Who is Gods creator?

reply to post by Fromabove

Why would that concern us. The universe that we are in and everything in it was created by God. For some of us, when we get to see God, He will tell us who He is, and then we will know. Asking such questions is like asking why atoms hold themselves together and why the universe doesn't just fall apart by spontaneous chaos.

Because knowing where the universe came from gives us a clue as to where the universe is going.

And some people take their purpose in life from that sort of information.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by Sleepwalk85
Contingency argument:

1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence. (from 1, 3)
5. Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God. (from 2, 4)

These things never make sense. Okay #1 is fine.

Alright, you think premise 1 is fine, but you didn't understand it as evidenced by what you wrote afterward, "Now for the funny part." God would indeed have an explanation for His existence, but it would be in the necessity of His own nature.

#2 is a huge leap of logic unless you're simply saying the word god exists or that something exists. You could substitute the word god with "tooth fairy", "flying crocodile" or "pink unicorn" and it means the same thing.

No, you couldn't because pink unicorns, flying crocodiles, etc., wouldn't be able to produce universes fine-tuned for intelligent life. They wouldn't possess any explanatory power.

Since #5 is dependent on #2 being true, it negates the conclusion.

Are you saying premise 2 is false? Otherwise, what you're saying doesn't make any sense. If all of the premises in a sound deductive logic are true, then the conclusion follows necessarily.

The moral argument:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Which premise is false?

All of them starting with #1. This is a terrible way of saying that without god you cannot be a moral benevolent person.

If there are no objective moral values, then by what standard are you going measure your conduct? How could one say so-and-so is a "good" person if "good" is completely subjective?

The answer is empathy. There have been plenty of cultures and belief systems that understand morality without a creator.

You can try and be a good person with or without belief in God, but that's not what is being talked about. What is being talked about here is called moral ontology. The existence of objective moral values. If there were no objective moral values, then by what standard would you be able to say empathy is "good"? Why couldn't somebody just as easily say empathy is "evil"?

The ontological argument:
1. It’s possible that an all-surpassingly great being exists (i.e. a being greater than which nothing can be conceived). In other words, an all-surpassingly great being exists in some possible world.
2. If an all-surpassingly great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
3. If an all-surpassingly great being in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world (since the actual world is clearly a possible world).
4. If an all-surpassingly great being exists in the actual world, then an all-surpassingly great being actually exists.
Which premise is false?

Once again, they reach an answer with pure assumption. It is possible, therefor god exists!

Once you understand what God is--a maximally great being--then it follows that if the existence of God is even possible, then He exists. The reason is because to say God is possible is to say He exists in at least one possible world. But if a necessary being--a being who cannot fail to exist--exists in one possible world, then it follows that He cannot fail to exist in all the other possible worlds, which would include ours.

The teleological argument:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

Which premise is false?

This is not how logic or philosophy works. #1 is a complete assumption

Which part is an assumption? The fact that our universe is incredibly improbable and possesses certain properties that are balanced on a knife's edge and allow for it to sustain life? Or the possible explanations for the universe possessing these properties?

reply to post by Sleepwalk85

No, you couldn't because pink unicorns, flying crocodiles, etc., wouldn't be able to produce universes fine-tuned for intelligent life. They wouldn't possess any explanatory power.

I believe they can, therefore they can. Two can play at this game.

Are you saying premise 2 is false? Otherwise, what you're saying doesn't make any sense. If all of the premises in a sound deductive logic are true, then the conclusion follows necessarily.

I believe Barcs was attempting to point out that the existence of the universe, in and of itself, is evidence of nothing more than that the universe exists. Otherwise, I could say the fact that I exist proves the existence of pink unicorns.

You can try and be a good person with or without belief in God, but that's not what is being talked about. What is being talked about here is called moral ontology. The existence of objective moral values. If there were no objective moral values, then by what standard would you be able to say empathy is "good"? Why couldn't somebody just as easily say empathy is "evil"?

Morals are not objective, as I have already proven. Morals are dependent upon emotional factors, which is the exact opposite of objectivity.

That's why I keep saying "evil" and "good" are labels of how we feel about an idea or object, and not a qualifier of the object or idea itself. It is more an expression of our reaction than an expression of the actuality.

Once you understand what God is--a maximally great being--then it follows that if the existence of God is even possible, then He exists.

So possibility is the same as actuality. I possess the possibility of murdering every person in this building. Does that mean I just did it? Nope. I rest my case.

The reason is because to say God is possible is to say He exists in at least one possible world. But if a necessary being--a being who cannot fail to exist--exists in one possible world, then it follows that He cannot fail to exist in all the other possible worlds, which would include ours.

Prove that it is possible for such a being to exist. How does an omnipotent omnipresent omniscient being maintain individuality? By its very nature, it does not exist because it does not have an individual identity. It is every moment, everything. It is existence. Are you saying existence is our master?

Which part is an assumption? The fact that our universe is incredibly improbable and possess certain properties that are balanced on a knife's edge and allow for it to sustain life? Or the possible explanations for the universe possessing these properties?

Your previous assertion that I quoted here implies your belief in a very large amount of possible universes. If this is true, then an infinite number of universes equals an infinite number of chances for this universe to manifest. This increases the probability from unlikely to certain. This universe exists in an infinite degree of variations, along with an infinite number of other universes with an infinite number of other variations.

Again, do we worship existence? Is existence our master? Because that's what an omniscient omnipotent omnipresent being is reduced to. All of existence. Everything you see, touch, smell, hear, think, or do, is "God". All possibilities, all actions, all objects and all ideas and all places are "God".

So is existence our master? Should we worship existence itself?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
I believe they can, therefore they can. Two can play at this game.

That doesn't make any sense though. An immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient being could easily produce a universe like ours, while a pink unicorn wouldn't even be able to exist apart from the natural world, let alone create one.

I believe Barcs was attempting to point out that the existence of the universe, in and of itself, is evidence of nothing more than that the universe exists. Otherwise, I could say the fact that I exist proves the existence of pink unicorns.

I don't see how it would follow that because you exist, then pink unicorns exist. But I see the logic in saying that if a past-finite natural world exists, then it was created by something that at least has the casual power to produce the natural world, as well as exist apart from it.

Morals are not objective, as I have already proven.

You proved no such thing. You wrote that if objective moral values existed, then everyone would automatically follow those objective moral values. But that doesn't follow at all. Objective moral values could exist, but people could still disobey them. In fact, you see that all the time. Most people think it is truly wrong to kill other human beings, but these same people may kill anyway, then afterwards regret it and feel guilty.

It is more an expression of our reaction than an expression of the actuality.

So, you believe that something like torturing and killing innocent children isn't actually or really wrong?

So possibility is the same as actuality. I possess the possibility of murdering every person in this building. Does that mean I just did it? Nope. I rest my case.

No, that would be a non sequitur. But it would follow that if it is possible for a maximally great being to exist, then that maximally great being exists in one possible world. However, one of the properties of a maximally great being would be necessary being; therefore, this being couldn't fail to exist and would exist in all possible worlds, including ours.

Prove that it is possible for such a being to exist.

In order to defeat the ontological argument, you would need to show that it is impossible for God to exist.

As for me showing that it is possible for God to exist, I have already demonstrated that in my posts in this thread.

How does an omnipotent omnipresent omniscient being maintain individuality? By its very nature, it does not exist because it does not have an individual identity.

Why would an all-powerful and all-knowing being not have an individual identity?

It is every moment, everything. It is existence. Are you saying existence is our master?

I would say that God is, in a sense, existence, because He has always existed. In a sense, God is the normal state of affairs since He has always existed and we're the exception to that rule. Our existence is contingent, separate, but wholly dependent on God's will. However, God chose to create us for our sake.

Your previous assertion that I quoted here implies your belief in a very large amount of possible universes.

When I was referring to possible worlds, I wasn't referring to actually existent universes. Possible world in the context of philosophy means something different.

If this is true, then an infinite number of universes equals an infinite number of chances for this universe to manifest. This increases the probability from unlikely to certain. This universe exists in an infinite degree of variations, along with an infinite number of other universes with an infinite number of other variations.

Yes, you would need to postulate an infinite number of universes in order to explain our improbable universe. The issue is there is no evidence for these universes and the mechanism that generated these universe would, in itself, need to be extremely complex as well as eternal--which is already starting to sound like God again.

And an actually infinite number of universes would need to be produced before our universe was produced. But our universe has been produced. Which means, hypothetically we could count the universes prior to ours. So the number of universes produced before ours would be finite. Therefore, there was a beginning to this string of creations, which, again, points to a first cause.

That's pretty easy to answer, and I hate to say it, but.....

We are gods creator.

Originally posted by mikemck1976
That's pretty easy to answer, and I hate to say it, but.....

We are gods creator.

Oh, I thought it was God is a necessary being.

Originally posted by Sleepwalk85

Originally posted by mikemck1976
That's pretty easy to answer, and I hate to say it, but.....

We are gods creator.

Oh, I thought it was God is a necessary being.

I can tell you this...
God or any Gods of any kind, are not necessary. We only believe them to be and make it so.

Originally posted by mikemck1976

Originally posted by Sleepwalk85

Originally posted by mikemck1976
That's pretty easy to answer, and I hate to say it, but.....

We are gods creator.

Oh, I thought it was God is a necessary being.

I can tell you this...
God or any Gods of any kind, are not necessary. We only believe them to be and make it so.

In philosophy, a necessary being would be a being that cannot fail to exist. So, if God is a necessary being, then He has always existed and cannot fail to exist.

Originally posted by mikemck1976

Originally posted by Sleepwalk85

Originally posted by mikemck1976
That's pretty easy to answer, and I hate to say it, but.....

We are gods creator.

Oh, I thought it was God is a necessary being.

I can tell you this...
God or any Gods of any kind, are not necessary. We only believe them to be and make it so.

1. What is God?
"God is the Supreme Intelligence-First Cause of all things."¹

2. What is to be understood by infinity?
"That which has neither beginning nor end; the unknown: all that is unknown is infinite.''

3. Can it be said that God is infinity?
"An incomplete definition. Poverty of human speech incompetent to define what transcends
human intelligence."
www.geae.inf.br...

We judge of the power of an intelligence by its works as no human being could create that which is produced by nature, it is evident that the first cause must be an Intelligence superior to man. Whatever may be the prodigies accomplished by human intelligence, that intelligence itself must have a cause and the greater the results achieved by it, the greater must be the cause of which it is the effect. It is this Supreme Intelligence that is the first cause of all things, whatever the name by which mankind may designate it.

The inferiority of the human faculties renders it impossible for man to comprehend the essential nature of God. In the infancy of the race, man often confounds the Creator with the creature, and attributes to the former the imperfections of the latter. But, in proportion 55 his moral sense becomes developed, man's thought netrates more deeply into the nature of things, and he is able to form to himself a juster and more rational idea of the divine Being, although his idea of that Being must always be imperfect and incomplete.

www.spiritwritings.com...

reply to post by AfterInfinity


In this debate, there is no way to ever convince you of God. You assume that because you cannot see something that it therefore does not exist. But something can be determined by inferring it's existence through other supportive means. Take the case for dark matter, the big bang, wormholes, multi-verses, etc, or the higgs boson, or bosons in general, quantum particles, etc.

When we consider the universe and that it exists, this tells the intelligent person that it had to come from something greater than itself, and that that power had to be more than all the energy of the entire universe itself. When I see the order, I see design. When I see sentient earthlings and animal life, I see a creator.

But you cannot understand this, because you cannot see it. It takes faith, just like believing in dark matter, the big bang, the higgs boson, or the quantum particle universe.

Ask Him

reply to post by AthlonSavage


If I remember just the other day here on Ats we had Almighty God post a thread.... what happened to that



Wow the question of all questions who can but answer such a Mystery.

My question is how can we know God if we dont know ourselves ? Only by REMEMBERING who we are, what we are, who we were, only then maybe can we start to even find God.

For me personally God being the original primal cause, is in everything that has sight and perception, and all the knowings and all that that has life. That life and that knowingness.

Considering that we are know as the planet of the children, we first need to find ourselves and in discovering the inner treasures we might perchance glimps God

I have this theory, been thinking about it for a few days now, if we look into the Cosmos and understand God to be the one and all, below a hierachy system of beings all serving the One, beyond the hierachy, beyond your I am presence, beyond the Logos, thats if we understand even that... Beyond all we think we know of God and in the fabric of the Cosmos amongst the stars a "Entity/ Consciousness" that unzips the fabric of the cosmos between the stars and only when everyone thought they really knew God they realized the truth and then only can we know ... its just a thought

In a 2012 Gallup poll, only 15 percent of Americans said humans evolved without God's guidance. By comparison, 32 percent said God guided our evolution, and 46 percent said God created us in our present form.

There are beliefs. Everyone has one, no need to convince anyone, let them be ignorant or have sense of all knowing. Convincing others is not your job. Let them live in ignorance. Have faith in the natural order of things that nothing is happening without reason and all will be dealt with naturally. Its the law of nature.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Your opinion is yours, and my opinion is mine. But that won't stop me from voicing my opinion and questioning yours on the off chance that you have something I should consider.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

Your opinion is yours, and my opinion is mine. But that won't stop me from voicing my opinion and questioning yours on the off chance that you have something I should consider.

I am all for that but people should give up the notion of converting the nonconvertible. You know when you are conversing with like minded people and know when you are conversing with those 'others'..

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Because knowing where the universe came from gives us a clue as to where the universe is going.
And some people take their purpose in life from that sort of information.

Well, that's a shame. Because the more we know about how the universe works, the more we understand that time is not linear. Not only does everything happen somewhere at the same "time," individual paths of objects (including living things) through time can either move apparently forward an backward from the the beginning to the end -- if there were such things.

So the universe didn't "come from" anywhere, and isn't "going" anywhere. Nothing is truly ever created or destroyed except maybe individual points of view, including whatever people consider to be "God."

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

Your opinion is yours, and my opinion is mine. But that won't stop me from voicing my opinion and questioning yours on the off chance that you have something I should consider.

God exists. You cannot doubt His existence, and that is one essential point. Do not seek to go beyond it; do not lose yourselves in a labyrinth which, for you, is without an issue.

Such inquiries would not make you better; they would rather tend to add to your pride, by causing you to imagine that you knew something, while, in reality, you would know nothing.

Put aside systems. You have things enough to think about that concern you much more nearly, beginning with yourselves. Study your own imperfections, that you may get rid of them; this will be far more useful to you than the vain attempt to penetrate the impenetrable.
-Kardec

reply to post by AthlonSavage

Who is Gods creator?

I don't think we have the mental/intellectual faculties to address this subject... mainly because we even feel inclined to ask.

If God exists, and I believe He does, He does not hail from a universe/dimension/plane of existence that we, in the physical universe, can even begin to comprehend... at least, not yet. It is indeed based on the nature of our own being and our own mortal environment, that makes such a thrust impossible.

We can only conceive of things that have a beginning and an end. That's why it is impossible for us to imagine anything that is truly infinite or... in this case, immortal.

We have, however, begun to imagine the possibilities of such things. We've stepped beyond time/space to dabble in quantum physics and we now know that everything in this universe seems to be connected in ways that oversteps the most fundamental concepts that we have known since science first began to imagine those possibilities.

Here we are in this petre dish, gazing back out at the laboratory and all that may be beyond... but, the we're still trapped and the lid is really tight

reply to post by Shadow Herder

God exists. You cannot doubt His existence

Oh, I'm beyond that. I'm beyond doubt. My goal here is to present an alternative route for those who still choose to worship a deity. Worship is detrimental to the human condition, as it inherently lowers confidence in one's capabilities - at least, as long as the deity is not involved.

Such inquiries would not make you better; they would rather tend to add to your pride, by causing you to imagine that you knew something, while, in reality, you would know nothing.

I prefer to call it "self-esteem". Meanwhile, everything you claim to know is actually based on faith, a woo-woo word for "I have a particular reason to lie to myself, which I deem to be very good, and your reasons for being honest with myself are rubbish." So until there's less faith and more fact involved in your spiel, don't bother lecturing me.

Put aside systems. You have things enough to think about that concern you much more nearly, beginning with yourselves. Study your own imperfections, that you may get rid of them; this will be far more useful to you than the vain attempt to penetrate the impenetrable.

Imperfections give me far more reason to live than perfection. What do you plan to do with perfection? Sit and twiddle your thumbs? Perfection leaves us without challenge, which leaves us without triumph, which leaves us without all the emotions that make us feel alive. Imperfection lets us grow, feel, experience, remember, gives us something to fight for, something to cherish, something that makes us glad to exist.

Would you rather feel alive? Or dead? Because perfection is as good as being dead. I would rather be imperfect and still be human than be perfect and be inhuman. Who knows what it's like to be inhuman? Who knows if you'll ever feel again?

Is that a risk you're willing to take?

dble