This god so many people insist is real sounds like a complex thing. Complex things don't just spring out of nowhere or assemble themselves, so it was probably created by a higher form, because nothing complex can exist without a creator, or so you tell me.
Where does it end? Sooner or later there has to be either a simple beginning, or one has to admit the the universe itself is infinite in time and space.
Almighty God before the existance of the world, "WAS GOD" already God is God yesterday today and tomorrow. Almighty God was, is, and always bill be the "Supreme Creator" of all things. There is no intelligent being more intelligent that Almighty God.
God created himself then, as He is the "supreme Creator" of all things. He created the "universe" He came into existence in as well by the same reasoning.
Interesting take on the subject.
Actually it's not a complex thing. People make it out to be a complex thing.
It ends when truth is learned and accepted(without ego playing a role).
Or, is actually learned what did truly create the Universe. What created the Universe doesn't have to be a higher intelligence or even have an intelligence to begin with. Thus, making the answer quite simple and not so complex.
'It ends when truth is learned and accepted(without ego playing a role).
Or, is actually learned what did truly create the Universe. What created the Universe doesn't have to be a higher intelligence or even have an intelligence to begin with. Thus, making the answer quite simple and not so complex. wink'
Do you even know WTF that means?
The truth is that what many people are trying to explain about the Universe isn't a "what" or "who", but looking for a reason for it's existence to begin with. It's about "why" it came to be. This is presently the center of the argument between science and religion.
Once we learn "how" the Universe was created, then a reason(why) can be accepted.
What or How the creation of the Universe came into existence doesn't require to come from a higher intelligence. Many people assume it does.
The answer is simple- consciousness. If you were not self aware, then it would not matter.
Your titled question is a spoof. Was God created by a higher intelligence? Would depend on any one person's definition of 'god'. Some people think it's an entity, as your title implies. Some people think energy is god, they use the word 'god' as a metaphor for energy. Some people think a 'god' doesn't exist, so they don't apply any attributes to it at all.
As you can see from this thread, opinions vary greatly. But, if it wasn't for consciousness(self awareness) then the point is moot.
Ego plays a HUGE role when it comes to religion. Religion is all about self-interest. Religion is about applying human traits to the creation of the universe. 'Man was made in God's image' - in other words; God is human in nature. Religion is about putting humans above animals in ALL aspects of our daily lives.
Ego. Now that's a contradiction!
The that higher intelligence is the Creator God; He is the First and the Last.
To deny the supernatural while at the same time attributing supernatural traits to the material universe is illogical. If there is supernatural being, He/she/they, by definition, are outside of nature, the first uncaused, eternal, all powerful, all knowing not natural being(s).
To refute an eternal God with the argument, "God is an effect and therefore must also have a cause", but then say its OK to accept that matter is the eternal uncaused first cause, is duplicitous. Again, to argue, "If God made everything, then who made God?" Yet, accept that matter made everything, but nothing made matter, lacks fairness of mind.
It would seem to me that the very arguments some use to refute a Supernatural Mind, they ignore to support a supernatural material universe.
I think there is no end. You're correct, nothing is ever created without a creator. We have a hard time thinking about things not having a beginning, but that makes just as much sense as something springing out of nothing.
Who made your god? Was it one of the other gods?
My belief would be his Father, going back on and on.
Over 13 Billion years of gods eh?
Any wonder he wound up being a psychopathic mass murderer, that would have driven me nuts as well.
All that pious self righteousness and megalomania would be impossible to cop for that amount of time.
Much longer than that actually... more like neverending than 13 billion years.
You keep making comments about your opinions on things in the bible, but you don't want to talk about them, so why make the comments?
Yes, and there couldn't possibly be anything to discuss, such as apocrypha, different translations, different interpretations, similarities between other religious texts, etc...
Because we 'religious' types are so all-knowing(according to you), it should make for good discussion. Yet you avoid discussion like the plague(which used to be witchcraft)
I have been on these forums for 3 years, not 3 minutes.
All the discussions have been had.
Links are ignored in preference to goddunnit answers quoting scripture that is selected from the most disgusting book in the world as if it were gold found amongst the doo doo.
I believe you have nothing new to add, and just want to play the "out of context" game again.
Done to death here by others.
Like I have said before, if you don't know why I post, you don't want to know.
Haha, how is it so hard to understand that a person might not want to make assumptions about someone? You made assumptions about me that are incorrect, I don't want to do you the disservice of doing the same to you.
You have been here 22 hours. I haven't seen your profile yet. What I have seen though is you and logic are strangers as it is with most religionists.
OK I went to your profile. Nothing there about you at all.
In our conversations, I'm the one who discusses specific points and tries to get some sort of sensible response out of you.
No, I don't have anything in my profile, that's why I offered to answer any of your questions... even though you have already made statements about me that are wrong, you think you have me pegged.
That's why we had the conversation last night about me not assuming about people's motivation. I don't want to get it wrong... like you have about me.
LOL! Yet, another magical claim that science can't disprove?
Funny how science does show that our universe came about entirely on it's own and evolved into what it is today, no gods were required.
What evidence do you have in nature that shows a creator did it?
Science has proven how the universe came into being? News to me, lol. I know we have theories and ideas, but as to the very first moment, and the possibility of what was before that, has not been proven.
Is that what I said, or is that what you think I said? Read it again.
You said science has shown that our universe came about entirely on its own. That's what you said, and that's not true.
Science has a number of theories, prevailing being the Big Bang theory, yet we don't have the technology to simulate, test, or experiment with the first part of it, from tiny point of energy to, about a light-year in size. For all that time, we only have ideas.
Yet, you say, science has shown that our universe came about on its own. We haven't even made it to the start of the universe, let alone prove what started it, or what came before.
Yes, it is true, there is absolutely not a shred of evidence to support gods had anything to do with it. ALL the evidence points to a universe that came about on its own.
No, we have hard evidence to support the Big Bang theory, not just ideas.
The Big Bang theory has nothing to do with proving what started the universe, but instead what happened afterward.
You don't understand. We don't have any evidence AT ALL about what started the universe. We haven't made it that far back. The evidence doesn't point to a universe that started on it's own. The evidence only points back to a universe that started.
No scientist claims to know the reason for the big bang. We haven't been able to explain what happened for the first ~ 10^-11 seconds, let alone what caused it or what happened before.
You don't understand what I said. I said the Big Bang theory is a theory. That means it is an attempt to explain what we have seen in experimentation. I said that we don't have any explanation for what happened during the first .0000000001 seconds or so, and in that time the universe grew to something like a light-year in size.
Considering that we can't explain what happened from the time it started to the time it was that large, don't you see why we can't explain what happened at the very first moment? Or before that?
The big bang theory attempts to describe every moment of the universe's creation, from the assumed, microscopic point of nearly infinite energy, on to now.
If we can't even describe the moment in which it started, how is that proof of how it was made? After all, you said science shows that the universe created itself, but we don't know that.
The whole big bang theory depends on interpreting what 'red shift ' means. Scientists have chosen to regard the red shift of galaxies as proof that they are receding from us at ever increasing velocities.
So reversing the process brings us to a (theoretical) time when all matter was still joined together. The big bang is the attempt to explain how that matter got spread through space. That red shift is the only evidence on which science has built the whole big bang theory on; well, there is all that math, but as anyone knows, you can make numbers say anything.
I'll stick with a constant creation universe.
Right. It's ridiculous to say that a theory that can't even describe the earliest moments it is meant to describe is proof that the universe was created by itself.
(Scientists have chosen to regard the red shift of galaxies as proof that they are receding from us at ever increasing velocities.)
Worse, still, is that the cosmological assumption is that redshift is a Doppler Effect, yet no one can rationally explain how light moving through a vacuum would act in the same fashion as sound waves moving through a physical medium (air).
It appears to me more and more likely that the original interpretations of the observations is incorrect, that redshift is not an indication of movement away from us, and to continually invent neo-epicycles like dark energy and dark matter in order to plug the leaks in the BB theory has more in keeping with the religion of Ptolemy that any actual cosmological science.
You do understand that light and sound aren't the same, right? Sound is waves of pressure carried through a medium.
Light is a form of electromagnetic radiation, that exhibits characteristics of particles and waves. Unlike sound though, it is it's own 'thing'.
But I'm sure you know better than the thousands of people who dedicate their lives to performing experiments to understand the universe. Surely we were much closer to the truth however long ago you think we deviated from right.
Oh, and it's not like we have any data on the effect of the doppler effect when applied to electromagnetic radiation... maybe someone should come up with a doppler radar, that would be a great idea.(sorry, I get sarcastic often with you )
I know it doesn't matter to you that without relativity much of our technology wouldn't work... why would you care about that when relativity is so obviously wrong?
I am curious... what do you think causes redshift?
Actually light IS electromagnetic radiation, they are one and the same.
And yet, we see relativity working every day in GPS and particle accelerators. How is it wrong? Please explain.
That's not quite true. Light is a type of electromagnetic radiation. It is not the only type. They are definitely not one and the same. Radio waves, x-rays, gamma rays, infrared, ultraviolet, microwaves, and light(I might have missed some) make up the range of electromagnetic radiation, but to say any one of those IS electromagnetic radiation, one and the same, is misleading and excludes the others. Kind of like saying that geese are birds, they are one and the same... doesn't really work.
Troubled, I was trying to show Winston the absurdity of dismissing relativity. He has stated elsewhere that all these things are just our attempts to justify our religion of relativity.
I know all about the need for relativity in GPS, I have no problem with that. If you had read all the conversation Winston and I have had, you would have picked up on the sarcasm in that statement.
You'll find a rather complete and complex list of the evidence for the Big Bang, which is whole lot more than just red shift.
"There was nobody to know Me until i created the world. Earth and sky came into existence as per my will. All living creatures started moving in the water, earth and air to prove my existence. The highest knowledge was placed on man to understand and to love me and know me." This statement show that none existed prior to creation other than the Supreme Power.
From what we've seen so far, it appears gods were created by a very low intelligence.
Well gee, that's an interesting question. I got stuck on your comment that complex things don't just spring into existence, then you say the universe has always been. So, it can't just spring up, but it can just be. They both sound impossible to me.
I feel the same about this god thing.
All I know for sure is that the universe does in fact exist. I don't know where it came from, but I do know that it is a wonderful thing. That's enough for me. I don't have to be blessed or chosen or any other thing. Being alive is just great all by itself.
I agree wholeheartedly, about the universe. But, I don't quite understand why we all argue. No one knows anything for fact. Other than that we are here. On a tiny little planet in that vast expanse.
I know there is more than this; whether we prove and find a way to see into parallel universes; whether we find a full understanding of the one we inhabit; or find we've been wrong all along. I don't care what we find out, as long as we keep trying to understand.
I think that's my primary problem with the eternal universe argument. It feels like giving up. Before we've even scratched the surface. I don't consider the amount of knowledge we've attained to be enough to make that call.
@ Emile R.,
(But, I don't quite understand why we all argue. No one knows anything for fact.)
You show a total disregard for the sentiments expressed right here on hub pages by fundamentalists. To them their beliefs are factual - in other words, they claim "to know".
So, the question is simply how fundamental are you? Do you believe unreservably that a certain god is real? If you do, you believe you "know" something about the nature of reality. And thus, you, too are a fundamentalist.
Anyone who claims certain knowledge of that which is unknowable is a fundamentalist in regards to that belief. Past that, fundamentalism is nothing more than a matter of degree - and thus all believers are related, if even only distant third cousins.
The basic fundamental belief that there is an intercessary god being is the same worldview cradle the comforts the beleiver who thinks that god has instructed that all infidels should be beheaded or that abortion-clinic phsycians deserve to die.
Once we demand objective evidence for our fundamental beliefs, the concept of an intercessary god being withers, and along with its death dies the birthplace of righteous religious violence.
You've made a number of good points here what we get away from is all killing and murdering doesn't come from religious believers we've had for a long time down right Greed, Hatred, Envy, Jealousy, Bigotry and the rest from good old non-believers and some of them want to stand in judgement like their behavior don't stink.
That's interesting. You reply to my post, simply to point a finger. It appears, in this instance you've got the problem backwards.
Are you willing to step back to see how often you've made that mistake?
(what we get away from is all killing and murdering doesn't come from religious believers)
I am confident I never made this claim. But of the motivations for violence, the easiest to do away with would seem to be irrational belief systems. All we have to do is demand objective validation before we blindly accept a story as true.
Talk to the hand winston. Seriously. Do you ever wonder why the fundamentalists are yakking on this site, and others like it? I think it's because they have no one to say this to in their real lives. No one, but an odd few, would buy into the ridiculous tripe. I take them with the grain of salt they deserve to be taken for.
I take it a step further. Conversely, the atheists who are so quick to judge are fundamentalists too. We know so much more than we once did, yet we still know so little. I'm not willing to be stuck in the past, but I'm not arrogant enough to think we've found answers.
Which makes atheism a first cousin, by incest. We don't know enough to state anything with certainty. We can certainly laugh at foolish claims, but I'm an agnostic because I see it as the only truly honest stand. Anything other than 'I don't know' is simply arrogant ego, in my opinion.
There are radicals in all walks of life and with all ideologies. I'd love to see everyone learn to be even tempered and non violent. I don't think it will happen in the foreseeable future.
I agree, but I might argue your methods.
Hi Emile R.,
Do I think liberal Christians or moderate Christians are a danger. No, not directly. In fact, I think for liberal Episcopalians church is simply an excuse for a weekly wine-tasting party.
But to think there is some rigid dividing line between fundamentalist and other categories is a misunderstanding of what causes moderate and liberal beliefs. Moderate and liberal beliefs stem mainly from either scientific evidence or societal determination that a fundamental interpretaion of scripture is undeserved. Moderates and liberals accept the modern knowledge and subdue religious fervor in regards to those areas. Fundamentalists chose to ignore knowledge and accept the mystical explanation without evidence, on faith alone, often in direct conflict with knowledge.
If some scriptural validity can be undermined by a gain in knowledge, what is there about other scripture that ensures it as reliable? If we as humans determine the height of moral injustice is slavery, yet slavery is promoted in the bible, why should we then accept the bible's claim that a supernatural being can impregnate a woman by willpower alone, sans sperm, that truly dead tissue can reanimate, and beings can disappear into the sky without the aid of machinery?
The Nicene Creed established the beliefs of Christianity. Those beliefs at a minimum accept the virgin birth of Jesus, the death and resurrection of Jesus, and the ascendency into heaven of Jesus.
To be a Christian, one must be a fundamentalist in regard to these three notions. After that, fundamentalism is a matter of degree.
"To be a Christian, one must be a fundamentalist in regard to these three notions. After that, fundamentalism is a matter of degree."
So, I see you do know, just choose to not believe.
Winston, I think you over rate the insanity in the christian experience. I was raised going to church. With the exception of a fundamentalist, I honestly don't think anyone puts a lot of thought and effort into attempting to understand and explain the mystery. Nor should they. I don't think that's the point, at all. Not for the best there is to be found in Christianity.
The primary point has nothing to do with heaven, or hell. It doesn't really have to do with the resurrection. To the average person, who follows in the footsteps; it is simply to try to be a better person. To put others first. To care about the needs of others. To not judge, because you accept that it is hypocrisy. That we all have our faults; but it is those pecadillos that make us human. To help, even to your own detriment if need be.
If I actually ran across a person that embodies those traits, they can believe anything they want. Because if belief is what it takes to attempt to be a better human. It's worth it. I may not know whether God exists, or Christ ever lived; but I respect his teachings.
Fundamentalism has nothing to do with the true teachings of Christianity. To say they are simply a degree of Christianity tells me your personal experience was with fundamentalism. It tells me you consider those who understand the teachings to be lukewarm Christians, one scripture away from rabid delusions.
It tells me you really don't have a firm grasp on the subject matter.
(Fundamentalism has nothing to do with the true teachings of Christianity.)
With all due respect, I think it is you who does not grasp that fundamentalism is far more than a U.S. Christian problem. There are millions who live on the Arab Peninsula who would rather die than give up their fundamental belief that Allah is the only real god.
Playing nice-nice with those types does not keep your head on your shoulders if there is a disagreement.
It is easy to cherry pick the bible and ignore the stupid, horrible parts. But to do that is a disservice to all other humans who look for guidance. You can be a better person and accept the good aspect of the teachings of the bible without having any belief whatsoever in god, Jesus, or the scriptures as holy. Cherry picking some only allows the fundamentalists to take advantage of the umbrella of religious tolerance provided by the moderate and liberal.
Can anyone imagine how large the earth must appear to be, from the view of a mole, turtle, or a bird.
Similar to how we perceive our solar system. We can not see the entirety of our universe.
More than likely, Our universe is only a small portion of something vastly larger.
I would think it likely that there is a higher course than this entity which the majority of humanity calls God.
We can not understand who/what God is any better than a bird understands our solar system.
Just because we can not understand the creator, does not prevent this from being.
OH how grand we think that we are. We know everything, and that is how we have always felt and always will feel.
Jerami, you are so right. I couldn't agree more.
So true Jerami.
Thus you demonstrate the illogic of Evolution Guy, aka Mark Knowles, who concludes God cannot exist because he cannot understand the concept.
No Jerami. I understand the concept - I reject it as nonsense.
What are You talking about rejecting?
Was It something that I said or something YOU thought that I was thinking?
Sorry I could have sworn you agreed with the person who said I did not was being illogical and do not understand the concept of a god?
Oh look - you did:
Did you forget that you said that already? How odd. No wonder your religion causes so much ill will.
Of all the people that I haveever meet, or talked to; never once have I thought that every concept that they express or exibit is completely logical.
Are you saying that you and you alone has perfect logic?
Is there only one true Logical conclusion which invelopes all things?
Are you saying that you and you alone posess this perfect logic?
If so, I haven't seen it yet.
A concept is
1: something conceived in the mind : thought, notion
2: an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances
So, how can a concept exist?
Is your god only in the mind of somebody?
The Creator God exists everywhere with His attributes; in and out of human mind,body and soul.
First, there was God. Then there was the universe. I doubt we will ever be able to learn much about what happened before that on our own.
Can you offer evidence of that outside of the bible?
In which case there is no God. If God does not communicate with us on our level, then there is no God. Simple.
Thank you SpanStar and Dave.
We just don't want to admitt just un inteligent that we are. Huh?
You're correct Jerami but isn't it funny that we also reject control or being controlled when in fact we do so love To Control....
YEP We do! Or I used to want to have controll over others ... until I discovered that along with that "Controll" comes responsability of those under my controll.
I can hardly live up to the responsability of my own. Don't want No Mo
Your question is an Oxymoron.
The definition of the entity concept 'God' is supreme being. A higher intelligence would be better, therefore that higher intelligence would be supreme, would be God.
I believe in God, the Father Almighty.. as such, I believe that there is no higher intelligence above God for the simple fact that God is The Almighty. For non-believers, this might seem complex. Faith makes it uncomplicated.
Not complex at all. Very simple. Really simple. So simple as to be meaningless.
what do you consider "meaningless".. the question or the answer?
Your statement. You did not answer a question - you spouted religious nonsense and claimed to understand something that is so complex that people who do not believe in majik cannot understand.
It is simple. So simple as to mean nothing. Meaningless.
spouted religious nonsense? hahaha obviously you are the one who do not understand and therefore whatever you say is absolutely nonsense.
Gee Rosie, all you are saying is that you believe in something. That is all you said. Not much of an argument, no matter how hard you believe something it doesn't answer the question that this forum is about.
You state: "This god so many people insist is real sounds like a complex thing... "
I state: ".. I believe that there is no higher intelligence above God for the simple fact that God is The Almighty. For non-believers, this might seem complex. Faith makes it uncomplicated."
Your question: "Was God created by a higher intelligence?"
I posted: see above
You asked. I answered by posting my belief in answer to your question. Therefore, I answered your question based on my belief. My answer might not be argumentative and non-definitive... but, a posting directly replying to your question and relative to your question, is still an answer.
God made himself, then became his son, killed himself then disappeared in a puff of mythology, it's a long story oft miss-told.
Isn't it funny how mankind thinks they have all the answers but all the things of nature/God are as they have always been since the beginning. Man can change a number of things but the things of nature he can't change. Hurricanes function as they always has, earthquakes, Tornadoes, Gravity.
Guess what- our own human bodies have to decide if they are going to accept or reject the organs we try to place into each other- is that something, the body makes that decision not man. Oh yes we can try and trick the body into accepting but that is tricking not deciding.
Anyone still believe this is from a higher intelligence?
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
A higher intelligence than what?
You gotta remember that these verses is from way. way back Yonder .. when the world was perfect in the eyes of the Law givers....
And they/God ?? .. saw this kinda like seeing a crack apearing in their perfection (windshield)
and was trying to stop it before it reached from side to side.
And doing so was right at the time ??? Maybe? .. Not?
Every one knows how the free will for every individual can mess up "ANY" One Individual plan.
You need to remember that any god would not be limited by the ignorance of the time Jerami. That would be totally illogical when related to an omni anything god or any entity of superior intelligence.
Who wrote down that which they say God said to them?
Maybe God was talking to everybody ... but there wasn't enough pencils to go around?
(Maybe God was talking to everybody ... but there wasn't enough pencils to go around?)
It is counterintuitive to think that human rationalizations are needed to explain the actions taken by a perfect omnipotent being - after all, this being could have produced out of thin air a 24-book leather-bound volume to make his message crystal clear.
Instead of mountains of justifications, why not fulfill Occam's Razor when a paradox of belief presents itself?
Why does the bible make no sense? Because there is no god.
Why do bad things happen to good people? Because there is no god.
Why do we have to kill and consume to survive? Because there is no god.
There, that's easy and explains those quandries so much better.
That was a good one Ernie. I see Jerami still babbles his nonsense no matter what the cost to his credibility.
I guess the one thing we often over look when it comes to God is if he made everything then he only can decide to do with everything as he pleases because as people we didn't create ourselves nor can we heal ourselves. However when it comes to killing during this era it is my belief God deals with people at their own ignorance level which is to say death came not simply by scripture but by the law of the land. Telling people they needed to negotiate when all they understand is eye for an eye or death would be a waste of time.
Can one image telling the Romans to put down their arms and asking the towns people to just give them what they want- why they'd march right over that person's behind.
So we are imagining a super being who cannot deal with what he created psychologically?
Sorry, but I see that as absurd.
Everything that isn't your point of view is seen as absurd Earnestshub. In fact weren't you recently compared to a spiritual being?
I think you should be more honest. I think I have used the word about once a year.
Why don't you address the arguments for a change.
And yes, some weasel word promoting posing as a human compared me to satan.
Glad you bought that up.
For at least a year that I know of you've been the same then as you are today when it comes to the subject matter in conversing with you what would be the point?
There would be a point if you had one. you don't.
You have the bible instead of any opinions formed by yourself, and the bible is an old bag of recycled washing.
From your point of view however there are have been millions of people that accept the teachings of the bible and it has changed the lives of many whom have taken it to heart. Not simply accepting what man has to say but changing their lives for the good and not the greedy improves society as a whole.
Man created the concept of a God, therefore we must be that higher intelligence...
It is wrong that man created the concept of the Creator God; the concept developed in human beings when the Creator God made a converse with man whom one may name Adam and who had a wife with the name Eve.
The old Adam & Eve fairy tale again - a nice little story, but if you truly believe in that, well good for you.
Man, not God wrote the bible, and all its tales. God didn't fax or e-mail the words to be used in the bible, it was penned by mortal men.
(but then say its OK to accept that matter is the eternal uncaused first cause, is duplicitous. )
I think you misunderstand the position. If creation ex nihilo is impossible, then the only possible rational explanation for existence is that it is uncaused - matter has always been.
This is extremely counterintuitive as it flies in the face of what we perceive from our limited human viewpoint that everything must have a cause. It would also invalidate the Big Bang theory, which itself hinges precariously on the assumption that redshift is a Doppler effect of light and that CBR is the aftereffects of BB.
However, it would not be the first time cosmology heralded an incorrect viewpoint and fought to keep it forefront and center as theory: think geocentricity theory and epicycle explanations that survived 2000 years until further scientific data showed that viewpoint unrealistic.
Perhaps the axiom is not true - maybe there does not have to be a cause. The dichotomy is not as you propose, that either there was an outside cause or matter was self-caused. The dichotomy is that either there was an outside cause or no cause was required.
Good one A, maybe the insistence on cause and effect are the problem. Like I said elsewhere, the universe always was, and counterintuitive as that might be, it is not as counterintuitive as that there was an intelligent being existing before existence. Everybody knows the universe exists, we are in it. Everybody doesn't know that god exists, but to those people that god exists for, god seems real enough. Too bad that god is so pissed off all of the time. Punishing the entire human race until the end of time for what one pair of people did at the beginning, with no one to guide them, now that is just wrong.
Sorry Lew but this representation of God comes from the Church. The original sin that you slide to is not a Jewish concept. There is a Jewish prayer that goes along the lines of "thankyou Lord that my soul is pure". After several years in the Church I've come to a point that where Judaism and Christianity disagree on anything derived from the Hebrew scriptures, it will be the Church that is in error.
I no longer believe in a literal talking snake that was Satan in disguise; the fall of man; or original sin. God is not pissed off with man. He loves man which is why He came in the flesh as a sin sacrifice.
This position I hold leaves me branded as not a proper Christian or a sky fairy dreamer. Ho hum.
(an intelligent being existing before existence.)
Not only is this claim counterintuitive, but it is irrational and a self-refuting ontological contradiction, thus showing itself to be impossible.
This is the problem with theism - theists want to base their claims on the axiom that "anything is possible", but they want to exclude the truly impossible from that claim.. Intersecting parallel lines are ontologically contradictory and thus truly impossible, but if anything is possible then intersecting parallel lines must be possible. How can this be? Theist: "Well, you'll have to look in the fine print in the god contract under 'exclusions.' It's right there: God cannot defy logic. See?"
Hmm. An omnipotent being cannot perform the illogical? This is supposed to pass as logic?
Whoa. Talk about weird.
The rational position is simply the negation of the theistic axiom: not anything is possible. In other words, some things are impossible.
This is simply the Law of Non-Contradiction: if P then not-P.
My bet is on not-P.
I like your argument of intersecting parallel lines, it opens up for a lot of thought, but there is a problem with that. You don't allow for the possibility of changing definitions, new discoveries that might be considered loop-holes, or any other possibility we can't even think about yet.
Also, I'm not certain, but I believe that intersecting parallel lines are possible under non-Euclidian geometry.
Also, since you have a hard time defining existence, why don't you tell us how you think the universe was created and what exists in it?
(why don't you tell us how you think the universe was created and what exists in)
See hubber Fatfist and his hub "Creation is Impossible - First Cause is Impossible".
Ok, I'll see that and report back to you.
Although, it's hard to have a discussion with you because if you can't counter an argument you just change the subject.
Ok, I haven't even finished his introduction, yet there are points I have to make.
1 - Fatfist claims that Christianity teaches that God created the universe out of nothing. While this may be true of some Christians and some Christian sects, let's examine the actual claim of the bible.
Doesn't that leave room for God creating the universe from, say, a point of nearly-infinite energy following the laws of the universe?
2 - Fatfist, in the introduction(we might examine this more later) states that space is omnipresent and precedes God, and was never created. Now, if you believe it is possible for one thing to never have been created, how can you say it is impossible for another thing to never have been created?
Fatfist is claiming that it is possible for something to always have existed, yet it is impossible for God to always have existed.
Do you need me to continue Winston?
(2 - Fatfist, in the introduction(we might examine this more later) states that space is omnipresent and precedes God, and was never created. Now, if you believe it is possible for one thing to never have been created, how can you say it is impossible for another thing to never have been created?)
Do you have any reading comprehension skills at all? Perhaps you are too busy jumping to erroneous conclusions to be bothered with understanding.
Try going slowly here. Space is defined as nothing. How can nothing be created? Not even god can create nothing.
There is nothing contradictory about acknowledging that it is impossible to create nothingness, i.e., space.
Belief has nothing to do with it. Reasoning determines that it is impossible for nothing to be created. Perhaps in your quest to jump to conclusions you skipped over the classes on reasoning?
How can space be omnipresent? Omnipresent means being present everywhere. Present means 'being, existing, or occurring at this time or now; current'.
I followed along with his assumption that space exists, but since you made a fuss about that, I'll add that to the list of arguments in the introduction of his hub.
Or, do you know a way for nothingness to exist? Even by your definition, space doesn't exist.
There is if you also argue that that nothingness that wasn't created exists.
You're such a stickler for words, are you really arguing that 'If you believe that it is impossible to create nothing' and 'If you reason that it is impossible to create nothing' are all that different? To be fair, I never know what a word means to you since you don't believe in using a dictionary.
By the way, I"m still waiting for you to address the dozen or so points and questions I have posed to you that you keep ignoring.
This is not a place to discuss my hub....you are off-topic. Winston merely asked you to read it. If you have any questions, concerns, disagreements, or if you wish to make a point about the hub, or if you can explain the claim of "creation",....this is done by posting a comment to the hub...not here. This is unfair to me and my hub because I cannot generate an off-topic discussion by replying to your concerns here.
So, if you have any legitimate concerns, feel free to post them in my hub....thanks.
If somebody brings something up during a discussion, especially as part of an argument, it is fair to discuss. I'm sorry if I offended you but I'd be happy to discuss your hub in your comments.
For this thread though, if he uses it as part of an argument, there's no reason I shouldn't respond. Thank you for understanding my usage of your hub here, but I will comment on it as well.
Adults debating over mythical gods, higher intelligence.
The Creator God is Most-Intelligent and All-Wise; nobody created Him; He is the First and the Last.
There can be no last, unless there is an end. And if we are to believe in eternal life, then there can be no end. So God can only be the First and Always. Not the First and Last.
No, it isn't. If you have reading comprehension issues, please deal with them.
You said that. You said the universe came about on its own, or that it had no creator, or that it created itself. All different ways of stating the same concept.
Science has not shown that.
(Science has not shown that)
I've seen you make this or similar claims many times, always using the term "science" as if it were a single entity. This makes me think you are only offering a bias based on your interpretation of "science".
Cosmology has little factual knowlege. The same holds true for mathematical physics, including quantum mechanics.
The biological sciences and chemistry have a plethora of factual knowledge.
The point being that when you say "science has not shown that" you are actually saying nothing at all, as some branches of science have no way of verification while others have mountains of verification already in place.
Oddly, though, I happen to agree with your position, in that the BB is worthless as it offers no mechanism for occurence, so one may as well offer an instigating claim that god said, let there be light as the BB claim that something happened but we don't know what or how.
When I use the term science, I refer to the family of science. In this sense, it refers to the family of natural science. More specifically, physics.
Of course you can say I'm biased as to what branch of science I refer to. If we discuss anything chemical, I naturally will be talking about chemical science.
Would it make you feel better if I used the term 'the sciences' rather than 'science'?
However, this isn't really the forum to discuss the efficacy of certain branches of science.
physics is not 'natural science' it is the study of the objects defined as the collective observable universe, based on information previously observed in a type but not necessarily of physical form.
Sometimes, I get tired of having to define everything for people... especially on the internet where definitions are just a click away.
If that's not good enough for you...
Do you need more? Physics is one of the natural sciences.
Yes, it is of, but not "a" natural science, as you suggested.
Having minored in physics, particularly quantum physics and other notes in mechanics I stand on this: your claim is bogus. Because from everything I have read on your posts, you do not know what science is, nor physics.
And if wiki-nary is your only source, good luck with that. lol. I'll stick with the Berkley or Cambridge, thank you very much.
Try Again, son.
And if you're that tired, son, take a nap. It is quite a refreshing action and definitely allows for better mental penetration. But that's just a suggestion.
1 - I said physics belongs to the family of natural sciences. You say it is one of the natural sciences, yet somehow I'm wrong?
2 - Are you using a different definition of 'natural science' than the 'natural sciences'? You are the one that said the specific phrase 'physics is not a natural science'. All of my statements were that physics is one of the natural sciences.
3 - Which claim is bogus, that Physics is a natural science, or that science hasn't proven *what* created the universe?
Wikipedia wasn't my only source, and I cited two dictionaries before. I only cited that part of wikipedia to show you more examples of natural sciences.
If you only care about Cambridge, then here you go:
Seriously, where's the problem? If something belongs to a group, it is also characterized by that group. Here's an example.
The sun is one of the stars of the Milky Way Galaxy. It is a star. See how it is both the thing, and belongs to the group of things?
Similarly, physics is one of the natural sciences. It is a natural science. The group 'The Natural Sciences' is nothing more than all natural sciences grouped together.
For a physics minor, you should have learned what a natural science is.
Sure it has. There is no evidence whatsoever that gods had anything to do with it. There is no evidence that anyone at all had anything to do with it.
1 - Science has not shown how the universe was created, nor has it shown how life was created from inorganic material. You assert science has proven it, you have to provide the proof. Give us a link to the data and experiments that prove either one of those.
2 - Until science shows how the universe was created, it is absurd to say you know how it wasn't created. Until science shows how life was created, it is absurd to say you know how it wasn't created.
3 - Even if science shows how the universe was created, it won't exclude the possibility of a higher being using those natural laws for his own purpose. The same goes for the creation of life. For example, if scientists successfully create life in a lab, how does that prove that God can't do the same thing? All it proves is that it is possible to create life in a lab. Trying to draw the conclusion that there is no God from such an experiment is a ridiculous stretch with no basis in the experimental data.
Why are you lying? Where did I say science has shown how the universe was created?
And, when did the subject of abiogenesis come up? Is that something that you're going to claim I said?
Science has no evidence as to what or who started the process, yet you say it has shown that the process didn't require a creator. Science can't show that until it can show that it can happen naturally, which it hasn't shown.
For the universe to have created life without a creator, it would have to create life without a creator as well. Hence, abiogenesis. Or are you saying that science has shown that the creation of the universe doesn't require a creator but life came from a creator anyway?
So, your belief is that someone kick-started the universe as opposed to it coming on its own, and no amount of evidence is going to change your belief.
LOL! I have no idea where you got that one.
No, I just happen to understand that science hasn't yet even attempted to address the question of who or what started the process. You seem to think science has shown that it just happened naturally, but it hasn't.
No, science has shown that a creator was not required.
The fallacy lies in the claim that since the Big Bang theory does not explain the origins of the universe, believers will purport that to be a weakness and begin exploiting the fallacy that a creator would then follow in lack of an explanation, that the origins of the universe was the result of a creator.
Big Bang theory is derived from the equations of General Relativity, which govern the mathematics and explanations on how our universe evolved. Why would such a natural process require nothing more than another natural process to evolve itself?
Does it help to quantify your religious beliefs? Give them some sort of validity and credibility?
The Big Bang Theory only shows the universe came from a single source. Which even points to God being the creator of it all.
How? Science has shown no such thing. Back up your claim with evidence.
No, the argument is, because we can't explain how the universe started, we can't explain what or who started it. It's a logical thought, how can you explain what started something that you don't understand?
That's not proof. That's an idea. Yes, the universe could have been created from natural laws. But, a creator could have used those laws just as well. You seem to think I present this as proof of a creator, but I don't. Your fallacy is saying that science has shown that a creator wasn't required. Back it up.
You have no evidence of the universe being able to be created without a creator. If you do, present it.
I think the above are very logical points. I appreciate you wisdom.
Will the atheists respond?
People who believe consensus synonymous with reality would have made some damned fine flat-earthers back in the day.
I am just shaking my head. Sorry to be rude.
Here is where you science buffs get it just as wrong as the religious buffs.
The 'sun is not the 'sun'.
A 'star' is not 'a star'.
There is no such 'thing' as the Milky Way Galaxy -no matter how impressive/learned an astronomer/astrologer one claims to be.
This 'thing' humans and ONLY humans define as the universe, is a singular unit, expressing itself in many forms of itself: 'light'. That 'light' or 'radiant' may be near 'motionless', 'moving' at 'speeds' immeasurable, 'bright' or 'dim', etc, or even 'void' of illumination, depending on the view, yet it is still just one thing. And 'it' is 100% natural, even though your early theistic developers/scientists define the natural as observed and the unnatural or supernatural the unobserved.
Here is a lesson for you: the 90% of the unobserved 'universe' is collectively expressing one particular form of 'energy'. That expression is defined as 'neutral'. Science is beginning to consider it after 250,000 human 'years' of 'evolution' and it is changing how science thinks, how we view the 'universe' and even how we view the human mind.
Groups are human necessities to understand their own thoughts -or at least keep those thoughts 'organized' and establish faux control over those thoughts, those observations and certainly control over the masses. Groups are poetically dysfunctional.
A 'natural' science does not exist, unless one is merely sitting on a rock watching the 'sun'. As soon as any mechanic is applied, that science becomes 'unnatural'. Same as a theist applying a 'prayer' as communication with a g/God. It isn't natural, it is synthetic. Not necessarily synthetic a priori only, but any form of priori.
There was no God to be created in the first place. At least the scientific theories are based on what we know to be true and some sort of empirical observations. The religious "explanation" - "I don't understand it, therefore it must have been created by my particular god", explains nothing and could be just as validly applied to faries and goblins as any god(s)
by David Livermore 6 years ago
If God created the universe, then who created God? Who was before that?I hear that God created the universe, us, etc. But what existed before that? And before that? God couldn't have been around forever. There had to be a beginning. But what was that...
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 10 years ago
In a forum, I asked a question: Why God created atheists? Now I ask, why man created God?
by shuck72 7 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 Suzanne Sheffield 10 years ago
If God created the universe and everything in it, why did he create demons?
by Hui (蕙) 10 years ago
Buddhism and Christianity are two of major religions. They both have great and wise scriptures, which teach our earthly people many lessons. However, there has only been one universe, who created it?I am not quite sure that I can ask this question, but I am always curious how religious people would...
by Vishaaa 11 years ago
Do you believe, god created the universe?If not what is the source?
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|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.|