It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
And on your multiverse proposition, you are equating God as being a finite entity. As I mentioned in a previous post, you are simply rendering words like infinite and eternal to the universe itself which warrants a pantheistic or monistic view of reality. That's all I am saying.
This requires a re-definition of God. Again you are applying characteristics such as omnipresence, omnipotence, eternal, infinite etc and applying it to the universe itself. I don't understand why you don't see that. Replace "GOD" with goat and it would have the same proposition. Your statement can only be true if God was finite. This is the fallacy. God by definition is not finite.
How in the World are you getting from my statements that I am saying what you are asking me I am saying?
Forgive me for stepping in here, but I have question. Isn't the "Universe" all that there is, by definition. Whether we believe that the universe is infinite or finite, it is the totality of all that exists, no?
universe (n.)
1580s, "the whole world, cosmos," from O.Fr. univers (12c.), from L. universum "the universe," noun use of neuter of adj. universus "all together," lit. "turned into one," from unus "one" (see one) + versus, pp. of vertere "to turn"
So, doesn't the question of the existence of God ask whether or not God resides within the universe, as if the physical creation is a manifestation of the "mind of God? On the other hand, there is the belief that God stands outside of creation, and wills the universe into existence, occasionally reaching in and personally stirring the pot.
If we accept that later model of God, as being outside of the universe, which I reject, btw, what logic predicts that there is only one God in that "godly" environment? Who's to say that there aren't multiple Gods all participating in and creating multiple universes? Why do you assume that there is only one creator?
So if he stands outside creation, what is it he is standing in?
Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun
reply to post by windword
I agree that this universe is the only one we can account for in investigation.
What we know about this universe is that it does have a beginning. What came before is left to speculation and difficult to wrap our mind around because what was there before time-space-matter? How do we even describe that?
But God would reside outside of space time being the creator of it. Thus, the attributes of infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent etc apply to God alone.
Everything we find out would need an explanation, and that explanation would need and explanation ad infinitum.
The argument of If God created the universe, then who created God is a fallacious argument because an explanation doesn't need an explanation for one. All of science would fall apart if that was the case.
Everything we find out would need an explanation, and that explanation would need and explanation ad infinitum.
Rather, you fail to understand the definition of God. The attributes of God are eternal and infinite.
Those attributes don't warrant a beginning, or a creator because God always was. Why does something that never began to exist need an explanation for how it got there? It doesn't.
You believe that the argument, or the line of questioning, should just end there. All philosophical discussion comes to an end when we say "God did it!" No further explanation is needed. All arguments from this point on are to be thrown out the window!
Lol. Where did you hear that? The Nicaean Council had nothing to do with the books of the Bible.
Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical
Lol. Where did you hear that? The Nicaean Council had nothing to do with the books of the Bible.
What? The council decided what to include and what to exclude from the Bible, and came up with the fantastical "Creed".
Where did Aprentice hear "what"???
The Nicaean Council was convened to address the Arian heresy. They also took the occasion to nail down a common date for Easter.
This first ecumenical council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.[5][6]
Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Trinitarian issue of the nature of The Son and his relationship to God the Father,[3] the construction of the first part of the Creed of Nicaea, settling the calculation of the date of Easter,[2] and promulgation of early canon law.[4][7][8]
Misconceptions
This section's references may not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. Please help by checking whether the references meet the criteria for reliable sources. (February 2012)
And the other "gospels" you mentioned were long rejected before Constantine, they were Gnostic texts and were condemned by Irenaeus in the 2nd century, some 200 years before Nicaea.