Things God Did Not Create

[Frank Merton]

IMHO, you are talking about magics; I am talking about Physics. What caused the gazillions of random quantum events to happen. You must know by now that some thing cannot come from nothing.

You repeat over and over that something cannot come from nothing, and we ask you over and over why not? Physicists see it all the time. This is just you childhood experience having convinced you of something that applies pretty much in your life but is not a logical consequence of anything. It is an inferred rule, not a deduced rule.

Kinda like your idea of up and down. They seem absolute, but we know they are not but only local.

[White Crane Feather]

No one is forced to any thing that does not make sense to him or her. The universe is composed of matter that could not have caused itself to exist and could not be eternal because it had a beginning. Any thing that had a beginning could never be eternal as eternity is without a beginning and without an end. Only God which is not composed of matter is eternal. (Gen. 3:22)

I suppose not i guess. I certainly would not believe something that dosnt make sense to me. I have tried to explain it as best I know how. The problem is that you are applying what you think is common sense all the way back to something where those notions no longer apply. Scientists have been trying to merge the physics of the large with the physics of the very small for quite some time now. The knowable universe was in a quantum state at its beginning, thus quantum rules apply. Quantum rules do allow for things to pop out of space quite randomly. Now what is the underlying engine for this? No one knows. Maybe god, maybe a super computer calculating a simulation, maybe nothing, maybe everything. The rest of speculation that it has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is god is a god of the gaps argument. It dosnt rule out a god of course. I tend to think there is quite a bit of intelligence behind it, but its is mistake not to take into account the facts otherwise how can progress be made either way.

This brings me to my final point in this subject. Science was never ment to explain away god or anything else. Certainly creative people try to do this, but that's not science. Science describes the behavior of observations. That's it!!! We have math and observed discoveries that describe the way the universe works and probably comes from to a point ( litterely ). But where science reaches the end of the line empirically is when we turn to logical philosophy. This is where we find new points at which we can the attempt to kick start the scientific process again. Faith is a wonderful personal and contemplative state to have. I enjoy it myself, but when it defeats reason we have serious probkems. I don't believe in god because of faith, but I do have faith in the god that I know. And yes it's based on reason.

[Quaentum]

So, what caused the universe to exist if you can't take the idea of the Primal Cause. I can't tell you about the nature of the Primal Cause. I am just showing you the obviousness of It by observing what has been caused.

Never said anything about not taking the ide of a primal cause. Repeatedly indicating that I have said or inferred something when I haven't isn't helping your side of the discussion at all. Observing the result does not necessarily point to the cause. Case in point: A car explodes. There could be a number of reasons why this has happened but you can't look at the explosion and then say it was a gasoline leak. You need to supply evidence that supports the gas leak conclusion. It's the same way with the universe. Without evidence to support what you believe to be the primal cause, it can not be said that your choice is correct.

You don't know yourself. If you did you would not send me to dictionaries. When I have some thing from the Bible about the Primal Cause, I include within the post so that you have the chance to feedback. Do the same with the Hadron Collider.

Hmmm, I though we were leaving the Bible and religion out of the discussion. Guess you just couldn't resist bringing it back in. Anyway, whether I read a passage from the bible that you post or you post a link to that exact same passage on some internet site, the passage remains the same and so does the information. The same applies to the definition of a Hadron Collider. Whether I copy and past a definition from one or all of those sources I linked to or you click the link to read it does not change the information you receive, Insisting that I post it because you don't want to click on the links is just laziness on your part.

Some thing was the cause for things to exist. Since you cannot provide me with one that makes sense, I am providing you with the Primal Cause.

It's not that it doesn't make sense, it's your unwillingness to accept that the primal cause may not be what you think it is. I am willing to accept that I may be wrong on everything, but I ask that evidence be shown that something else than what I accept as the primal cause is the real primal cause. In essence you base your choice on faith and I on evidence.

Every thing that is not known has to be studied if you want to know. Just tell me what you have achieved if what I have shared with you is not of the kind that satisfies the taste buds of your understanding.

What you have shared is not based on evidence but on belief and belief can only teach you what the believer believes which may or may not be the truth. What I and others have shared is based on the research of many and includes evidence and that can teach you so much more but it seems that actual research and evidence is sour to you.

Only that from the logical point of view some thing caused it to exist. Since you don't have one to share with me, I see no other than the Primal Cause.

Since we have been talking about the primal cause, it has been shared with you by myself and others. You may wish to ignore it but that doesn't mean that it wasn't shared.

Of course he didn't. He was not a Christian but a Jew. And as Spinoza is concerned, Nietzsche said that Spinoza was a man intoxicated with God. Something like that could not have been said of a pantheist.

Yet Einstein did say that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. Since you brought up Einstein, it his beliefs we are discussing

Are you sure? Have you forgotten how many times you have said that energy has caused matter to exist? It is obvious that before it caused matter to exist, it existed without being related to matter.

It is a fact that matter was created by energy in the large hadron collider. Trying to ignore the fact won't make it go away. Also considering that Quantum Physics indicates that atoms are energy waves then matter and energy are closely related even if one existed without the other.

Gosh Quaentum, you have got to review your Physics. Energy is produced by atoms in activation. Try to understand the production of X-Ray radiation. Matter is activated to release photon-energy to operate on matter and cause the effect meant to by the operator.

Gosh Ben, perhaps you should do some reading on more current information in the world of physics especially quantum physics. The knowledge would do you good.

You are again contradicting yourself after what you said above that energy IS related to matter.

No contradiction. Energy is related to matter as quantum physics has shown. You're disbelief about matter being created from energy in the Large Hadron Collider is what this part of my reply was referencing but I guess you think that if you say it I s somehow a contradiction on my part it will take attention away from your disbelief in a fact.

Have you ever heard of the book "Cosmos" by Carl Sagan? His reference to the explosion of the big bang is that which cause the beginning of the universe. I think Carl Sagan was a cosmologist.

Yet he is just 1 cosmologist but that's not cosmologists throughout the world as you tried to indicate

[Ben Masada]

You repeat over and over that something cannot come from nothing, and we ask you over and over why not? Physicists see it all the time. This is just you childhood experience having convinced you of something that applies pretty much in your life but is not a logical consequence of anything. It is an inferred rule, not a deduced rule. Kinda like your idea of up and down. They seem absolute, but we know they are not but only local.

And I have told you over and over that we don't live in a world of magic. Show me an example of something that has come out of nothing which you claim that Physicists see all the time. Perhaps you are still stuck to childhood dreams of science fiction and magician tricks. When will people grow up? Simply amazing!

[Frank Merton]

And I have told you over and over that we don't live in a world of magic. Show me an example of something that has come out of nothing which you claim that Physicists see all the time. Perhaps you are still stuck to childhood dreams of science fiction and magician tricks. When will people grow up? Simply amazing!

You have a self-imposed mental block that seems to prevent your thinking outside the particular box you are in, and apparently haven't the humility to even question it, even in spite of the fact that not one but many have tried to explain it to you.

[Ben Masada]

You have a self-imposed mental block that seems to prevent your thinking outside the particular box you are in, and apparently haven't the humility to even question it even in spite of the fact that not one but many have tried to explain it to you.

Humility is not what I lack to question. That's exactly what I have become rather an expert at, but I get no answers.

[Frank Merton]

Humility is not what I lack to question. That's exactly what I have become rather an expert at, but I get no answers.

I beg do differ. You have way too much confidence in the set of prejudices you call your "common sense" and this is just a lack of humility. That you can't see how something could be doesn't mean it isn't. It merely means you can't see.

[Ben Masada]

I suppose not i guess. I certainly would not believe something that dosnt make sense to me. I have tried to explain it as best I know how. The problem is that you are applying what you think is common sense all the way back to something where those notions no longer apply. Scientists have been trying to merge the physics of the large with the physics of the very small for quite some time now. The knowable universe was in a quantum state at its beginning, thus quantum rules apply. Quantum rules do allow for things to pop out of space quite randomly. Now what is the underlying engine for this? No one knows. Maybe god, maybe a super computer calculating a simulation, maybe nothing, maybe everything. The rest of speculation that it has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is god is a god of the gaps argument. It dosnt rule out a god of course. I tend to think there is quite a bit of intelligence behind it, but its is mistake not to take into account the facts otherwise how can progress be made either way.

This brings me to my final point in this subject. Science was never ment to explain away god or anything else. Certainly creative people try to do this, but that's not science. Science describes the behavior of observations. That's it!!! We have math and observed discoveries that describe the way the universe works and probably comes from to a point ( litterely ). But where science reaches the end of the line empirically is when we turn to logical philosophy. This is where we find new points at which we can the attempt to kick start the scientific process again. Faith is a wonderful personal and contemplative state to have. I enjoy it myself, but when it defeats reason we have serious probkems. I don't believe in god because of faith, but I do have faith in the god that I know. And yes it's based on reason.

I do take into accounts all the facts of life, scientific or not, even when they do not make sense but I can't believe what does not make sense to me. I am not asking for Science to explain God but to solve a problem of Logic but I find answers from no one. And as religion is concerned, I have read quite a lot of it but I can't have faith on what likewise does not make sense to me. I am interested about the origin of things, especially the universe but from the logical point of view and not by faith.

[Frank Merton]

You constantly ask how can something come from nothing: ask instead why can't something come from nothing. There is no reason except your insistence, and that doesn't hold water.

[Ben Masada]

It's the same way with the universe. Without evidence to support what you believe to be the primal cause, it can not be said that your choice is correct.

What's the option, yours? What is the evidence?

Hmmm, I though we were leaving the Bible and religion out of the discussion.

It's your fault; you started this post of yours with the Primal Cause. You could have left it out.

It's not that it doesn't make sense, it's your unwillingness to accept that the primal cause may not be what you think itis.I am willing to accept that I may be wrong on everything, but I ask that evidence be shown that something else than what I accept as the primal cause is the real primal cause. In essence you base your choice on faith and I on evidence.

The Primal Cause could be any thing that caused matter to exist without having been composed of matter itself. I do not know the nature of such a being. The universe exists and is composed of matter. What has caused it to exist? So far you have not produced any thing which makes sense.

What you have shared is not based on evidence but on belief and belief can only teach you what the believer believes which may or may not be the truth. What I and others have shared is based on the research of many and includes evidence and that can teach you so much more but it seems that actual research and evidence is sour to you.

The "evidences" you have provided so far do not make sense at all. When I follow up on the answer, all you have is, "I don't know."

Yet Einstein did say that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. Since you brought up Einstein, it his beliefs we are discussing.

Neither do I. I do not believe in a personal God.

It is a fact that matter was created by energy in the large hadron collider. Trying to ignore the fact won't make it go away. Also considering that Quantum Physics indicates that atoms are energy waves then matter and energy are closely related even if one existed without the other.

Give me an example of some form of energy that has created matter. That's all I need.

No contradiction. Energy is related to matter as quantum physics has shown. You're disbelief about matter being created from energy in the Large Hadron Collider is what this part of my reply was referencing but I guess you think that if you say it I s somehow a contradiction on my part it will take attention away from your disbelief in a fact.

So, be positive for a change. How can energy be related to matter if it has created matter? It makes no sense at all.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Ben Masada

[Ben Masada]

I beg do differ. You have way too much confidence in the set of prejudices you call your "common sense" and this is just a lack of humility. That you can't see how something could be doesn't mean it isn't. It merely means you can't see.

You are right. I cannot see some thing causing itself to exist. How you can it is beyond reason.

[Ben Masada]

You constantly ask how can something come from nothing: ask instead why can't something come from nothing. There is no reason except your insistence, and that doesn't hold water.

Good enough! If it makes it easier for you, go right ahead and tell me how some thing cannot come out of nothing. If your answer

makes sense to me I'll be ready to give you the benefit of the doubt.

[Davros of Skaro]

"Makes sense to me" as in supports his delusion.

Edited July 10, 2014 by davros of skaro

[Mr Walker]

You are right. I cannot see some thing causing itself to exist. How you can it is beyond reason.

It is not something causing itself to exist. There IS NO CAUSE. You cannot work back from now to establish something so far in the past. You cannot say, "Because I can see the causes of things which exist today there was a cause for every thing"T

he question you have to ask yourself is; "If god required no cause for his existence, why does the universe require a cause?"

You can see god, "causing himself to exist" yet you claim you cannot see the universe causing itself to exist. That's not logical thinking; it is magical thinking. You have to create in your mind the belief in a god which is unique and special and different from everything else There is NO NEED for such a god for the universe to exist but you have an individual need for its existence, and so you construct a particular magical construction of god.. Then you say. "Oh it is not logical that the universe could cause itself to exist, but it is entirely logical that a being called god could cause itself to exist, without any other environmental surroundings to nurture and support it and without any evolution or growth in its capabilities over time. Oh no, God has always existed, just as god is today."

[Mr Walker]

Good enough! If it makes it easier for you, go right ahead and tell me how some thing cannot come out of nothing. If your answer

makes sense to me I'll be ready to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Well of course the universe came into existence in the same way god came into existence.That was an easy question.

"Oh!" you say, " but god has always been here."

" Well" I reply, so has the universe."

" Oh!" you say," but god caused the universe"

. "Well." I ask "What caused god? "

Why create in your mind an imagined being which is so impossible and illogical ?

Edited July 11, 2014 by Mr Walker

[Ben Masada]

"Makes sense to me" as in supports his delusion.

Yes, it surely does, why not? It satisfies the taste buddies of your atheistic preconceived notions. It does not to mine.

Edited July 11, 2014 by Ben Masada

[Ben Masada]

It is not something causing itself to exist. There IS NO CAUSE. You cannot work back from now to establish something so far in the past. You cannot say, "Because I can see the causes of things which exist today there was a cause for every thing".

For you, I understand that it is not because your god does not have the attribute of a creator. From the fact that the concept of causality is logical I can go as back as far as I can imagine and establish whatever I have in mind. Logic dictates that what is applied today can be applied in the beginning of causality.

The question you have to ask yourself is; "If god required no cause for his existence, why does the universe require a cause?"

Because God is the Creator of the universe and not the universe of God. Because God is not composed of matter but the universe is.

You can see god, "causing himself to exist" yet you claim you cannot see the universe causing itself to exist. That's not logical thinking; it is magical thinking.

I think you mean to say that you, not I can see god causing himself to exist. I can't because for God to cause Himself to exist He had to precede Himself to do so and, since He already existed, He had no need to. THAT is a logical thing to say and not magic.

You have to create in your mind the belief in a god which is unique and special and different from everything else There is NO NEED for such a god for the universe to exist but you have an individual need for its existence, and so you construct a particular magical construction of god..

It is not I who has created a unique, special and different God but Prophet Isaiah who said: "To which will we liken God and make Him equal with and compare Him with whatever that He may be like?" Thus God is indeed unique, special and different.

Then you say. "Oh it is not logical that the universe could cause itself to exist, but it is entirely logical that a being called god could cause itself to exist, without any other environmental surroundings to nurture and support it and without any evolution or growth in its capabilities over time. Oh no, God has always existed, just as god is today."

Now, would you be able to produce the post where I ever said that God caused Itself to exist? No, you cannot but, as I can see, you have learned with the atheists to slander others when you cannot give a logical answer to a logical question. Yes, the truth indeed is that God has always existed just as God is today.

[Ben Masada]

Well of course the universe came into existence in the same way god came into existence.That was an easy question.

Perhaps you are referring to your god who must be akin to Greek Mythology. God according to Judaism did not come to existence as He has always existed. "I AM" he said is His name. I AM because He always is. Never had a beginning and will never have an end. And for the universe, you are also totally wrong because the universe could not have come into existence without being caused to exist by some thing that preceded it.

"Oh!" you say, " but god has always been here." " Well" I reply, so has the universe."

Prove it! Show me evidence for what you say.

" Oh!" you say," but god caused the universe". "Well." I ask "What caused god? "

Whose god, yours? I don't know. You must know, don't you?

Why create in your mind an imagined being which is so impossible and illogical ?

God is not some thing I have imagined in my mind but some thing I have discovered that has always been. That's what happened to Abraham but you are unable of esoteric conception.

[Quaentum]

What's the option, yours? What is the evidence?

This has been posted before but I will post it again. Evidence that supports the Big Bang:

1 - Red Shift (Hubble's Law)

2 - Background Cosmic Microwave Radiation

3 - Abundance of the light elements Hydrogen and Helium throughout the universe

4 - A mix of elements in the old stars.

It's your fault; you started this post of yours with the Primal Cause. You could have left it out.

Sorry but you were the one who came up with "The Primal Cause" so it wasn't me bringing in the concept but you.

The Primal Cause could be any thing that caused matter to exist without having been composed of matter itself. I do not know the nature of such a being. The universe exists and is composed of matter. What has caused it to exist? So far you have not produced any thing which makes sense.

There you go making the assumption that it is a being. You have presented no evidence to support that. Again, for the whatever number of times, Matter has been seen to form from the collision of energy particles in the Large Hadron Collider. Just because you don't understand it does not mean it doesn't make sense.

The "evidences" you have provided so far do not make sense at all. When I follow up on the answer, all you have is, "I don't know."

Because you don't want to accept evidence or don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. Please show where all I have to your follow ups is "I don't know" Take into account that every reply I have to one of your posts is a follow up. If you can't show that all I have for all my replies to you is "I don't know" then stop making things up in a vain attempt to try to discredit me.

Neither do I. I do not believe in a personal God.

Which is a sad attempt at trying to get around the fact that Einstein believed in a Pantheistic God

Give me an example of some form of energy that has created matter. That's all I need.

For the umpteenth time they found that matter formed from the collision of energy particles in the Large Hadron Collider. This has been told to you many times and since you are not 4 there is no need to take your hand and walk you through it. Try looking at some of the information on the net.

So, be positive for a change. How can energy be related to matter if it has created matter? It makes no sense at all.

Quantum Physics says that the closer you look at an atom the more you find it is composed of energy waves and that is where the two are related. Perhaps it is time you stop posting over and over how things don't make sense to you and do some reading on the subjects. It will help you understand better.

[Mr Walker]

For you, I understand that it is not because your god does not have the attribute of a creator. From the fact that the concept of causality is logical I can go as back as far as I can imagine and establish whatever I have in mind. Logic dictates that what is applied today can be applied in the beginning of causality.

Because God is the Creator of the universe and not the universe of God. Because God is not composed of matter but the universe is.

I think you mean to say that you, not I can see god causing himself to exist. I can't because for God to cause Himself to exist He had to precede Himself to do so and, since He already existed, He had no need to. THAT is a logical thing to say and not magic.

It is not I who has created a unique, special and different God but Prophet Isaiah who said: "To which will we liken God and make Him equal with and compare Him with whatever that He may be like?" Thus God is indeed unique, special and different.

Now, would you be able to produce the post where I ever said that God caused Itself to exist? No, you cannot but, as I can see, you have learned with the atheists to slander others when you cannot give a logical answer to a logical question. Yes, the truth indeed is that God has always existed just as God is today.

I think you have proven my points quite clearly

One point however. gave you two options. Either god has always existed (in which case the universe might also have always have existed) OR god came into existence without primal cause ie caused himself to exist. If this is possible then so too might the universe come into existence without cause. To create a god in your mind, separate from all other things, requires magical not logical thinking . Logic would dictate that if god can always exist then so can everything else, OR that if god caused the universe to exist then something was required to cause god to exist.

[Mr Walker]

Perhaps you are referring to your god who must be akin to Greek Mythology. God according to Judaism did not come to existence as He has always existed. "I AM" he said is His name. I AM because He always is. Never had a beginning and will never have an end. And for the universe, you are also totally wrong because the universe could not have come into existence without being caused to exist by some thing that preceded it.

Prove it! Show me evidence for what you say.

Whose god, yours? I don't know. You must know, don't you?

God is not some thing I have imagined in my mind but some thing I have discovered that has always been. That's what happened to Abraham but you are unable of esoteric conception.

I am positing logical answers which do not require belief.

Read this section of your post and see if you can see the gaping hole in it.

Perhaps you are referring to your god who must be akin to Greek Mythology. God according to Judaism did not come to existence as He has always existed. "I AM" he said is His name. I AM because He always is. Never had a beginning and will never have an end. And for the universe, you are also totally wrong because the universe could not have come into existence without being caused to exist by some thing that preceded it.

To the bold. WHY NOT? God did.

You made my point about the universe and god. Logically there is no more evidence that god has always existed than that the universe has. So why do you chose to believe one but not the other?

By claiming that god had no cause or originator you are emphasising your belief -driven, magical thinking. HOW did god come to exist? Don't say the answer is too hard it has to be obvious to you if you find it obvious how the universe came to exist. Logically I know how god came to exist It was in the same way that every being comes into existence and evolves self awareness and intelligence. This is logical and does not need magical thinking. Oh I am more than capable of both exoteric and exoteric mental conception Ie I have a great imagination. But that is a different skill from logical evaluation.

[Davros of Skaro]

Yes, it surely does, why not? It satisfies the taste buddies of your atheistic preconceived notions. It does not to mine.

This is worth a repost for that remark.

Josephus mentions the psychoactive Hyoscyamus plant as being symbolized on a ritual headress.

Josephus Antiquities Book III 7:6

6. The high priest's mitre was the same that we described before, and was wrought like that of all the other priests; above which there was another, with swathes of blue embroidered, and round it was a golden crown polished, of three rows, one above another; out of which arose a cup of gold, which resembled the herb which we call Saccharus; but those Greeks that are skillful in botany call it Hyoscyamus. Now, lest any one that has seen this herb, but has not been taught its name, and is unacquainted with its nature, or, having known its name, knows not the herb when he sees it, I shall give such as these are a description of it. This herb is oftentimes in tallness above three spans, but its root is like that of a turnip [for he that should compare it thereto would not be mistaken]; but its leaves are like the leaves of mint. Out of its branches it sends out a calyx, cleaving to the branch; and a coat encompasses it, which it naturally puts off when it is changing, in order to produce its fruit. This calyx is of the bigness of the bone of the little finger, but in the compass of its aperture is like a cup. This I will further describe, for the use of those that are unacquainted with it. Suppose a sphere be divided into two parts, round at the bottom, but having another segment that grows up to a circumference from that bottom; suppose it become narrower by degrees, and that the cavity of that part grow decently smaller, and then gradually grow wider again at the brim, such as we see in the navel of a pomegranate, with its notches. And indeed such a coat grows over this plant as renders it a hemisphere, and that, as one may say, turned accurately in a lathe, and having its notches extant above it, which, as I said, grow like a pomegranate, only that they are sharp, and end in nothing but prickles. Now the fruit is preserved by this coat of the calyx, which fruit is like the seed of the herb Sideritis: it sends out a flower that may seem to resemble that of poppy. Of this was a crown made, as far from the hinder part of the head to each of the temples; but this Ephielis, for so this calyx may be called, did not cover the forehead, but it was covered with a golden plate, 14 which had inscribed upon it the name of God in sacred characters. And such were the ornaments of the high priest.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm#link32HCH0007

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyoscyamus_niger

Your Religion is no more real as an Acid trip.

[Ben Masada]

This has been posted before but I will post it again. Evidence that supports the Big Bang:

1 - Red Shift (Hubble's Law)

2 - Background Cosmic Microwave Radiation

3 - Abundance of the light elements Hydrogen and Helium throughout the universe

4 - A mix of elements in the old stars.

All that you have mentioned above is related to matter.

Sorry but you were the one who came up with "The Primal Cause" so it wasn't me bringing in the concept but you.

Yes, because you don't know what caused matter to exist.

There you go making the assumption that it is a being. You have presented no evidence to support that. Again, for the whatever number of times, Matter has been seen to form from the collision of energy particles in the Large Hadron Collider. Just because you don't understand it does not mean it doesn't make sense.

The collision of energy particles is related to matter. It cannot occur without matter. If you don't believe it, prove it!

Because you don't want to accept evidence or don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. Please show where all I have to your follow ups is "I don't know" Take into account that every reply I have to one of your posts is a follow up. If you can't show that all I have for all my replies to you is "I don't know" then stop making things up in a vain attempt to try to discredit me.

Not only you but ALL atheists without exception, when I ask what was there before the big one banged, you all have the same answer: I don't know. Can you deny that?

Which is a sad attempt at trying to get around the fact that Einstein believed in a Pantheistic God.

Do you have any idea why he said he could NEVER be an atheist when asked if he was one?

For the umpteenth time they found that matter formed from the collision of energy particles in the Large Hadron Collider. This has been told to you many times and since you are not 4 there is no need to take your hand and walk you through it. Try looking at some of the information on the net.

Matter could not have been formed by something not related to matter. Some times Logic will help you think a little straight.

Quantum Physics says that the closer you look at an atom the more you find it is composed of energy waves and that is where the two are related. Perhaps it is time you stop posting over and over how things don't make sense to you and do some reading on the subjects. It will help you understand better.

Atoms are composed of matter which, when in activation cause energy or radiation to happen. And please, do not tell me to stop posting. Tell yourself to stop picking up on my posts for an answer. That's more properly the thing to do.

[Ben Masada]

I think you have proven my points quite clearly

One point however. gave you two options. Either god has always existed (in which case the universe might also have always have existed) OR god came into existence without primal cause ie caused himself to exist. If this is possible then so too might the universe come into existence without cause. To create a god in your mind, separate from all other things, requires magical not logical thinking . Logic would dictate that if god can always exist then so can everything else, OR that if god caused the universe to exist then something was required to cause god to exist.

Now, I can see that you are totally out of tune with Logic. The universe is composed of matter. Matter, by necessity, required a cause to exist because it could not have jumped out of nowhere. God is not composed of matter. It has always existed. If you cannot realize by esoteric meditation, Logic could be of some help. Then as I have already explained, God could not have come into existence by being caused. Since there was no matter prior to the universe, it is only obvious that the Primal God gave origin to the universe. Your Logic is totally wrong as God cannot be compared to matter for not being composed of matter. (Isa. 46:5) Nothing can cause a Spirit to exist. Therefore, God could not have been caused to exist. (John 4:24)

Edited July 13, 2014 by Ben Masada

[Ben Masada]

I am positing logical answers which do not require belief.

Read this section of your post and see if you can see the gaping hole in it.

Perhaps you are referring to your god who must be akin to Greek Mythology. God according to Judaism did not come to existence as He has always existed. "I AM" he said is His name. I AM because He always is. Never had a beginning and will never have an end. And for the universe, you are also totally wrong because the universe could not have come into existence without being caused to exist by some thing that preceded it.

To the bold. WHY NOT? God did.

You made my point about the universe and god. Logically there is no more evidence that god has always existed than that the universe has. So why do you chose to believe one but not the other?

By claiming that god had no cause or originator you are emphasising your belief -driven, magical thinking. HOW did god come to exist? Don't say the answer is too hard it has to be obvious to you if you find it obvious how the universe came to exist. Logically I know how god came to exist It was in the same way that every being comes into existence and evolves self awareness and intelligence. This is logical and does not need magical thinking. Oh I am more than capable of both exoteric and exoteric mental conception Ie I have a great imagination. But that is a different skill from logical evaluation.

I have already for several times explained how the universe could not have come into existence without being caused to exist by some thing that preceded it. Because, first and foremost, some thing cannot cause itself to exist and that's pure Logic. And then the theory that the universe has always existed died in 1922 with the theory of the big bang. Therefore, the universe did have a beginning, thanks to the theist George Lemaitre a Catholic priest. Besides, the Bible for thousands of years has been telling so but Cosmologists waited for a scientist to say so, never mind that he happened to be a theist which they are careful to hide.