a candidate, we can send probes there to find out.
Of course, this is just in one small area of our galaxy which has billions of stars, and one galaxy amongst billions of galaxies.
Maybe we aren't unique after all?
Yes. I am up to date with that information.
Sure, if we find life outside of this planet it will change the equation drastically. But, for now, some of us aren't as patient as you appear to be. We look about.
And that still doesn't answer the question of why one species, out of so many, is looking.
I think it is admirable to look about when questions aren't answered. However, it would not be wise or prudent to invoke other illogical or irrational explanations in light of not knowing, which is what religions teach and what its followers embrace and carry out much to their own chagrin and demise.
Do you mean looking here on earth or looking from elsewhere?
Had Neanderthals not gone extinct, they too might be looking along with us, if that's what you might have been referring.
No. Just here. And I wasn't thinking of extinct species. Just those alive today. And I realize it is entirely possible that Neanderthals were quite evolved and we simply killed them out. Which would mean we are unique only in our capacity for violence.
And you're right. Religion isn't an explanation. It's giving up on the question.
Perhaps, but I don't really think we killed them out. There is evidence they hunted right alongside humans, and although they didn't show any signs of belief systems, they apparently joined with humans in pre-hunt rituals led by shamans of the time. That would probably indicate they mated with humans, too.
Maybe, some of us are just a mix of both.
Hitting the agree button repeatedly on that one.
Could we start testing religionists to see which way they went?
It could explain why they compare myth to scientific method without understanding either!
If this comment was a result of reading through the discussion we had, I'd be interested to know what myth I am in the grips of. And what religion is responsible for causing me to think it. I'd greatly appreciate the help.
I have no idea what this is about, I may have missed something overnight, but I don't recall anything this morning that is related to anything you said.
Ok. I thought when I saw it immediately below his response to me that you were commenting on the conversation. I was afraid I'd said something that sounded way off the wall. Whew. I feel better already.
Believers are referring to their gods, angels, demons, and an assortment of other imaginary magical beings they have been indoctrinated into believing exist.
But, you are referring to an emotion, something that can be detected. Comparing things that are real to things that are claimed to be real is not valid.
Ok. I see you're not going to work with me on this one. But thank you for clarifying the terminology. So it's just those associated with organized religion.
"But, you are referring to an emotion, something that can be detected."
Wow! Even after practicing medicine for the last 10 years, I didn't know that there is an 'emotion' detector!
"Comparing things that are real to things that are claimed to be real is not valid"
Real things? Like table, chair, time, god, emotion, love, space, justice, photon, anger, energy, mass...?
Which are those, that are claimed to be non-real?
Bleezedad, Physical Laws do not help to explain it, they only define what we see with out eyes and instruments, based on man made laws and mathmatics..?
what id we do not see it as it really is..? we keep adjusting the theory of space and universe many times over, but again we see not begining, or true evidence of a begining..? So Science defines what we see, and offers an explanation of what is known or seen. But how does it exhist, and who or what started it?
we still have no answers to that.
What are "man made laws"? Are you referring to the laws of nature? They aren't man made, fyi.
And yes, those laws do help explain the world around us and when unfounded claims are made that strictly violate those laws, the claims then come under serious scrutiny. Of course, religious claims have zero evidence and violate a number of physical laws, despite the over-zealous and contrary belief that they exist anyways.
Strawman argument and argument from ignorance fallacies.
There are a lot of issues here. First off the novel analogy simply doesn't work. The characters in a novel are fictional, not thinking feeling beings and contrary to what the article states the book will DEFINITELY out live Grisham himself. Think about it. How far has the work of authors like Jules Verne and H.G. Wells outlived them? By leaps and bounds.
Also, it is unreasonable to claim that a MIND can exist outside space and time. Everything we understand about a conscious mind from science tells us that it needs a physical construct and TIME in which to act. A choice, a thought, an action, cannot exist in a timeless state. Things must be moving forward. So in order to create the Universe time must exist before God or at least exist while God's doing the creating.
"Once again, the universe can’t be infinitely old. It had to have a cause."
But then that cause has to have a cause and that cause has to have a cause after it. This is known as infinite regress. Positing a God just to get out infinite regress just adds an unnecessary step when we could just as easily say that the matter and energy that make up the Universe are eternal. The article is talking about entropy but all the energy that is dissipating and cooling down is being released into the Universe, none of it is annihilating entirely (unless it comes in contact with anti-matter). If a Big Crunch follows the big bang than everything will reach a singularity again and all of the energy and matter will, in some form, still exist.
While we can't rule out the possibility of a God I for one see no reason to posit a God in order to explain the currently unexplained aspects and origin of our Universe. I prefer to admit ignorance on the subject.
Somethings we will never know,and was never meant to be known.That is one of the blank spaces of life.
God is. God stands outside of this time/space. This time/space was created by God, therefore, it doesnot affect his reality. Oh, and then there is the missus. Can't forget her. that is why it is written "Let us create man in our own image." Do you really believe that even Moses would buy the idea that God did it all alone? Next passage says He made Man in his own image, male AND female made he them. This is so you can be sure of the presence of the female gender in the "image" No image, no female. Get it. If you stumble over this, there being more than one Adam is really gonna bonk ya!
Outside space? When we say 'outside', we mean space. You see, outside a house is that space. So use clear language, you have a point. I think you mean God created all what is observable therefore he can't be among the observable but nevertheless he exists everywhere. A different plane of reality is more meaningfull than 'outside space'
God origin is nothing... for there can be no other...and with that being so, he occupies the Greatest position ever....
Understand this that is also to understand all things.
Nothing do still exist.. but it is merely another among the myriads of all other things...find it and there you also find all things and God.
Some have a tendency to only view the things that visible or tangible to the sense as existing things...
but no.. it cannot be so....
for visbility and tangibility are merely just another among the myrias of all things.. God.
Concerning time and space...
Time is merely another thing among the myriad of all things....but still unique serving it own purpose...
For governs over the mixtures of nothing and all things...,
Ensuring that the eventuality of each abiding in its own place.
Then when it purpose is accomplished, it ceases to be.
Space is that which contains all things and is within all things,so it appears unlimited and without which there can only be nothing.
Though Space is without visibilty and tangibility yet it existence is without question. We can also see that "Nothing" also share some of it's characteristics except that Nothing is not Space itself but lack thereof thus very very limited...
We see then that Space is the picture of God, yet it is not quite God for it can only be limited by this....
The Mind which assign a boundary to it.
But the Mind that will not assign boundaries to space every where that mind look there it would find Space, for that mind will create it for itself.
So we see that Space is not God itself because it is also contained by the Mind, which is the consciousness of being....
Thus it Says of itself I am that I am. I am God.
Your argument is well put, but contains some flaws, or at least may contain some flaws.
Our day to day experience does indeed indicate there is a cause for each event. But when we look at subatomic physics, quantum physics and in particular the physics of a singularity we just don't know that that statement is true. The world of quantum physics is far different than the world of macro physics that we experience. It may be that there is no cause for certain events.
The universe is expanding, with most indications that it will continue to do so forever. There is still the question of dark matter, however; it is still possible from our knowledge base that the universe will one day reverse it's course and contract into a singularity, where all bets are off.
Similarly, there may be another universe, with different natural laws allowing the existence of God. This is completely different than the concept of additional dimensions; different dimensions seem to exist as part of our universe, detectable only perhaps by their effects on this universe and by mathematical description (not really detectable). A second universe would perhaps also have many dimensions, but is not a part of our universe.
Personally I find it much easier and simpler to imagine matter that we haven't found that will one day halt the expansion and begin its collapse than to imagine a multitude of universes (if 2 why not 200?) one of which contains a single omnipotent, omniscent eternal living creature that made a universe full of low quality toys that it wants to worship him.
Where did any of the numerous gods come from? From the imaginations of primitive, superstitious human beings, as they always have.
How do we know that there were many different Gods?
Maybe ? ... all that there were was many different concepts of only one God ?
I think that the earliest concept of a god was simply
"a power greater than mankind". And maybe there were many such entities.
And even those "gods" had a power greater than themselves?
Who knows? But then the groups of people became jealous of each other and started dressing their god with bells and whistles. They each had their own concept.
In all of my years, thousands of people have meet me and developed their own concept of who I am.
SO ! sense there are Sooo many concepts of who I am, having Soo many different contradictions contained within; Would it be safe to say that I MUST be simply a Myth! I never existed!
I don't exist and never did.
Strange how mortals can easily prove they, themselves, exist, but omnipotent deities invariably fail in the attempt. Go figure!
Why do we think that someone or something failed just "Cause" he/it didn't do it the way that we wanted he/it to do it?
"We" don't! I blame no entity for the creation of all we know. I only blame humans for not wanting to know because it frightens them.
I often blame humanity for thinking they are knowing what they think that they know and thinking, .... I'm Done !
Our understanding (everyone’s even mine and yours) is a product of our own device.
We can accept this in ourselves and yet can not for others.
We want everyone to be like us, for self substantiation?
Thyat's life .
In other words, nothing is perceived by anyone the same way.
That's true, but at least YOU have a physical presence. God is only a concept...something that cannot be seen, heard, smelled, or touched...but to be experienced through a special subjective 'feeling'--making the perceptions even more varied.
These newly founded logical theories only lead to more questions, and still no God has presented Itself.
In other words, nothing is perceived by anyone the same way.
That's true, but at least YOU have a physical presence.
= - = - --
You have never seen me! and yet you have a concept of what I look like, of what you think that I act like or of what you think I would do under certain situations. and yet ! You believe that I exist ONLY because you see a part of the alphabet written on a screen.
You have a set of preconcieved notions which legislate what or who put these words on the screen.
For all that you really know ?
? I am just a computer program.? and yet you believe something else.
God is only a concept...
= = =
How can anyone say with any certainty that anything is JUST one simple thing?
God is only a concept, something that cannot be seen, heard, smelled, or touched...but to be experienced through a special subjective 'feeling'--making the perceptions even more varied
= = = = =
I doubt very seriously that we can see or feel or touch even 0.0000000000001% of the things that are touchable, or are there and yet can not see.
Based on common sense, I believe that if I sought to find you,
I would be successful, Right? But finding God is not the same thing. I sought God for many years, and found nothing...in fact He probably is one of these entities writing words on my computer screen.
Wow! Jerami, you could be God for all I know.
God being one of those things, I'm sure.
When we back up in time (figure of speach)
I would think that the definition or what they preceived to be God; would simply be, an entity with power greater than mankind.
THEM dumb goat hearders had a simple understanding.
Not nearly as complicated.
Somebody just help me pleace. What is 'outside space and time?' is space and time a house? If someone is outside, obviosly he is surounded by space. Out(side) is a space. Space is collection of 'sides'
I will come outside and kick all idiots outside out of space!
I.e. I will come outside and kick those that are outside out of outside!
Am I sane?
I understand 'being surrounded by space' as a poetic way of saing 'not being surrounded by anything.' Now, 'God is not confined to space' is 'God is not confined to not being confined to anything'!
Space cannot actually confine anything without itself being something. There can never be outside space without space having some conceivable boundery. How will we describe that outside? It must be a location. And a collection of location. I.e. the genuine empty space.
Now 'space' is an abstraction comming from 'spacing' or to space or being spaced. The moon is spaced from the earth is to Father loves the Son as there exist a space between moon and the earth is to there exist love between the son and the Father.
Again it is a question of where and not what. We can locate things on the surface of a billiard ball. We will say a location on the billiard ball is part of space. But space is not the portion of the billiard ball. Get to differentiate between a place (concept) and a portion (object). The confusion comes because say London is both a place and a portion of the earth. It is the entire collection of places that we call space and the entire collection of portions that we call object.
Not ancient ridiculous myths.
God, Aka (There was no sound) is the sum total of previous space/time continuum, as God is the sum total of this space/time continuum. As to where God is actually from, that information is available to anyone who can move the rock that God made which God could not move...or you can wait for his biography, due out on Paradise Books, New Year's day 2013.
by Mrs Campbell 7 years ago
Stephen Hawking has proclaimed God did not create the universe, so, does that mean there is no God?no God?
by Tony Lawrence 7 years ago
A theist asked me to start a separate thread for this. I refused at first, but then I thought "why not?"Let's understand first that I am not against religion per se. I believe it can help some people. I do not think that religious belief indicates a lack of intelligence either. In fact,...
by ptosis 5 years ago
Where did God come from?If God created everything ( sounds reasonable - something cant be made from nothing) then where did God come from? Yes I understand the answer of Alpha & Omega and God is outside the illusion of time and all that but just wondering if theists out there have some...
by Robert pires 7 years ago
is it a reality or just an hypothetical concept????
by pay2cEM 7 years ago
This is a hypothetical question. If in fact whatever religion you happen to believe in was not true, what would it take to persuade you? Obviously, the more severe the charge, the more evidence we demand in order to accept it. For example, if your buddy told you he had Chinese for dinner last...
by Debra Allen 9 years ago
When god or the creator of the universe made humans, why was He a He? What happened to the other's that we were made into their image? Why doesn't the Bible ever speak of these things?
Copyright © 2019 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.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|