If God created everything, then where did he come from? Did he create himself? Did another God create him? The evolution of god is the interesting creation of man. He made god very perfect and no one can doubt him on any occasion.
-
No Beginning...26% Voted for by Poet of dreams, EternalEyes, faithfullydedicated, keyman7, bigbuddha. (8 total)
A number of sceptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question 'Who created God?' is illogical, just like 'To whom is the bachelor married?'
So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: 'If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn't God need a cause? And if God doesn't need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?' In reply, Christians should use the following reasoning:
1 Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
2 The universe has a beginning.
3 Therefore the universe has a cause.
The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn't need a cause. In addition, Einstein's general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space.
Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time 'God is the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity'(Isaiah 57:15). Therefore He doesn't have a cause.
In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.
1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.
If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy the 'heat death' of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible.
So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.
Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause, But it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause; no-one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. So would all law enforcement, if the police didn't think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house.
Also, the universe cannot be self-caused; nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity.
Special thanks - Christiananswers.net for this valuable information.
-
hmmmm10% Voted for by blubber, GaryCGibson, BrandonHerron270.
well, god isn't really a thing, but more like a spirit, another life force that isn't made up of what we're made up of, or anything else in the universe.
-
Senseless6% Voted for by Phoenixfire7, sweetypie101.
This topic is one of my toughest logic troubles to this date. There should be a solution but there might not. The idea's this topic presents might just be unanswerable due to the contradictory terms as was mentioned in the first paragraph by the OP.
Here's where I stand on the basic premise of this question; Why must there be God? To be the cause of the universe?
If someone, with no knowledge of our religions, where to inquire into the nature of existence would he postulate a God? And would his postulation not simply be an intellectual concept? A theory? Is God not simply a concept and a theory about creation?
Another point.
When one quotes science like it's an absolute, (as the op did) one misses what science is. It is working knowledge. Subject to change and revision.
The current predominant facts point to a begining for the universe but other theories derived from the same or diferent facts point to alternatives. Multiple big bangs, numerous dimensions, etc.God is a concept of the absolute which transcends logical existence. We've created this concept because existence doesn't seem logical, from a cause and effect stand point.
I don't think the God concept works because it tasks creation with that which is outside of it.(existence)With this one must have another form of exitence(the absolute) which logically is equally improbable.
I think things can be their own creators. I think consciousness is "god" and it creates all exitence all the time. I do not think it is removed from matter but is a property of it. Just as senseless? Maybe to some but not to me.
To answer tough questions why invent improbable causes before exploring simpler options?
-
Plotinus' Idea of 'The One'/and Jesus talking about 'the water of life'6% Voted for by batbabie, GaryCGibson.
Plotinus Paradigm on Creativity of God Similar to John 4-9...
Saturday 04 of March, 2006
This comparison of Plotinus' Ennead 3 tractate 8 section 9 with the comment Jesus made, or rather the dialogue that Jesus had with the women at the well in Samaria is from the publlic domain version of the enneads by McKenna and Page, I believe, and if not I will correct it.
Ennead 3 tractate 8 is on 'contemplation' and is somewhat more difficult to locate on-line. The paradigms that Plotinus may have drawn from the New Testament are interesting. Jesus as 'The One' mentioning creativity from 'the source' corresponds to what Plotinus would logically infer a couple centuries later about the nature of God.
Ennead Tractate 8-9 “9. Clearly a Being of this nature is not the primal existent; there must exist that which transcends it, that Being (the Absolute), to which all our discussion has been leading. In the first place, Plurality is later than Unity. The Intellectual-Principle is a number (= the expression of a plurality); and number derives from unity: the source of a number such as this must be the authentically One. Further, it is the sum of an Intellectual-Being with the object of its Intellection, so that it is a duality; and, given this duality, we must find what exists before it. “
Ennead 3 Tractate 8-10 “The potentiality of the Universe: the potentiality whose non-existence would mean the non-existence of all the Universe and even of the Intellectual-Principle which is the primal Life and all Life. This Principle on the thither side of Life is the cause of Life- for that Manifestation of Life which is the Universe of things is not the First Activity; it is itself poured forth, so to speak, like water from a spring. Imagine a spring that has no source outside itself; it gives itself to all the rivers, yet is never exhausted by what they take, but remains always integrally as it was; the tides that proceed from it are at one within it before they run their several ways, yet all, in some sense, know beforehand down what channels they will pour their streams. “
The Gospel of John 4 has a parallel paradigm about the everlasting water of life that flows from God. The ‘water’ is the absolute creativity of God that Plotinus mentioned above…
John 4-9 “Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. 10Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. 11The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? 12Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? 13Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: 14But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. 15The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw. 16Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. 17The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: 18For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly. 19The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.”“
-
Well, look it scientifically6% Voted for by The Pole Star, JM Kenyon.
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." It is a popualr qoute by Sir, Albert.
When we say, who is god? We are indicating to something fundamental, very fundamental. This is bacause, I ahve a logic behind it. I suppose every religion states that the god isn't in a particlar place, it is everywhere. This means, it is either, an atom or a particle of an atom i.e. a sub atomic particle.
But, this isn't wholly true. This is because we have come accross some term known as vaccum where we state that atoms or any kind of particles doesn't exist.
BUt, this isn't also true after an extent. In true vaccum automatically some anti matter particles arrise.
So, this concludes that the god is either an anti matter particle or Energy itself.
Energy has a better chance. Uknow energy can neither be created nor be destroyed.
-
dialogue with an atheist professorVoted for by nashwa.
"Let me explain the problem science has with God.", The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.
Professor: "You're a Muslim, aren't you, son?"
Student: "Yes, sir"
Professor: "So you believe in God?"Student: "Absolutely"
Professor: "Is God good?"
Student: "Sure! God's good"
Professor: "Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"
Student: "Yes"
The professor grins knowingly and considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help them? Would you try?"
Student: "Yes sir, I would"
Professor: "So you're good...!"
Student: "I wouldn't say that"
Professor: "Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could in fact most of us would if we could... God doesn't"
[No answer]
"He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Muslim who died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him. How is this God good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"
[No answer]
The elderly man is sympathetic. "No, you can't, can you?" He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. "In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones"
"Let's start again, young fella"
Professor: "Is God good?"
Student: "Er... Yes"
Professor: "Is Satan good?"
Student: "No"
Professor: "Where does Satan come from?"
Student: "The student falters. From... God..."
Professor: "That's right. God made Satan, didn't He?" The elderly man runs his bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking, student audience. "I think we're going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen". He turns back to the Muslim.
"Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"
Student: "Yes, sir"
Professor: "Evil's everywhere, isn't it? Did God make everything?"
Student: "Yes"
Professor: "Who created evil?"
[No answer]
Professor: "Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All the terrible things - do they exist in this world?"
The student squirms on his feet.
Student: "Yes"
Professor: "Who created them?"
[No answer]
The professor suddenly shouts at his student. "WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME, PLEASE!" The professor closes in for the kill and climbs into the Muslim's face. In a still small voice: "God created all evil, didn't He, son?"
[No answer]
The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like an aging panther. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me, he continues, How is it that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all time? The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the world. All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the death and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the world, isn't it, young man?"
[No answer]
"Don't you see it all over the place? Huh?" Pause. "Don't you?" The professor leans into the student's face again and whispers, "Is God good?"
[No answer]
"Do you believe in God, son?"
The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor. I do"
The old man shakes his head sadly. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. You have never seen God, Have you?"
Student: "No, sir. I've never seen Him"
Professor: "Then tell us if you've ever heard your God?
Student: "No, sir. I have not"
Professor: "Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God or smelt your God...in fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?"
[No answer]
Professor: "Answer me, please"
Student: "No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't"
Professor: "You're AFRAID... you haven't?"
Student: "No, sir"
Professor: "Yet you still believe in him?"
Student: "yes..."
Professor: "That takes FAITH!" The professor smiles sagely at the underling. "According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son? Where is your God now?"
The student doesn't answer "Sit down, please" The Muslim sits...Defeated. Another Muslim raises his hand. "Professor, may I address the class?" The professor turns and smiles. "Ah, another Muslim in the vanguard! Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering"
The Muslim looks around the room. "Some interesting points you are making, sir. Now I've got a question for you. Is there such thing as heat?"
Professor: Yes, the professor replies. There's heat.
Student: "Is there such a thing as cold?"
Professor: "Yes, son, there's cold too."
Student: "No, sir, there isn't"
Professor: The professor's grin freezes. The room suddenly goes very cold. The student continues. You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458, You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it"
Silence. A pin drops somewhere in the classroom.
Student: "Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?"
Professor: "That's a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn't darkness? What are you getting at...?"
Student: "So you say there is such a thing as darkness?"
Professor: "Yes..."
Student: "You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something, it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, Darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you... give me a jar of darker darkness, professor?
Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him. "This will indeed be a good semester. Would you mind telling us what your point is, young man?"
Student: "Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must be in error...."
The professor goes toxic. "Flawed...? How dare you...!
Student: "Sir, may I explain what I mean?" The class is all ears.
Professor: "Explain... oh, explain..." The professor makes an admirable effort to regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself. He waves his hand to silence the class, for the student to continue.
"You are working on the premise of duality", the Muslim explains. "That for example there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, merely the absence of it"
The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbor who has been reading it. "Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids this country hosts, professor, Is there such a thing as immorality?"
Professor: "Of course there is, now look..."
Student: "Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?" The Muslim pauses. "Isn't evil the absence of good?"
The professor's face has turned an alarming color. He is so angry he is temporarily speechless. The Muslim continues.
"If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work, God is accomplishing? Islam tells us it is to see if each one of us will, choose good over evil"
The professor bridles. "As a philosophical scientist, I don't vie this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable"
"I would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going", the Muslim replies. "Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week! Tell me, professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"
Professor: "If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."
Student: "Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"
The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a silent, stony stare.
Student: "Professor, Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a priest?
Professor: "I will overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion. Now, have you quite finished?" the professor hisses.
Student: "So you don't accept God's moral code to do what is righteous?"
Professor: "I believe in what is - that's science!"
Student: "Ahh! SCIENCE!", the student's face splits into a grin, "Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. Science too is a premise which is flawed..."
SCIENCE IS FLAWED..? the professor splutters.
The class is in uproar. The Muslim remains standing until the commotion has subsided.
Student: "To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?"
The professor wisely keeps silent. The Muslim looks around the room.
"Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen air, oxygen, molecules, atoms, the professor's brain?" The class breaks out in laughter. The Muslim points towards his elderly crumbling tutor, "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain... felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain?"
"No one appears to have done so", The Muslim shakes his head sadly. "It appears no one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science, I declare that the professor has no brain!"
The Muslim sits...Because that's what a chair is for!!!
-
IndeedVoted for by Black Velvet Rose.
Logical absurdity indeed. One word, evolution. If something is "alive" it evolves . . . be it physically, emptionally, and/or intellectually (that is, in the specific way that "it" is capable.) The way that it evolves whether affected/effected by environment or some vast predetermination or both is debateable in and of its-self. [More to follow, I'm too tired for this right now."I'll be back." lol]
-
God explanationVoted for by MindsEye.
OK...how do you explain the unexplainable....by dismissing it as fate..or destiny..or the will of a god or some other force that is beyond your understanding. This is why for the masses the concept (god) has been so acceptable... accepted to the point of fear. sure why not fear something you dont understand, cant explain, and more so are subservant to. Man created gods to explain the unexplainable and to bring order and hope to those without hope or power.
-
My explanationVoted for by blablablooey12.
No one created God...or at least, no one knows. And if some one did, another person would ask "Who created him?" "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for, and certain of what we do not see" we need to understand and follow that Bible verse. There was a beginning, and there will be an end. God and Jesus were the first. And Jesus will be the last. It says so in the Bible: "I am the First and the Last...."
-
Coincidences?
Here's a quote from a book titled Sir You Said It by Shabbir Ahmed that you might find interesting to consider:
Who wrote the Qur'an? The non-Muslim's answer to this important question usually sounds like this:
"The Qur'an was authored by a human being; it is not a literal revelation from God. It is a book created by human intelligence, like any other book. It was, as a matter of historical fact, written by Muhammad, in the seventh century A.D." If this is your view, rest assured that you have plenty of company! You should also know, though, th
Adding your reply:
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
February 16, 2006
Edit | Reply
February 16, 2006
.....
'I can name you several things that began for no other reason than to continue their existence. Thats not a cause.' - Drylce808 That statement is nonsensical - something that is in continuation does not begin, it *began*. Next, nothing begins itself. If you can give me one sensible example of something that began because it wanted to exist, I might consider your application. But that is just a possibility, as there are even more flaws in your argument. 'An elephant; well, that was created because mother elephant was in heat and father elephant was horny.' That, my friend, can be defined as a 'cause'. If you're trying to say it's not, then you have some serious issues. 'The universe is expanding and has been expanding since the beginning of its existance.' Proof? Have you *seen* the universe expand? 'There are some philisophical ideas about the universe that are open for discussion. In order to discuss them, you need to be open minded to the idea that the bible cannot answer most questions' No... logic can. I use logic... I mensioned the bible once through my explanation. Logic answers questions very well. But have you ever taken into thought 'supernatural' occurences? (not that that has anything to do with what we're debating) Try looking it up in a google search and explain how those things happen. 'and you can’t use “because thats how God wanted it” as an answer.' Putting words in my mouth. 'Who created God can be better answer as, who created the universe? Perhaps, a better question is what created the universe? Even better, is what sparked the big bang? What began the process? These are acceptable questions that cannot be answered by science but can only be talked about philisophically.' Yes, and theyre also more closed minded than I am. Shocking? I know. Listen, I can't wait until you laugh in my face because they found proof for the big bang - but golly, I am even more anticipating the day when you say, 'God's here! what was I thinking! now I have to go to hell because I was a skeptic!' Read revelation if your not too skeptical, and you will see what I mean. God loves you and wants you in his family, but he doesn't want a skeptical heart. You can laugh all you want but I know what your problem is. You don't consider creationism enough... look into it! you might learn something that changes your mind!February 17, 2006
Edit | Reply
Makessenseright
February 20, 2006
Science
You say that science and religion are at odds, that they will be always be at odds, and that "coincidences" that support religion can be ignored. I would argue that science and religion go hand in hand, science done right will always point to God. Science can and will never be able to prove or disprove the existence of God. Ask any scientist, Christian, Buddhist, or Atheist. Science does not, however, provide a viable explanation for how the universe even exists. Two of the foundational laws of science seem to completely rule out the possibility of natural causes starting our universe. The first which you so happily quoted says the “the sum total of all matter and energy must stay the same” the second, also alluded to says, “the amount of entropy (or chaos) in a closed system is always increasing” or in other words “the amount of USEABLE energy in a closed system (like the universe) is always decreasing.” For the universe to exist and not contradict the first law it would have to have been around forever, but if the universe has existed forever the amount of useable energy would have reached zero an eternity ago. The only explanation is a God who is self-sufficient and above the laws of nature. Science and religion are not at odds, I could provide more examples of science standing squarely behind religion, such as the origin of life, the birth of Earth, and many, many more.February 20, 2006
Edit | Reply
Makessenseright
February 22, 2006
Quick Overview
Life couldn't have started on Earth. You see, Oxygen pulls apart protein molecules breaking down any structures that approach life. The only way we survive is that we have fully developed membranes protecting the inside of our cells. If we don’t have oxygen in our atmosphere, proteins (and life) would be fried by ultraviolet light. If life tries to form underwater the Oxygen in the water still pulls it apart, they call that hydrolysis. Proteins are made up of all left handed amino acids, and are hundreds of amino acids long, that would be like flipping 300 coins and getting all heads just to start. Then if this chain comes together, somehow forms without getting fried or pulled apart and then gets all left handed amino acids it also needs to be made up of 20 specific amino acids out of 20,000 know types, in a certain, precise order. Finally if we have a protein by itself, it doesn’t help because proteins can replicate, it would quickly dissolve unless the rest of the cell spontaneously formed around it. You think believing in God requires faith, you haven’t really studied evolution.February 24, 2006
Edit | Reply
Makessenseright
February 27, 2006
One little phrase...
I have no desire to agrue with you, but I do want to point out one little phrase in your post "Science does not know how the first molecule of RNA came about..." This little phrase "Science does not know" comes up over and over in all of my science classes. In my view your belief in science and evolutionism is just as much faith as my belief in God, only you chose to believe in people, I chose to believe in God.March 1, 2006
Edit | Reply
March 3, 2006
Edit | Reply
March 9, 2006
Edit | Reply
Universe don't have a beignning
U read the universe began with the big bang. U might even know what caused big bang. But, have u read "Universe began from nothing!" yes it is true. The beginning of the universe is from nothing. it is like that before a fraction of a second the time didn't exist and all of a sudden it introduced itself. Because, the universe was a total vaccum a fraction of a second before its existance. In vaccum automatically some anti matter particles arrise. This makes it clear that the matter in the big bang wasn't created, it ahdn't a beggnning.So how can one expect the universe to ahve a beginning.keyman7
March 10, 2006
DryIce808
We've argued before and I'm beginning to see a pattern in your views and opinions. No matter what, you completely exclude the idea of God, of a being that came before all and created the world. But your exclusion is not a result of science proving he wasn't there. I believe it is a result of a plain and simple prejudice against God. Your comment, "Only science provides evidence, while God provides… a controlling endless wraith while demanding obediance" provides evidence of that. You clearly don't believe in God or at least give that impression, but you are speaking as though you know exactly what God would be should he exist. And you don't like it. Let me ask you, how do you have any idea in hell what God is like? How do any of us know what this being that you think is a myth is like? In dealing with other myths, we look at...say..unicorns. They don't exist and are mere myths, but we can imagine where they came from. Some bright fellow combined a horse with a horn. The same goes for all myths, even down to the ancient gods of the Egyptians and Greeks. But where did the true, the real idea of God come from? Some say we invented god to explain things we couldn't explain. Well, if a fellow approached me about a tragedy that occured and said, "I think this was a result of an invisible and unearthly being that was mad at us for not being perfect", I believe my response would be a simple, " Yea, bullshit." People invent things that are useful to them, but a God who orders everyone around is not very useful for our temporal purposes. You might reply that God was used by people to control other people. Well, if people don't listen to what you tell them to do, do you really think they will pay attention to your invisible friend? I sincerely doubt it. You stoutly deny the need for God in creation. You make appeals to scientists who have been wrong just as much as anyone else. You even go as far as to state that certain people simply can't understand where you are comming from intellectually because they have not taken the classes you have. Your intellectual arrogance is annoying. George Washington Carver was one of the greatest scientists that walked the face of the earth, yet he had a lesser education than probably you or me. The same is true for Gregor Mendel. Albert Einstein was thought to be retarded when he was young. And yet you, in all of your classes and institutions have a better understanding of the truth about evolution and intelligent design for the sake of your education. Maybe you do, but to say something like that is pure arrogance and in no way is science or philosophy.March 10, 2006
keyman7
March 10, 2006
Edit | Reply
ExpensiveThinker
April 10, 2006
Edit | Reply
Everything has a cause?
Prove it.May 2, 2006
speak clearly dryice 808
dude it sounds like your not stupid ya know but if you're going to attempt to discuss matters of this magnitude you better be damn sure that you say exactly what you mean..in other words you need to be able to use the english language more precisely..i know you can do it if you really try..but if you go back and really read what you wrote you will see that there are many unclear statements.May 2, 2006
Edit | Reply
May 31, 2006
Edit | Reply
September 29, 2006
Edit | Reply
your defenition
the whole point of the question is that the defenition of god as an uncreated creator does not mke sense. the question is how can he be without a creator. just saying it's possible because that's what the defenition says explains nothing. noboby discussing this subject simply asks what is the defenition of god then drops the subject after hearing the defenition.the question is HOW is the accepted defenition possible. your answer is just "Because he's God". your only repeating the information that provoked the question.October 1, 2006
Edit | Reply
Ads' response:
"Prove it" If you want me to prove that everything that has a beginning has a cause, then lets see who has a bigger stack of examples. A walking stick has a beginning. It began as a seed, planted in the ground, which developed into a tree, which was cut down, which was formed into a walking stick, which had a piece of rubber added to the bottom end and a slap-finish of varnish. A walking stick also has a cause - the cause may have been a smart man deciding that it would help an old man walk. Something that makes something else come into existence is a "cause." Now give me some examples of something that began and does *not* have a cause and I might give your response some consideration. But until then, your argument is about as stable as a house of cards.October 1, 2006
to Jackgillespie:
"the whole point of the question is that the defenition of god as an uncreated creator does not mke sense." - It would if you tried to read the whole text that I wrote in that opinion. "the question is how can he be without a creator. just saying it’s possible because that’s what the defenition says explains nothing." - Again, read the text. I gave some good points to back up that definition. God has no cause (meaning, he was not created or caused by anything) because he has no beginning. He just 'was.' "noboby discussing this subject simply asks what is the defenition of god then drops the subject after hearing the defenition.the question is HOW is the accepted defenition possible. your answer is just “Because he’s God”. your only repeating the information that provoked the question." -"Because he's god" I don't understand why people always have to put words in my mouth. IF YOU READ MY TEXT YOU WOULD SEE THAT I PROVIDED BETTER ANSWERS THAN THAT! Now, would you be so kind as to go back and reread my opinion? "How is the accepted definition possible?" - Well, since God did not begin at any point in time, he does not require and *cannot* possibly have a cause. Without a cause, he is the "uncreated creator of the universe." Does this make sense to you now?October 3, 2006
Edit | Reply
November 1, 2006
Edit | Reply
its a flawed defenition anyway
your definition says god is the creator of time and essentially exists outside of time but the bible directly says he does exist within time. try reading genesis. he created everything within seven DAYS according to the BIBLE. DAYS being a measure of TIME. also its dumb yo think just because you create something that you exist apart from it. if i build a house for myself, do i exist apart from it. no I live in the damn thing!March 17, 2007
Edit | Reply
----------------------------------------
God is outside of time, but when eh works with creation, the creation itself is within time. Thus God's work on something finite, has to be within time.
October 11
Edit | Reply
First Cause of no previous effect
No one has seen God, but as the great Theologian St. Thomas Aquinas writes, para, There must be a first cause or mover to have an effect or to set all things into motion. This first cause had to have had no beginning or it would have been merely an effect of a previous cause. More over this first cause must be perfect or otherwise all effects could not be perfect. To make short, consequently, to this first and perfect Cause we give the name God.Please register or login to comment! It's totally free