If i said my house had no builder, you would think im mentally unstable, but people think nothing created the universe
I kinda feel the same. You just can’t have something from nothing.
Bump
@vippnor
@vippnor
Last edited:
he is a vile being, deserves to be slaughtered
Water is wet.
H
dunno
What I don't get is why did the Big Bang happen? Why did whatever chemicals and gases just decided to explode then?
Why did they explore? Where did those gases come from? What caused them to explode? Was there a fire? Where did the fire come from?
Where did those gases come from exactly?
Do the gases still exist? Why haven't we had another Big Bang then as those same chemicals are still everywhere?
What were these things doing before things existed?
They say everything from the Big Bang is drifting away from each other, this means there is a center right? If they didn't ignite somehow before touching, that means something attracted them to the center right? What attracted them to the center?
Why did they explore? Where did those gases come from? What caused them to explode? Was there a fire? Where did the fire come from?
Where did those gases come from exactly?
Do the gases still exist? Why haven't we had another Big Bang then as those same chemicals are still everywhere?
What were these things doing before things existed?
They say everything from the Big Bang is drifting away from each other, this means there is a center right? If they didn't ignite somehow before touching, that means something attracted them to the center right? What attracted them to the center?
God fucking hates me
B
The causal loop is still left open, unfortunately. How did the physical laws get there? If they were always there, then, in essense, those physical laws (or the collection as a whole) are "god."
B
The bolded is precisely what some people refer to as an infinite creator god. You're taking a step back and simply stripping away the intelligence, consciousness, and sentience - all aspects of mind - from the concept of the causal progenitor i.e., the start of causes, and also itself exempt from the causal chain, by logical necessity.
You're correct that there are extra leaps that you have to make, but neither god as an infinite intelligent creator nor as a collection of physical laws require any mental gymnastics. All it requires is an ontology derived from first principles. In your ontology one axiom I would infer is that all higher order complexity is reducible to lower order complexity (and ultimately down to the physical laws). A result from this axiom is that there are no emergent phenomena, since all are fundamentally reducible.
I'll let you do the work and build up the rest, if you care.
Last edited:
B
Stop feeling, start thinking. This post is going to be a little difficult to navigate, so bear with me. The level of abstraction is needed, given the subject.
The meaning of god is how you define it, but commonly it is defined as having a mind, yes. I defined it earlier as a logical first cause independent of mind, but this is probably not the best definition. Property of mind, specifically intentionality, might be a necessary component of casaulity, including the initiation of the first cause. This last point is of import because it's hard to imagine a first cause that was unintentional. Even inanimate forces in mindless systems (like the fundamental physical forces) display some semblance of intentionality (they seem to have some "will of their own" in some crude, abstract sense).
If the source of the first cause is mindless, yet also infinite (because it must precede the cause of finite space and time), then it must necessarily obviate intentionality, since intentionality is a property of mind. This means, then, that intentionality, which also generates cause, is not necessarily a property of minds under this ontology. But if such an ontology is capable of producing minds (things possessing the property of intentionality, which is necessary to generate cause in the alternative ontology - the cause from a mind - but not this ontology), and it is, since here we are, then the result is a strange situation where we have a mindless, causal generator (whatever it is) producing minds as causal generators. It wouldn't need to do such a thing, as it would be unnecessary. In plain English a mindless creation (or instantiation, if you prefer) of the universe has no functional need to create minds. But since we are in an instantiation of a universe with minds, it must follow that the primary cause is intentional, and thus not mindless.
What created god. There will always be a point where it goes to something came from "nothing"
That same god cursed me.
God hates me more
Yes but god (whatever that is) is supernatural.
A spirtual being does not need a creator. A physical thing does, which the big bang relies on (gases, atoms, quarks, gravity)
why
So then god did come from nothing then
God is real!
A real Jerk!
A real Jerk!
2
ok
God chose the jews to be his people...
What's that tell you about him?
What's that tell you about him?
god is not real.
He chose the smartest, superior race
T
he is real and probably a curry
cuz curries = gods
cuz curries = gods
D
If there is a God, we are his involuntary children. Maybe we only suffer so much because he hates us.
Or this whole God thing is just an old fairytale to explain things that people didn't understand back then.
It's your call.
Or this whole God thing is just an old fairytale to explain things that people didn't understand back then.
It's your call.
I created the universe
Actually, that's exactly what they believe, but they "cleverly" tried to get out of that conundrum by redefining what "nothing" is. Victory achieved i guess?
God didn't come from anything. That's the entire point. He is absolute reality, outside time and space, who has no beginning and no end but simply IS eternally.
Last edited:
The was never any nothing. By definition (no thing). Which begs the question, what was there before the universe? Another contingent reality? And what was before that? And so on.
The problem is that you are not grasping the metaphysical reality we are trying to convey with this idea of "God". You are essentially imagining we are just positing another "contingent" cause, an arbitrary one, because you are still running on the idea that contingency or relativity is "all there is" while ignoring that the entire purpose of the God hypothesis is to solve the contradiction inherent in saying the relative is absolute in the first place.
By declaring that the only reality that is real is what we can verify either empirically or through direct observation and so forth, modern science has essentially run up against a wall because this contingent realm MUST have a cause that is non-contingent or else you are in the position of either having to declare the absurd idea existence sprung out of nothing, or you have to deal with the problem of infinite regress.
Basically, you HAVE to admit the existence of something that is beyond contingency or you are stuck in unsolvable paradoxes or contradictions. To the question of where the universe came from if not nothing, the answer is that it came out of an absolute and non-contingent "somethingness", and this absolute somethingness can only be God.
Last edited:
based and high IQ
So there is something - space!
You are far too unimportant for God to even hate you.
See, again you are failing to understand what we mean by God.
God is not a "being". He is not a creature, or an entity, corporeal or incorporeal. He is the source of being as such, existence in and of itself, the I AM THAT I AM of the Old Testament, the One of Plato, the unmoved mover of Aristotle, the Absolute of the Hindus, the eternal Tao which becomes the source of the "ten thousand things" when named (which parallels with the Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman distinction in Hinduism) and even the Void of Buddhism points to the same reality.
To the question of why does he exist, the answer is that he doesn't just "exist", he is existence in itself, from which everything else that exists derives its own existence in the first place. Contingency is made out of such and such a being whose reality hinges on the existence of Being envisioned in this absolute sense. You have being because being as such IS. Things exist because existence as such IS. The question is not just what came "before" the universe, but what is underneath the very fact of existence in the first place, which in itself is metaphysical and thus supernatural. That things exist at all is already "evidence" of God, because the existence of beings is proof that existence in itself is and existence in itself can only be non-contingent by definition.
What a thread and posts. People will go to whatever lenghts of mental gymnastics to ascertain the invisible man in the sky.
That's because most people aren't capable of grasping the real essence of God so the scriptures tend to rely on an anthropomorphic image, because Revelation has to make sure the "inner" core of the message is protected from those who do not have the "ears to hear", which is a large number of people. But if you read what many of the fathers of the Church had to say about it you'll see that their understanding was quite esoteric and transcendent. Sometimes they were so open about it that they ran afoul of the exoteric authorities of the Church, like Origen. Be that as it may, if you know how to read "between the lines" you can see most to the fathers understood what the esoteric core of the religion actually was, and some managed to be quite explicit without incurring in anathema, like Meister Eckhart, or Gregory of Palamas.
But even at an exoteric level, the understanding of God was never that of an anthropomorphic, contingent entity, conforming to the "bearded man in the sky" strawman trotted out by atheists. St. Thomas Aquinas had a purely Aristotelian conception of God as "prime mover" and thus as uncaused cause, and his perspective became THE official position of the Church, something all Catholics had to study and accept.
And keep in mind this is only if we are dealing with Christianity. Other religions have their own "esoteric" conception of God, some even radically so, like the eastern religions.
With all this said, this conception of God doesn't actually mean God has no "personality", all it means is that his "thoughts", "will" and "judgement" exist on an ontological level where any comparison with our own thoughts, will and judgement can only be a kind of allegory. The fact God exists outside space and time (as per St. Augustine's argument) implies his "thoughts" cannot be like our own thoughts, which are sequential and in constant motion. God's doesn't actually have "thoughts" in the plural, for he exists in what amounts to an eternal and "unchanging" present, which is unchanging because this present is absolute and perfect reality, and his "thought" then takes the form of an eternal "Word" or Logos, by which he communicates with us, and it is from this Logos that religion comes from, and also the entire created order for that matter.
Adam was made in the image of God. We are twice removed from that image, first, because of the fall, and second, because of our wayward ways, which further take us away from that image. Christ, as the "second" Adam, came to restore our status as viceroys of God on this universe, hence, the following patristic formula: that God became man so that man may become God.
Now, what is to be achieved by this theosis? Silence, extinction, to fix the mind on a single thought (achieved by the Hesychasts by means of their Jesus prayer), which is to say to adopt God's manner of being and thinking, which shows that in mystical Christianity there is exactly the understanding of God that i'm describing. I'm not even going to mention other religions because there those practices of extinguishing the ego and the restriction of ephemeral thoughts in the mind are well known.
And the effects of this extinction of the ego and realization of this transcendent "personality" (which is beyond personality) can even be felt by contemplating the visage of the blessed, of any religion:
Which brings me to what I define as evidence of God:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmkBqbm8Y4g
Now, what is to be achieved by this theosis? Silence, extinction, to fix the mind on a single thought (achieved by the Hesychasts by means of their Jesus prayer), which is to say to adopt God's manner of being and thinking, which shows that in mystical Christianity there is exactly the understanding of God that i'm describing. I'm not even going to mention other religions because there those practices of extinguishing the ego and the restriction of ephemeral thoughts in the mind are well known.
And the effects of this extinction of the ego and realization of this transcendent "personality" (which is beyond personality) can even be felt by contemplating the visage of the blessed, of any religion:
Which brings me to what I define as evidence of God:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmkBqbm8Y4g
Last edited:
well i have my own understanding on this that is quite similar to that of our evolution but yes something can't magically appear from nothing, without doing anything in between thus it works in a three step process, where nothing>some process>something.
If we looked at a real world example such as a race, you can't go from point a to b without running but if we were given the idea that you could teleport, it would still mean you have done something to get from a to b.
Except he does provide a mean to obtain "evidence", which is actual religious practice. If the Kingdom of God is within us, like Christ said, then the only way you can actually find "evidence" of God is within yourself, and the religions provide means by which to reach this "reality" that is supposed to be hidden deep within us. So, if you want to argue religious people have no "evidence" for their claims you first have to try to verify their truths according to their standards, which as far as i can see very few atheists have actually attempted to do.
But then, of course, most atheists do not accept the standard for evidence used by religious people, which shows that the question of having "evidence" has nothing to do with anything and the problem is a disparity in world views. Most atheists believe in strict empiricism. When they ask for "evidence" of God what they mean is either discursive evidence, which btw is what you are asking here, except that can't be provided because metaphysical concepts are impossible to convey directly, or physical evidence, the latter request being pretty absurd considering one would be asking for "contingent" evidence of something that is not supposed to be contingent, meaning, if i could show you evidence of God modern science would recognize as such it wouldn't actually be evidence of God so that nothing would be proven.
But then, of course, most atheists do not accept the standard for evidence used by religious people, which shows that the question of having "evidence" has nothing to do with anything and the problem is a disparity in world views. Most atheists believe in strict empiricism. When they ask for "evidence" of God what they mean is either discursive evidence, which btw is what you are asking here, except that can't be provided because metaphysical concepts are impossible to convey directly, or physical evidence, the latter request being pretty absurd considering one would be asking for "contingent" evidence of something that is not supposed to be contingent, meaning, if i could show you evidence of God modern science would recognize as such it wouldn't actually be evidence of God so that nothing would be proven.
Enjoy your vaccine
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
