Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Magicjax

What created God?

173 posts in this topic

Yes... in fact ALL bible believers will pick and chose.. Because there is not one that can say they follow and live by the entire bible to the letter... So anyone saying some do follow it and live by it ALL are not exactly being 100%

Aye, probably because that fantasy books doctrines contradict themselves depending on what part you read. It might have been useful in ancient times, but now it's only good enough for amusement, or a paper weight. I'd think the person that follows it 100% would probably have to have multiple personality disorder, or perhaps insane. Afterall, it's not like one can go left and right at the same time. :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said.. It is like - I am a bible believing Christian <-- that is not saying I believe in most of it, or parts.. it just says I am a bible believing Christian.. So anyone will think, he or she will believe in the whole bible word for word.

If someone decides to later accept the facts of evolution, I tend to question, what is it about evolution do they actually understand?... Could it be they are not wanting to look silly for believing in the creationist argument? OR Could they actually know what evolution is and why they accept the facts? ......

Now some people will say - I am a bible believing Christian, but I also accept evolution as fact... So if you ask them why? They might say - Oh I believe God is responsible for it.. But that still discounts their bible and what it actually says... The bible does not speak of science and evolution..If it did then Christians would have accepted long ago...The bible pushes on creationism ...God did it in 6 days ..

If a person is wiling to accept the facts of evolution, and still call themselves a bible believing Christian.. Then they will have to discount a few other things.. Like Adam and eve ...Noah ...a good part of the OT with charactesr that are meant to be there from the word GO.....So are they a full bible believing Christian? Some might still say yes... But reality is picking and choosing is human nature..

Remove all those parts of the bible and most of the backstory is gone and it would be a lot thinner. In its new form would people be more motivated to follow it? After all like I was saying the bible really is the backbone to the survival of the religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So what I'm gathering from those that do believe in god. You're saying that the fact that we and our universe is here and therefor must have been created. And that's proof that there had to have been a creator. But god didn't need a creator?

I know many of you have suggested otherwise. But those of you that do believe are still contradicting yourself. By saying all things need a creator except god. It still makes no sense. And things making sense is all we have to work with here. :)

Edited by Magicjax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1- my answer did not require reference to any religious text, so Adam and Eve didn't really come into it.

2- Yes, I believe in evolution. I believe in the Bible. I have not discounted the Adam and Eve story, I just understand that it is not written as an historical or scientific account of how life came to be. But since this thread isn't about Adam and Eve I'm not going to post 2000 words explaining why it is that Genesis 1-11 is poetic.

I'm afraid I don't see your point.

I didn't say I knew how it worked. What I said was that in the physical world everything must adhere to physical rules. I just posited that in the non-physical world the physical laws of our world will not apply the same way. In the physical world, everything must have a beginning (someone came from something). The non-physical world may not (I would argue "should not") adhere to the rules of our physical world.

~ Regards,

What I mean by no bible is that the book itself is the backbone of Christianity. So by saying that fact about the supernatural world is entirely speculation and assumption? Much like the argument of the existence of a God. Anything can be said about either. You can dig out the most outrageous theories and no one can prove or disprove them.

On a smaller timeframe scale this can be seen with Scientology. Though really it isn't very different. In fact, chances are, as I have even had a whisker of thought about it since I was a child. That Christianity was most likely based off other religions. That it follows the general sun worship and that the sun is God. If so, the whole bible itself is poetic. At the time I was quite interested in history and had a feeling a reasonably influencial religion would have been that of the Egyptians.

After watching the zeitgeist it only cemented my views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Aye, probably because that fantasy books doctrines contradict themselves depending on what part you read. It might have been useful in ancient times, but now it's only good enough for amusement, or a paper weight. I'd think the person that follows it 100% would probably have to have multiple personality disorder, or perhaps insane. Afterall, it's not like one can go left and right at the same time.

I cannot take a book that needs excuses made in order to make it sound like it makes sense... No real book of facts would need that.. The facts in for example - Science books we read need no excuses and no picking and choosing is required.. You just read it, understand it and accept it ... The bible cannot ever fall into that range

Remove all those parts of the bible and most of the backstory is gone and it would be a lot thinner. In its new form would people be more motivated to follow it? After all like I was saying the bible really is the backbone to the survival of the religion.

If the bible was never invented.. There would be no such thing as Christianity.. this is fact..

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

No they not! They are philosophically redundant, all they illustrate is the lack of understanding one has regarding a god that is creator of all and infinite, emphasis on the latter. It's not even an epistemological analysis, such philosophical concepts ate dealt with ontologically, the epistemological arguments either support it or don't.

I'm aware of the teleological argument, it's an argument which is still strong.

And what are it's problems? I'm interested in your level of scope on the matter, maybe finally I can have a deep dialogue!

You see you clearly did not read my original post did you. Otherwise you would have noticed I already addressed this.

I will keep an eye out for them ;)

Rectify? Only in those people's minds who don't have a good grasp of such philosophical concepts.

Firstly infinite regression only applies when you try and export the infinite in our reality, there is no export for it!

If you pose a universe is infinite, it's hits infinite regression not based on the notion it's designed, therefore who designed the designer (which philosophically speaking is actually laughable), it's based on the empirical observed scientific data that our universe had a beginning. So because it had a start, it's finite, so to say it's infinite would be illogical because it then falls prey to infinite regression.

Then you have the current atheist creation myth of multiverses, which have no empirical support. This notion is that, yes our universe had a start, but it's beginning was caused by resources slipping in to our physical universe from another universe, which is a part of infinite universes. The problem here is that, you have infinite number of physical planes, bigbangs, and starts, so they too fall prey to infinite regression, because it's one physical plane to another, in order for one to start you would need an infinite number if starts, thus we would wait an infinite amount it time for our bigbang. So it too falls prey to infinite regress.

Now when it comes to god, infinite is an attribute, the infinite only makes logical sense in a god, uncreated and eternal. So something that has no beginning or end is free of infinite regress ;)

For me,

On one hand the Teleological Argument (TA) touches on an awe and wonder that seems to be present in humans when we see the grander of our world.

I agree that nature is truly an astounding source of beauty and inspiration.

Yet according to the TA the only possible explanation and source for this wonder is a monotheistic g-d, and those that posit this do so on faith. How is everything in our finite world accredited to a g-d( and how does one know , by what means is this hypothesized.) so far no one can answer this. How is a g-d able to create finitely but can't be explained in a finite sense. This poses problems for me.

I think the Teleological Argument argues very well for/that a subjective perspective of a g-d as creator exists and that their are people who agree with this and derive a sense of satisfaction from this.

Beyond that-

I am left with open questions that cannot be answered.

For me it works to say I don't know and may never know and I'm cool with that.

I am still moved to tears with the awesomeness of nature, it doesn't pale in any way and I do not see a need or prefer to under gird it with a g-d explanation. . My personal subjective perspective is not more valid then yours, what puts it on the map is the evidence, for which there is none so far. Beyond that it's meaningless IMO. Just a bunch of people sharing opinions.

This is what works for me and I respect that yours is what suits you..:tu:

There is nothing to argue. :w00t: All the best. :yes:

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mistakes of lots of people : IF God exists, then why reasoning logically when God has the power to defy all logic?

Power is magic, magic defies science and logic. Which means anything can happen.

First scenario:

- God exists. We don't know when. We don't know why. We just know it.

- God creates "time" and has the power to go to the past

Sub scenario:

+ He goes to the past but not the past of his world, but of a parallel world. Create another "God" in the parallel world. This another "God" goes to his world in the past and create the actual God. => circle events

+ He goes to the past of his world and create himself. He has the power to defy paradoxes and make time as circle and not continuous like we understand. The future is the past, the past is the present, the present is the future. Time is a singularity, no begin, no end.

Second scenario:

- God exists. Create us human.

- Human is given a power called "imagination"

- A human imagines an almighty being, called God

=> God is created imagination which is given by God who is created by imagination which is... => events in circle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I mean by no bible is that the book itself is the backbone of Christianity. So by saying that fact about the supernatural world is entirely speculation and assumption? Much like the argument of the existence of a God. Anything can be said about either. You can dig out the most outrageous theories and no one can prove or disprove them.

True. However, I have had personal proof of the existence of God. What I put faith in is that the Bible is an accurate depiction of the God I have experienced. If the Bible didn't exist I'd still believe in god, just obviously not have the same view of what types of characteristics this god possesses.

After watching the zeitgeist it only cemented my views.

First time I saw Zeitgeist I was quite bewildered also. Then I took the time to examine the source list used by Zeitgeist. Once I realised how few primary sources were used, and how much it relied on the research of one Acharya S, I looked into her and found pretty much every claim to be totally baseless.

~ Regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the post carefully. According to the logic, (and the theoretical science) outlined, 'god' must exist. And god's "prime cause" is self or spontaneous creation.

It is a/the state of nothingness which is logically and scientifically impossible to sustain.

In this scenario, "god" is a spontaneously generated/evolved sapient entity which evolved by natural causation from nothingness. No prior sapient or intelligent design is necessary. The theory explains why this is not only possible, but probably inevitable.

Once again MW, you state so clearly what I usually fail.

Might I add that since nothing never existed and creation seems to be eternal, god should have been created long enough ago to possibly be infinite.... Or perhaps god is actually being created at every moment along with the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot take a book that needs excuses made in order to make it sound like it makes sense... No real book of facts would need that.. The facts in for example - Science books we read need no excuses and no picking and choosing is required.. You just read it, understand it and accept it ... The bible cannot ever fall into that range

I think exactly the problem is that people read the bible, and accept it :D Before the book was accessable, people were told by the church that it was a divinely inspired singular and cohesive work. In the time since it has become accessable to the people and we aren't just relying on the words of church fathers, people still read the book and just accept it as what they were told it is. But I think that the more time passes and the more people have access to it and can discuss it and learn about it's history, more people have been moving away from plain acceptance of the book as a singular divine volume.

True. However, I have had personal proof of the existence of God. What I put faith in is that the Bible is an accurate depiction of the God I have experienced. If the Bible didn't exist I'd still believe in god, just obviously not have the same view of what types of characteristics this god possesses.

PA, that's something I've put a lot of thought into - I've noticed many Christians say that they've had personal experiences of God and that it has reinforced their faith. My question is, having a spiritual experience of God reinforces that God exists... but what about those experiences reinforces the religion?

To me the belief in God and spirituality is independent of religion. I avoid settling on a specific concept of God because I don't want to limit God or label what I think God is. I do so because I think God is beyond human understanding, and I have seen personally that the dogma of religions can hold people back from the true spirituality the religion attempts to describe.

In other words, I feel like some people can believe more in the religion than in the deity himself, and thereby miss God all together.

I'm just curious how this interacts with your belief in religion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PA, that's something I've put a lot of thought into - I've noticed many Christians say that they've had personal experiences of God and that it has reinforced their faith. My question is, having a spiritual experience of God reinforces that God exists... but what about those experiences reinforces the religion?

I didn't say anything about religion, I just mentioned "god". Your comments come off as if believing in god is somehow incompatible with belief in a god of a particular religion. I'm sorry, I just don't see God that way. My experience with God is not somehow separate to my belief in God as a specific version of God (in my case, the God of the Bible).

~ Regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

True. However, I have had personal proof of the existence of God. What I put faith in is that the Bible is an accurate depiction of the God I have experienced. If the Bible didn't exist I'd still believe in god, just obviously not have the same view of what types of characteristics this god possesses.

First time I saw Zeitgeist I was quite bewildered also. Then I took the time to examine the source list used by Zeitgeist. Once I realised how few primary sources were used, and how much it relied on the research of one Acharya S, I looked into her and found pretty much every claim to be totally baseless.

~ Regards,

If the Bible didn't exist I'd still believe in god, just obviously not have the same view of what types of characteristics this god possesses.

Yet, personal experience cannot substitute for evidence and in and of itself only gives us some of the picture( personal interpretation) or how we spin our personal experiences.

I am not suggesting you are saying it does, but I think it is important to put this on the table.

I have had experiences that could be spun using my perspective (my bias) as g-d interventions, in fact I can even see why/how one would/could do this. Yet I cannot in all fairness conclude as some on here are doing that there is a g-d and it is a monotheistic g-d based on subjective/personal experience alone.

This is why I ask how a personal experience in and of itself stands for evidence ?

A question?

Using your example, by what means did you conclude that Achraya S's claims were unfounded?

Nota bene: I am asking to seek clarity.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By saying all things need a creator except god. It still makes no sense. And things making sense is all we have to work with here. :)

Magicjax,

I agree we only have reason and logic to work with here, but in order to make sense of things, we have to carefully choose and define the terms we use. So to that endeavor, allow me to kinda pick apart the wording here and hopefully it will help =)

First, we do not say "all things need a creator except God." What we say is "All things existing in space and time (creation) are governed by the laws of nature given by the Law Maker (the Creator - God). One of which says, 'Matter cannot be created or destroyed.' Therefore, because matter does exist, it had to be created by Someone who is not governed by the laws of nature because He also created the laws of nature. Therefore, having created the laws of nature, He is not subject to them."

Secondly, the above view that I stated is in no way a contradiction. A contradiction is a statement that affirms something (let's call it "A"), while at the same time negating it ("not A"). It would be saying, "I have money. I have no money." To say something like, "I have money, but not in my pockets" is not a contradiction and I think it is a closer resemblance to what we are dealing with here. We are simply pointing out that the laws of nature only govern nature. Thus, God, who is outside of nature, is not governed by those laws. Therefore, the laws of nature actually give significant evidence to the existence of a Law Maker rather than supporting the notion that they disprove the existence of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mistakes of lots of people : IF God exists, then why reasoning logically when God has the power to defy all logic?

Power is magic, magic defies science and logic. Which means anything can happen.

Hello FlyingAngel,

These are curious statements. I want to discuss a few things about them with you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but these statements seem to say that if God exists, then He is all-powerful. And if He is all-powerful, then He is not governed by logic/reason. I would have to ask you, are power and reason necessarily opposed to each other? You say "power is magic" but if that's true, why can't people in power do magical things? (Like Obama getting the United States out of a TON of debt would be a nice start, haha.) Now, of course humans are limited in power. But, if the limited power of humans (which is the only power you seem to be familiar with seeing as you clearly question the existence of God) is not magical, on what basis do you call the power of God "magic"?

Also, is not magic even logical? For instance, if you see a man pull a rabbit out of a hat, do you think "Wow! That guy has magical powers!"? I doubt that you do. Would you not understand that what that man does is an illusion and still has a logical explanation to it, even if you aren't aware of what it is?

I think a much better question to ask than the one you posed is this: IF logic exists and is good, how did it get here except for a God who is logical and reasonable? Even if there are somethings about God that we cannot fully comprehend or somethings written in the Bible that we can't fully understand, we can know that it is logical and reasonable. The man who pulled the rabbit out of the hat in the previous example I gave, had knowledge which you did not have and that knowledge allowed him to do things that were within the confines of logic and reason, although you had no logical explanation for it.

Having asked a better question, we now have a better conclusion. You concluded that "anything can happen," implying basically that logic and reason are useless when trying to figure out anything to do with God from my understanding. A better conclusion would be: Since logic and reason do exist and are good, the God who created everything in existence with order, purpose, and wisdom must be orderly, purposeful, and reasonable. Thus, if there were no God, there would be no basis for logic or reason.

I asked you earlier on what basis do you call God's power magical. Don't overlook the importance of that question. For what purpose do you assume things are logical or should be logical? Where did the order in nature that is necessary for us to reason things out come from? How I can I know your logic is reliable, unless there is a basis in a logical, coherent God? And how can you logically say that there is no God when you are unable to account for a vast, unending number of facts due to your very limited capacity for knowledge (I don't say this to insult you, I only mean that as a human being, we have a very limited capacity for knowledge in a lifetime due to many limitations of our human nature)? It seems much more logical to believe there is an all-powerful and all-wise God who gives a basis for the logic and order in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what created any God,but I surely know that the God humans preach about was created on the 8th day by humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

True. However, I have had personal proof of the existence of God. What I put faith in is that the Bible is an accurate depiction of the God I have experienced. If the Bible didn't exist I'd still believe in god, just obviously not have the same view of what types of characteristics this god possesses.

First time I saw Zeitgeist I was quite bewildered also. Then I took the time to examine the source list used by Zeitgeist. Once I realised how few primary sources were used, and how much it relied on the research of one Acharya S, I looked into her and found pretty much every claim to be totally baseless.

~ Regards,

But if the bible didn't exist (I mean this for all religions and their own, the word escapes me now but I will say, equivalence of the bible) there would be none of these widespread religions we know today. So would you still believe in this God simply because people told you so?

In another scenario I will ask you what you would do if you were born into a world which had no religious beliefs whatsoever. Where no one even spoke of a greater being or whatnot. Would you still be as adamant of the existence of God as you are now?

I will read up on Acharya S but in the meantime I ask you why you give so much credibility to a religion which isn't exactly the oldest and all supposed anecdotes (only contained in the bible) could simply be made up?

Edited by Orcseeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Lawrence Krauss is right and God is just a part of the Universe, then God came out of nothing, just as the Universe came out of nothing.

Of course, my definition of God is very different from what conventional theists think...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Bible didn't exist I'd still believe in god, just obviously not have the same view of what types of characteristics this god possesses.

Yet, personal experience cannot substitute for evidence and in and of itself only gives us some of the picture( personal interpretation) or how we spin our personal experiences.

I am not suggesting you are saying it does, but I think it is important to put this on the table.

I have had experiences that could be spun using my perspective (my bias) as g-d interventions, in fact I can even see why/how one would/could do this. Yet I cannot in all fairness conclude as some on here are doing that there is a g-d and it is a monotheistic g-d based on subjective/personal experience alone.

This is why I ask how a personal experience in and of itself stands for evidence ?

Personal experience is invaluable in how we shape the world we live in. That goes for me, for you, for everyone who ever lived. My experience includes knowledge of a divine creator. This has been the case for as long as I can remember. However, in my youth I never gave any special attributes to this deity - it was too big to fit into any conception that we humans can make. Each religion was pretty much man's attempt to understand this being. However, when I was 19 or 20'ish, I then came to believe that God could be known because he made himself known through the Bible. To date, that new belief/understanding has only been strengthened by what I have seen and read.

A question?

Using your example, by what means did you conclude that Achraya S's claims were unfounded?

Nota bene: I am asking to seek clarity.

I looked for the primary sources that Acharya used. The thing is, most of the time she never actually shares what those primary sources are. Mostly she just quotes other people who believe the same as her, such as Gerald Massey. So I emailed experts in fields of Ancient History to see if they knew the primary sources that Acharya S was using. The experts I have emailed have all responded by pointing out how virtually everything she says has no supporting evidence whatsoever. That is how I came to see Acharya's views as unfounded.

~ Regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if the bible didn't exist (I mean this for all religions and their own, the word escapes me now but I will say, equivalence of the bible) there would be none of these widespread religions we know today. So would you still believe in this God simply because people told you so?

In another scenario I will ask you what you would do if you were born into a world which had no religious beliefs whatsoever. Where no one even spoke of a greater being or whatnot. Would you still be as adamant of the existence of God as you are now?

I have always believed in God. I have not, however, always believed in the God of the Bible. As I said to Sheri, my view of God was much broader originally, and every religion was just mankind's attempt at understanding it. No one needed to tell me that God existed. I have always known (believed) that there was a creator.

I will read up on Acharya S but in the meantime I ask you why you give so much credibility to a religion which isn't exactly the oldest and all supposed anecdotes (only contained in the bible) could simply be made up?

I read the Bible and it all made perfect sense. I weighed up the claims made and put them up against the likelihood that they were made up. And if they were invented it doesn't make sense that those who invented them would willingly die for them (as what happened to many of the original followers of Jesus). I therefore came to the conclusion that they were telling the truth about Jesus. Hence today I put faith in the honesty of those who wrote the gospels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello FlyingAngel,

These are curious statements. I want to discuss a few things about them with you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but these statements seem to say that if God exists, then He is all-powerful. And if He is all-powerful, then He is not governed by logic/reason. I would have to ask you, are power and reason necessarily opposed to each other? You say "power is magic" but if that's true, why can't people in power do magical things? (Like Obama getting the United States out of a TON of debt would be a nice start, haha.) Now, of course humans are limited in power. But, if the limited power of humans (which is the only power you seem to be familiar with seeing as you clearly question the existence of God) is not magical, on what basis do you call the power of God "magic"?

Magic with the definition we know today : to make things illogically happen. By "logic", it means the law cause=>effect as we know in this current universe. The "magic" of God is a process, a system, "his logic", something we don't know, we can't understand, out of our reach that make things happen illogically to us. For instance for us, "matter can't be created nor destroyed". Since we see stuffs exist everyday, everything has to exist in advance. The most basic example of God's magic is to pop things out from nothing.

Also, is not magic even logical? For instance, if you see a man pull a rabbit out of a hat, do you think "Wow! That guy has magical powers!"? I doubt that you do. Would you not understand that what that man does is an illusion and still has a logical explanation to it, even if you aren't aware of what it is?

You've mistaken logic and process. Of course everything a magician or God does is to make something from state A to become the state B through a process. The process could be unknown to human. The logic is relative to time/space/where we live. If you bring this magician to the past 2000 years ago, people would think he really did magic because it goes against "their logic 2000 years ago".

Maybe the word "magic" bother you. Should I say God can make things happen through a process unknown/illogical to us today.

For example: in our today world, if a murderer murder someone without any reason in front of the police; got caught and go to jail. So you are a human and a programmer, you created a world, the Sims, where murderer doesn't go to jail after killing someone. So the Sims in the game will say that what happened in our world (the murderer case) is illogical to them, to what's defined. Yet things happened.

I think a much better question to ask than the one you posed is this: IF logic exists and is good, how did it get here except for a God who is logical and reasonable? Even if there are somethings about God that we cannot fully comprehend or somethings written in the Bible that we can't fully understand, we can know that it is logical and reasonable. The man who pulled the rabbit out of the hat in the previous example I gave, had knowledge which you did not have and that knowledge allowed him to do things that were within the confines of logic and reason, although you had no logical explanation for it.

We don't know if God is logical and reasonable. All we know is that, if he exists, there's a chance that he's not bound to our logic as we know today (rf Sims example above).

Having asked a better question, we now have a better conclusion. You concluded that "anything can happen," implying basically that logic and reason are useless when trying to figure out anything to do with God from my understanding. A better conclusion would be: Since logic and reason do exist and are good, the God who created everything in existence with order, purpose, and wisdom must be orderly, purposeful, and reasonable. Thus, if there were no God, there would be no basis for logic or reason.

Anything can happen, if you consider God all-powerful. Or are we not talking about God but a creator with limited power?

If you can't grasp the idea that there could be another world with different law of physics and nature that ours, then you just walled yourself from the ultimate reality.

I asked you earlier on what basis do you call God's power magical. Don't overlook the importance of that question. For what purpose do you assume things are logical or should be logical? Where did the order in nature that is necessary for us to reason things out come from? How I can I know your logic is reliable, unless there is a basis in a logical, coherent God? And how can you logically say that there is no God when you are unable to account for a vast, unending number of facts due to your very limited capacity for knowledge (I don't say this to insult you, I only mean that as a human being, we have a very limited capacity for knowledge in a lifetime due to many limitations of our human nature)? It seems much more logical to believe there is an all-powerful and all-wise God who gives a basis for the logic and order in the world.

I don't confirm if God exist or doesn't exist. See what explained above and grasp the idea of world within world within world... with different logic. Time is an illusion, don't try to find out what has to exist first in order create other things (creator, ownership).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that Christians were willing to die for what they believed proves nothing .Let's not forget the "Heaven's gate religion" who committed suicide to supposedly to reach a space ship that was following the Hale- Bop comet.Then there was the Solar Temple who went in for suicide also Jim Jones sect who did likewise, what was the sense in all that ?

fullywired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to the non-physical, anything goes. Thats the problem when you can't measure or verify a statement or explanation.

Lol…what like multiverses, trillions of universes, infinite universe or universes, m theory, string theory, bounce back theory, I mean the possibilities are endless for atheists, you can manufacture any creation myth for yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What to you is philosophically redundant is a facinating discussion to others. Only by questioning reality can we begin to understand it, even in our own small ways.

Oh I am not discouraging the reflection shown, I just advise it's reflection with implication, otherwise it's fruitless!

Hence why the question itself is need of refinement. It's philosophically redundant, because Its often asked by those people who have very little understanding of the philosophical, logical and rational premises, if there was a god existing. Understanding these premises one realises there is no cause for what is uncaused, but our universe was not uncaused. As a famous atheist philosopher once said (let you dig for it), either the universe is uncaused, or it was caused by god who is uncaused!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The god you describe is only one possible god. There are many variations of god, some of which have this entity as neither a creator, nor infinite. That you believe one possibility of god to be true does not make it so.

I describe a concept of god which is derived from a logical, philosophical and empirical analysis of the universe and it's cause for existence, why it exists at all? So I apply conceptual analysis to those logically deduced conclusions, ie, anything that has a beginning has a cause, the cause itself produced the sum of all matter, therefore it is uncaused, because it brought in to existence a finite effect (universe), which logically can only be the result of something infinite, uncaused and single cause (occams razor), obviously this is condensed and not the full argument in it entirety which would take up a lot of time. So as a result when you apply conceptual analysis to the conclusions that what ever the cause was, must be uncaused, infinite, single, metaphysical, etc etc, they clearly illustrate the attributes of a monotheistic god. All other models of god are destroyed by science, logic, rational, philosophy etc. Science destroys false models of god, but actually points to the true one god.

Strangely enough, the 'myth of multiverses' has as much empirical support as the 'myth of god' does.

strangely enough with your credentials Leo IMHO, you have got it wrong. There is no empirical proof for multiverse, there is no direct empirical proof of god too. Why? Both are beyond science and metaphysical concepts. Strangely though the god argument is far stronger than multiverse when empirical data is taken in to consideration. Multiverse and others are basically atheist creation myths, your an accident, the whole universe is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol…what like multiverses, trillions of universes, infinite universe or universes, m theory, string theory, bounce back theory, I mean the possibilities are endless for atheists, you can manufacture any creation myth for yourself.

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.