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 4
AquilaChrysaetos

Where Did God Come From?

85 posts in this topic

You started out you're post with a question,and then proceeded not to answer it,so I'll answer it for you. Gods were invented by man as a tool to control the population through fear and faith.

Well that certainly tells us where you stand. You don't know me well enough to realize that I was being a bit zen Buddhist there. I am in fact an atheist.I don't think however that gods were invented as a tool for maintainig power. I think they came from the not illogical thought that if "I" have personality and power and so on, then it stands to reason other things do too, such as mountains and rivers and animals. This is animism, dividing the world of sentience and non-sentience in a different place from where we define it. Over time this evolves into giving dangerous things, like mountains, due respect, which evolves into worship.That religion is sometimes used as a lever of power is true enough; those who want power will use whatever comes to hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did God come from? Well, he created the universe and set it in motion. The universe eventually produces life and then intelligent life, which goes on to evolve into beings of great power and spiritual elevation and just tons and tons of positive karma. In short it evolves God, who then goes back in time so as to start it all.

Here is your post again. In the first sentence you ask the question from the original OP. In the next sentence you state that he(God) created the universe. Doesn't sound very atheistic to me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheesh. You obviously have no imagination. Do you really think someone believes what I posted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheesh. You obviously have no imagination. Do you really think someone believes what I posted?

I think danielost believes what you posted. I was just reacting to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you need to develop a sense that tells you when someone is posting absurdities out of sarcasm.

There is a Buddhist story about the good and great Bhodsittva who accumulated so much merit (karma) that he generated a whole new universe with himself as the only god in it. He had (as happens in rebirth) forgotten his prior existences, and so came to the erroneious conclusion that this universe he was in was all there is, and that he must be God. (Note the shift from small "g" to capital "G"). So he proceded to create mankind and all the rest. Hence we see the origin of the Abrahamic God in a misunderstanding of the nature of the cosmos and a divine mistake.

Now no Buddhist tells you that story thinking that they are preaching truth to you. Still there is a truth in it.

My little story was inspired by that. God creating the universe in order to create himself becomes possible if it is possible to travel backward in time. Indeed, as Heinline made use of in a famous story, one might copy a book, then go back in time an give it to one's earlier self, who in turn proceeds to do the same, so the book exists but never gets written, only copied.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We just have different ideas of what constitutes sarcasm!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did God come from? Well, he created the universe and set it in motion. The universe eventually produces life and then intelligent life, which goes on to evolve into beings of great power and spiritual elevation and just tons and tons of positive karma. In short it evolves God, who then goes back in time so as to start it all.

This is pretty close to morman teaching. Except for going back in time.

I think that at some point there was nothing but scatterd intellagence(spch). These clumped together like a planet until one becomes intellegent, thus becoming the first god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mormons have an endless heirarchy of gods who created the gods below them and were created by the gods above them, and if we are good Mormons we can someday be gods too.

I think time necessarily had a beginning because you can't cross infinite time to get to the present. Before the beginning of time there was nothing -- no "supertime" for time to begin in -- really nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The Mormons have an endless heirarchy of gods who created the gods below them and were created by the gods above them, and if we are good Mormons we can someday be gods too.

I think time necessarily had a beginning because you can't cross infinite time to get to the present. Before the beginning of time there was nothing -- no "supertime" for time to begin in -- really nothing.

But what changed the "nothing" so that there now was something? It may not be possible to cross infinity, but im not so sure it's impossible to occupy a spot along it. Many times what is intuitive is not necessarily they way nature works.

Edited by Seeker79
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what changed the "nothing" so that there now was something? It may not be possible to cross infinity, but im not so sure it's impossible to occupy a spot along it. Many times what is intuitive is not necessarily they way nature works.

All that means is that you didn't understand nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did god come from? Easy, someone's imagination.

You took the words right out of my mouth!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that means is that you didn't understand nature.

And your post #57 explains nature?

"I think that at some point there was nothing but scatterd intellagence(spch). These clumped together like a planet until one becomes intellegent, thus becoming the first god."

???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And your post #57 explains nature?

"I think that at some point there was nothing but scatterd intellagence(spch). These clumped together like a planet until one becomes intellegent, thus becoming the first god."

???

Maybe, maybe not.

I do know that there was something before life and it is not life.

I remember my first thought, at the time of my birth.

Edited by danielost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, maybe not.

I do know that there was something before life and it is not life.

I remember my first thought, at the time of my birth.

Id agree about "there was something before life and it is not life"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what changed the "nothing" so that there now was something? It may not be possible to cross infinity, but im not so sure it's impossible to occupy a spot along it. Many times what is intuitive is not necessarily they way nature works.

Your answer assumes that causation is a logical principle. It is not. It is empirical. That is, we assume it is true all the time because it seems to work so often. It is a mistake to project something we observe into something that logically must always be so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that means is that you didn't understand nature.

Indeed. My point was is that humans can come up with nice logical conclusions like infinite regression, but it may not have a basis in reality. We see this all the time in cosmology and Quantum mechanics. Nature simply dosnt bend to the assumptions of man. My favorite story is how einsteine rejected his own predictions of the existence of black holes.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your answer assumes that causation is a logical principle. It is not. It is empirical. That is, we assume it is true all the time because it seems to work so often. It is a mistake to project something we observe into something that logically must always be so.

Logic dosnt dictate truth. You can make a perfectly logically true argument that simply ends up being wrong. All that is required for something to be logically sound is for the premise to lead to the conclusion without engaging in fallacy. This does not make the premise nor the conclusion right.... only logically sound. This is where empiricism then further logic comes in support the premis or conclusion. At the moment there is no support for the logical argument of infinite regression. it's a nice idea, but that's all it amounts to. Empirically everything we know of besides the big bang apears to have a cause, and there are plenty of probable candidates for even that. The most likely being a rare mass quantum tunneling event of virtual particles.

The notion of infinite time assumes the existence of time. In reality "time" is probably nothing more than our experience and record of change. I think it's quite clear that change has probably never started or stopped. Indeed even the fabled "nothing" must have changed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you think in a box and automatically assume anyone who has gotten out of that box has to be wrong. If you could only see.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you think in a box and automatically assume anyone who has gotten out of that box has to be wrong. If you could only see.

I don't think out of the box thinking is wrong, frank . I'm actually arguing for the opposite. My rejection of infinite regression has nothing to do with right or wrong. I have put a lot of thought into it long before this conversation. I realize more than you think, that there is more to reality ( in this case causality) than the human experience has defined. You are correct that just because we experience causality dosn't mean that it always has to be so, but just because It dosnt have to be , dosnt mean that it is not either. infinite regression is the logical mind at work. Nature has a habit of violating what we think is logical.

Then we are forced to mold our logic around what we discover. I think nature dictates logic, I don't think logic dictates nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you think in a box and automatically assume anyone who has gotten out of that box has to be wrong. If you could only see.

What I see is you still not saying anything constructive. It's easy to sit back and tell people they don't understand this and they're wrong about that,without the substance to back it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Steve Martin was trying to say something different ...Here I have money for this caddy and I go see the cocaine man ..there by have put the caddy up my nose ...I must have snorted half of Peru once upon a time lol

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea that's what I thought Steve Martin meant, and it is possible thereby to put a Cadillac up your nose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then we are forced to mold our logic around what we discover. I think nature dictates logic, I don't think logic dictates nature.

I should know better than to tell people their thinking is in a box even though to me it is obvious; if it were obvious to them they would step out of it.

I don't know for sure where logic comes from. When I say A implies B and B implies C, then I conclude A implies C. I cannot imagine a universe where that could be different, but of coure inability to imagine may only mean lack of imagination. Still, from everything that I see I lean toward logic dictating nature. Maybe its a false dichotomy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh perhaps a couple caddys up the nose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Steve Martin was trying to say something different ...Here I have money for this caddy and I go see the cocaine man ..there by have put the caddy up my nose ...I must have snorted half of Peru once upon a time lol

You may be right about that, I personally think Martin was just parodying Perry Como's song" It's Impossible". That is a great interpretation though.

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 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.