Im going to offer a bunch of views, on none of which i have concluded yet.
1. As for coming into existence out of nothing. If you mean the human race or life on earth in general, then in basic principle, our DNA and RNA are as such a complicated combination of chemicals, proteins and such. The very first single celled life forms were barely anymore than a mixture of chemicals, certainley they had no thinking process or logic but they exist by whatever instinct they may have and evolve according to their present needs. As needs change so does the need for a more complicated life form. So it becomes something with say two or three cells. Does this process require the need of a superior being? And if so, where did the being aquire its knowledge for life. Surely it could not just know, and where did this being come from. Logic tells us that the knowledge and existence had to originate from somewhere other than the being itself.
2. On god.
The argument that god created himself is not self suffiecient. If there is no god to create god then god cannot be created. Existence must have an origin, and a cause, i dont beleive is necessary, randomness to purpose is quite plausible.
3. On god 2
In the views that god is all loving does not fulfill the need for equilibrium. That is where satan comes in right? The need for a balance, but since neither being can exist on its own, one could conclude that on the possibility of god, god and the satan would be one and the same. Good - Evil, Ying-Yang, Abott-Costello .
4. On humans.
The need for an explanation is a universal trait. As we as a species became aware of ourselves, we began to ask the questions;
1. Where did i come from?
2. Why do I exist. Do i have a purpose.
3. If i didnt create the ground on which i walk, then who did?
4. How do i explain a phenomenon to which i cant explain.
To an early human, a god, a supernatural all knowing being/entitiy, would give a suitable explanation to these questions would it not?
I would like it very much to discuss these points and others but not religion as it were so much, well atleast not organized. The human condition.
With question 3, I can see the problem there. People assume someone created it, when it could have just been subjected to natural processes or reactions. Do you know that things have to be created? When you put things in a reaction, you don't create anything; you get what you started with, except in a different form.
Not everything is necessarily in balance. Not all bad things are punished, and not all good things are rewarded. Not all people get what they should get, and even if they do what they can, and should theoretically succeed, some don't. Life isn't fair. So there is no balance.
The only reason people still think about God is that some people don't realize that people portray him as an exception to the natural universe. However, there could be other possible exceptions to the natural universe, but they don't accept that.
0 Replies
Etruscia
1
Reply
Sat 6 Nov, 2004 02:29 pm
When talking about creation, there is a difference between using existing atoms to create a different element, and creating an all knowing being from those same atoms. Im just examining the idea that people believe that god created atoms when in fact to exist, he would have to be made up of those things which he is claimed to have created. And as for balance, examining what happens person to person is not balance. If one guy gets it really bad even tho he tries hard, is there another person who exists that gets it great with out trying at all? I am merely exagerating the point that all good cannot exist on its own and there must be an all bad to balance it out.
0 Replies
Lucifer
1
Reply
Sat 6 Nov, 2004 02:49 pm
To a certain degree, yes, there's good and bad, but it's not evenly distributed, and it varies depending on the situation and the location, so it's not completely balanced. I mean if it were a scale, it would be slightly tipped towards the good or the bad side, but not completely good or bad.
0 Replies
Etruscia
1
Reply
Sat 6 Nov, 2004 02:58 pm
You may be right, but it is something that cannot even be estimated it is such a grand concept of balancing out good and evil.
0 Replies
SCoates
1
Reply
Sat 6 Nov, 2004 04:14 pm
Both good and bad are relative. If there was nothing bad, then God could not be relatively good. I submit, that if God is perfectly good (meaning he has done no wrong) then every time someone does wrong, God becomes more good by contrast.
As for the atom/creation thing, I agree. God could organize matter, but could not create it. It follows the law of conservation. And, while it may be argued that God COULD change the laws of physics, the fact is he has not. Physics have been so constant, that it is obvious that any divine being either must or chooses to abide by them.
0 Replies
SCoates
1
Reply
Sat 6 Nov, 2004 04:23 pm
It seems to me that if man continues in his evolution and technological advancement he would eventually make himself God; i.e. find a cure for every disease, find a cure for aging (which isn't that absurd), create life and preside over it.
Currently we are the supreme beings, flawed as we are. If there is something out there that is more intelligent than us, then they are the supreme beings. If there are beings more intelligent than they are... and on and on and on. Basically (and logically), there will always be a supreme being or beings. If ants were the only life on the planet, they would be the supreme beings.
From what we've observed on earth life is established in races (not just single entities), and so it would follow that if there are "Gods" out there, there should be a race of them.
0 Replies
Etruscia
1
Reply
Sat 6 Nov, 2004 04:38 pm
The god that people worship is not a superior being but the being that created everythingwhich exists. We can call any race of aliens that exceeds us gods, but in the definition they are only god compared to us. Although i find the idea of a god needless, it gives some people something to work towards. My main point is that it is impossible for a god to create itself, and itself must be the result of some sort of creation (not from nothing to something, lowlier being to god state). Does this mean that there has always been existence, since you cant create something from nothing?
0 Replies
SCoates
1
Reply
Sat 6 Nov, 2004 04:59 pm
That would be my best guess. It makes more sense to me than matter suddenly coming out of nowhere.
I agree with your main point.
0 Replies
stuh505
1
Reply
Sat 6 Nov, 2004 05:13 pm
Quote:
The god that people worship is not a superior being but the being that created everythingwhich exists. We can call any race of aliens that exceeds us gods, but in the definition they are only god compared to us. Although i find the idea of a god needless, it gives some people something to work towards. My main point is that it is impossible for a god to create itself, and itself must be the result of some sort of creation (not from nothing to something, lowlier being to god state). Does this mean that there has always been existence, since you cant create something from nothing?
By your logic:
If we exist, a God must have created us. This could could not be all-powerful, so it would need to have been created by another God.
Your problem:
In order for this chain of events to get started, there must have been a God that has existed for all time that started everything.
So....in order to explain how matter came to be in the universe...your explanation requires that something had to exist for all time which is a God...
Remember, the only reason for believing for a God in the first place is to explain how our universe came to be because we don't know how it could have existed for all time.
You see how this contradicts itself right?
0 Replies
SCoates
1
Reply
Sat 6 Nov, 2004 05:20 pm
If matter can pop out of nowhere, then I don't see why a god couldn't. But it doesn't seem like anyone here supports either of those possibilities.
So, if matter has always existed, and obviously life has come from it somehow, then I don't see why a God couldn't have evolved.
0 Replies
fresco
1
Reply
Sat 6 Nov, 2004 05:34 pm
Etruscia
Welcome to A2K.
You have raised well known issues which tend to be paradoxical if subjected to usual logical analysis.
On other threads you will find:
references to the limits of language and logic (perhaps citing Wittgenstein)
references to epistemology (Theory of knowledge)
references to non anthropocentric systems in which "cognitive needs" are sidestepped.
If you are ready for them , these excursions would tend to transcend your original issues.
0 Replies
Etruscia
1
Reply
Sat 6 Nov, 2004 06:18 pm
Stuh, my logic doesnt imply a that a god must have created us. I guess my question boils down to the origin of matter now, but my view is that over that last so many billions of years the universe has gone from hydrogen, to us, a sentient race and possibly others in the universe. What remains for me at this point is how did hydrogen become? Or hsa it always been. So far im leaning towards never being able to answer these questions, as if existence always existed then we can never find a starting point, and thus can never conclude anything.
ps. thanks fresco for the other thread subjects.
0 Replies
jjorge
1
Reply
Sat 6 Nov, 2004 07:54 pm
Have men arrived at the idea of God as a result of a logical process? as you imply; or is the idea of God/religion a desperate device to stave off fear, in particular the terrifying idea of our own eventual annhilation?
Philip Larkin in, 'Aubade', clearly indicates the latter:
NOTE: the italics are mine
"I work all day, and get half-drunk at night.
Waking at four to soundless dark, I stare.
In time the curtain-edges will grow light.
Till then I see what's really always there:
Unresting death, a whole day nearer now,
Making all thought impossible but how
And where and when I shall myself die.
Arid interrogation: yet the dread
Of dying, and being dead,
Flashes afresh to hold and horrify....
...This is a special way of being afraid
No trick dispels. Religion used to try, That vast moth-eaten musical brocade
Created to pretend we never die..."
If your implying that people use a god as a way of not being afraid of dying then i totally agree with you.
0 Replies
jjorge
1
Reply
Sat 6 Nov, 2004 08:45 pm
Etruscia,
As a former Catholic I hadn't been to mass in years. Then, last Winter I went to an aunt's funeral mass in Boston.
As I listened to the mass I was struck with HOW MANY TIMES the priest spoke of 'conquering death', and 'rising up', and 'living forever' in Heaven etc.
Well, I am no stranger to the Catholic mass, or other Christian services for that matter, and I of course new that those words were spoken.
Still, I had never listened to them previously with an agnostic's ear, and I had not been to church since reading Larkin's poem several years earlier.
I found myself thinking: 'Of course! That's why so many otherwise intelligent but frightened people cling to their old time religion. The priest tells them over and over and over that they'll never die!'
And that narcotic anaesthetizes their fear of dying.'
That vast moth-eaten musical brocade
Created to pretend we never die..."
0 Replies
Lordregent52
1
Reply
Sat 6 Nov, 2004 10:05 pm
I voted "no." I believe that what people call God is not so much a being as an anthropomorphism. To me, God is the inherent romance of existence, the beauty of life. In that sense, I don't believe that God was created by the human mind. On the other hand, many people believe that God is a supernatural being, and while I respect this belief, I think that it is really just putting a face on a concept, which is why I bemoan the abuse of religion that has been so common throughout history.
Romance: (n) - The quality or feeling of mystery, excitement, and remoteness from everyday life.
(Compact Oxford English Dictionary)
Beauty: (n) - A pleasing quality associated with harmony of form or color, excellence of craftsmanship, truthfulness, originality, or another, often unspecifiable quality"
(American Heritage Dictionary)
0 Replies
Lucifer
1
Reply
Sat 6 Nov, 2004 10:21 pm
But you don't need God to have either. The natural universe provides plenty of romance and beauty--and don't say God made that--we don't know that. If you want to believe God gave us the romance and beauty of the world, then maybe he is just a creation of the human mind--afterall, it's something you believe--not something you know. If you knew it to be true and it is supported objectively, then it's definitely not a creation of the human mind. You can't blame God for attributing coincidences and fate on us. There's a bunch of arguments about these, and we could start threads on these, unless you'd rather talk about them here.
0 Replies
Lordregent52
1
Reply
Sun 7 Nov, 2004 09:37 am
I'm not saying God created the romance and beauty of the universe, I'm saying that what people call God actually IS the romance and beauty of the universe. I think that romance and beauty is inherent in existence, and I think it predates human life. Ideally I wouldn't even be calling this concept God, because that just confuses people who associate God with a being.
I admit that I have no objective way of knowing that my metaphysical belief is true or correct. That's what makes it a metaphysical belief. If my belief is not correct, then it is a creation of my mind. I admit that.
0 Replies
Lucifer
1
Reply
Sun 7 Nov, 2004 11:33 am
Okay, but I don't quite see God being the romance and beauty of the universe. Of course there might be romance and beauty before human existence, but that which we call "romance" and "beauty" is a human definition. Something is romantic or beautiful only because we say so (ie, it's a subjective perspective).
It makes more sense to me than matter suddenly coming out of nowhere. 
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace