Thread: Who Created God?

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

So I guess in-animate molecules spontaneously reacting to bring fourth life is logical in your eyes? If you believe that then you're just complicating things yourself.

Yes, it is logical. Why do you think a more logical idea is that an infinitely powerful man just happens to have existed forever? Isn't that an infinitely longer stretch?

Tell me something... Is God an accident?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yes, it is logical. Why do you think a more logical idea is that an infinitely powerful man just happens to have existed forever? Isn't that an infinitely longer stretch?

Tell me something... Is God an accident?

The question doesn't apply considering an accident is a event that is a result of something prior. On the other hand why do you think the creator is a man? Also that's just my belief in the same fashion that you believe in-animate molecules spontaneously chain reacted life forward to what we see todoay.

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

The question doesn't apply considering an accident is a event that is a result of something prior. On the other hand why do you think the creator is a man? Also that's just my belief in the same fashion that you believe in-animate molecules spontaneously chain reacted life forward to what we see todoay.

I think you made up your definition of accident, but the point is that you think an infinitely powerful person like thing (a man in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) just happens to have existed forever. Right? Why is that more logical than the idea of scientific laws that have existed forever?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I think you made up your definition of accident, but the point is that you think an infinitely powerful person like thing (a man in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) just happens to have existed forever. Right? Why is that more logical than the idea of scientific laws that have existed forever?

First, there is nothing scientific within any realm of physics or chemistry regarding in-animate molecules spontaneously kick starting themselves.

Second, you got it wrong, the Creators description has never been revealed in the scriptures. Not sure where you got that man part from.

UM, who is this "man" you're speaking of? Don't misinterpret eternal life as Jesus spoke of it, for a "man", it was for the Spirit.

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

Jumping to conclusions?. LOL, I'm pretty sure I'm on the right track. How about we cut to the chase then, and just explain to me how the Universe we live in allows the existence of life chemistry.

Sorry I wasn't clear, I wasn't replying to you, I was adding on my response to SpecialInterests, who said "Man created god. Let's all move on!". I think that is a jump to a conclusion; a giant assumption based off appearances and religious unfamiliarity.

Anyway, I'm not really sure what you mean, ShadowNightWing. Do you believe that the capacity for chemicals to manifest "life" is a quality of Divinity, rather than as a "causal" accident from the universe? I.e. The capacity for life to grow and evolve is a quality of God, who animates the Universe.

Originally Posted by really

Anyway, I'm not really sure what you mean, ShadowNightWing. Do you believe that the capacity for chemicals to manifest "life" is a quality of Divinity, rather than as a "causal" accident from the universe? I.e. The capacity for life to grow and evolve is a quality of God, who animates the Universe.

I believe the universe and every single element within the universe is transpired by intelligent means. I don't think life is an accident, the universe seems to be set up in such a way as if it knew we were coming.

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

First, there is nothing scientific within any realm of physics or chemistry regarding in-animate molecules spontaneously kick starting themselves.

What???? That's not true.

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

Second, you got it wrong, the Creators description has never been revealed in the scriptures. Not sure where you got that man part from.

God is referred to as "He", "Him", and "His" all over the Bible. Is "He" not? But that is trivial compared to the overall point I was making. You dodged that point. Explain why eternal omnipotence that just happens to exist with no rhyme or reason at the root of it is less bizarre than eternal scientific laws that are rooted in the fabric of existence itself.

Originally Posted by really

UM, who is this "man" you're speaking of? Don't misinterpret eternal life as Jesus spoke of it, for a "man", it was for the Spirit.

The Bible says that God is a man and talks about a whole heap of human characteristics that he has. He even gets jealous when people worship false idols, and he lashes out at them in anger and does awful things to them.

I lean in the direction of believing in something like the Tao, which is a concept that is a lot like the fundamental field of physics that modern physicists talk about. It is manifested in everything conscious and might at its root have something that is like and/or at the root of consciousness as we know it. If everything is one and is a form of that one being, then there is no death because only one thing exists and it is immortal. I just don't buy the idea of God as a creature with wild survival emotions. The less God is presented as a character, the more I can make sense of the idea.

Einstein said he believes in the God of Spinoza, which is more or less the overall phenomenal force of nature. That kind of idea makes much more sense to me.

Not to mention the fact that adam was made in god's image in the bible, so obviously the christian God bears the image of a man.

squaresoft did, and the goal in every final fantasy game is to kill god

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

First, there is nothing scientific within any realm of physics or chemistry regarding in-animate molecules spontaneously kick starting themselves.

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

I believe the universe and every single element within the universe is transpired by intelligent means. I don't think life is an accident, the universe seems to be set up in such a way as if it knew we were coming.

I'm guessing that SNW is implying that everything works in unison. Standing out in nature everything is beautiful and all working in concert with everything else. The only logical way for that to happen is
BAM- God made it in seven days.

If you take an evolutionary stance that this entire process could still exist, just on a much longer scale. The evolutionary process takes survival of the fittest and the adaptation of plants, animals and all living things to advance as it is best fit to be able to live and thrive. Ultimatley working in unison.
Same end result.

So I think the UM's point is that why is the first process any more reasonable than the second.
Probably because it seems to most humans that there has to be something first, (a god) before there is to be something afterwards.

So I guess in-animate molecules spontaneously reacting to bring fourth life is logical in your eyes? If you believe that then you're just complicating things yourself.

Uh... you do realise that all life and organisms are precisely that; inanimate molecules reacting?

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

First, there is nothing scientific within any realm of physics or chemistry regarding in-animate molecules spontaneously kick starting themselves.

That's because nothing is inanimate.

Nothing spontaneously kick-starts itself. Everything is constantly being affected by everything else in the universe.

Everything interacts and produces complex systems, etc, etc... Blah blah blah

How do you think we got atoms in the first place? From subatomic particles, and those from even smaller particles, and those smaller ones, etc

Then, guess what? Those atoms make up molecules, and those macromolecules and it keeps getting bigger until the system deteriorates. There are only a few exceptions to this, like carbon which can form extremely long and sturdy structures, which is why life is made of it, and not something like silicon or oxygen which is MUCH MUCH MUCH more plentiful on earth than carbon.

I mean, the earth is like 70% silicon. Why isn't life composed of silicon, then? Well, because it's brittle and doesn't form chains easily. Also, it isn't as reactant or flexible as carbon.

Did the Universe become "kick-started"?

Originally Posted by Howie

So I think the UM's point is that why is the first process any more reasonable than the second.
Probably because it seems to most humans that there has to be something first, (a god) before there is to be something afterwards.

I am mainly talking about scientific laws at the root of the processes in this universe, laws that have no beginning. I don't get why that which has always been has to be a character with organismic style thoughts and behaviors.

Originally Posted by really

Did the Universe become "kick-started"?

No.

Is anything ever not in motion or stop being affected by the four foces of the universe? No. So, there can't be a beginning in the sense you use.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

No.

Is anything ever not in motion or stop being affected by the four foces of the universe? No. So, there can't be a beginning in the sense you use.

Right, hence eternity. Though, this is probably a very controversial conclusion for the big-bang people.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I am mainly talking about scientific laws at the root of the processes in this universe, laws that have no beginning. I don't get why that which has always been has to be a character with organismic style thoughts and behaviors.

I didn't mean to speak for you.
I'm not sure I understand. A root and a beginning are kind of one in the same aren't they? What has been impied that they require behaviors of an organism?

Originally Posted by Howie

I didn't mean to speak for you.
I'm not sure I understand. A root and a beginning are kind of one in the same aren't they? What has been impied that they require behaviors of an organism?

I partly agree with you, but I don't think a root has to be a beginning. The fact that 2 + 2 = 4 is rooted in the fact that 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4, but I don't think one preceded the other in a time sequence. They are eternally based on each other.

I believe that there are timeless laws such as those that cause universes to exist and determine the events of those universes. That does not mean those laws popped up in this universe and preceded events in a time sequence. Events in this universe are based on those timeless principles, which are not events.

Creationists seem to agree, except they think the timeless principle is an invisible organism type thing. My question to them is why that must be the case.

Originally Posted by really

Right, hence eternity. Though, this is probably a very controversial conclusion for the big-bang people.

Er.... Howso?

The Big Bang is about the rapid expansion of space-time-- Which is observable. It doesn't state that the universe 'began'...

Go read up on your physics, bro.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Er.... Howso?

The Big Bang is about the rapid expansion of space-time-- Which is observable. It doesn't state that the universe 'began'...

Go read up on your physics, bro.

A lot of modern theoretical physicists and astronomers say that the big bang marked the beginning of time. Stephen Hawking said that asking what happened before the big bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

A lot of modern theoretical physicists and astronomers say that the big bang marked the beginning of time. Stephen Hawking said that asking what happened before the big bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole.

Okay...? That still doesn't have to do with the creation of energy-- because it wasn't.

How can you tell that 'before' that, that space-time wasn't condensing, leading up to the big bang? If time actually 'began' then how did anything happen? That doesn't make any sense, because everything takes time, so the big bang wouldn't have happened.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Okay...? That still doesn't have to do with the creation of energy-- because it wasn't.

How can you tell that 'before' that, that space-time wasn't condensing, leading up to the big bang? If time actually 'began' then how did anything happen? That doesn't make any sense, because everything takes time, so the big bang wouldn't have happened.

Laws of science can exist outside of time and create universes that involve their own time. It happens ultradimensionally.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Laws of science can exist outside of time and create universes that involve their own time. It happens ultradimensionally.

That would sitll be time, though.

EDIT: Anyway, I'm talking about the Big Bounce theory, which, apparently, involves Big Bangs/Big Crunches happening in an infinite loop.