0
   

Is God part of existence or cause of existence

 
 
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 12:49 pm
Hello All,

I have long investigated and argued the point about GOD as some sort of a being sitting on a throne in the heavens.

If this is the case then He is separate from matter, energy and just like the rest of us can be found "somewhere"


Thus, this god will dwell within existence and not be the cause thereof and the theory of most scientist atheists and astrophysicists would be correct that god is a part of existence there is no creator of existence

Then if God exist he is just some mighty being or supreme being if you like

The ultimate enigma will remain, what or who is the source of all things??.

The most amazing and puzzling thing to me is "my own existence"



Alan
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,739 • Replies: 46
No top replies

 
Welshie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 01:23 pm
@Alan McDougall,
I personally don't think God is 'a being' somewhere, supreme or not. If he was then technically he wouldn't be God, he would be an immortal human with perfect morals, infinite knowledge and infinite power.

I don't think God is 'a being'. I think God is Being itself... or to put in other words, I think God is Existence itself. Because everything owes it's existence to Existence (by definition), this means everything owes it's existence to God.

This also means God isn't necessarily an actual literal physical cause for the Universe. If the Universe had a natural explanation, and before it nothing existed, then "nothing" EXISTED, so Existence (God) was always there. And if the Universe it eternal, and has always existed, again, so has God.

Either way, everything owes it's existence to God no matter what the material cause of any other material thing is.

That's my theory anyway... Smile
click here
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 02:31 pm
@Welshie,
Let me tell you something that I think about sometimes.

Imagine that there was someone, an actual human being just like you and me, it could even be your best friend as for the example it doesn't matter.

Now imagine that he/she somehow came to know EVERYTHING and I mean everything. They knew all the answers to every philosophical question, the perfect way to respond to a paradox, how to prove that a circle can be a square etc... This person knows why we are here, when we got here, what happens next, what has happened etc... Basically all that 'is' is understood by this person.

I would argue that it would be impossible for this person to explain certain things to us. For our minds our finite and so is our language. I think that our language alone is a huge inhibitor to explaining the 'big' answers, if they can be explained, which I'm sure they can. We are 'here' if you know why and how then I wonder if it could be put into the english language. Or for those who believe in God how is it that something can have no beginning to its existence etc... Our minds can't grasp infinity and I think that it could not be understood or explained. If this person could somehow know everything I know that our minds couldn't grasp it nor could they even make sense of it simply enough for us to understand.

So when you get to a difficult concept. "hmm I wonder if this could be true...'' just remember that even your ability to understand the situation is finite.
0 Replies
 
Welshie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 02:52 pm
@Alan McDougall,
I know there are things that are hard for us to comprehend, such as higher mathematical dimensions (although I'm starting to think that the human mind could indeed comprehend them if we knew what it was we were trying to comprehend). I don't really think so many people should use that fact (as they do) to just get away from certain questions they don't like.

1- certain things are logically impossible. There are some things attributed to God that turn out to be logically impossible, and theists in their defense argue "but our silly little human minds can't understand it". This is silly; human minds can understand logic. The only way we can say things are beyond human capacity to understand is if we assume that the logically impossible is in fact possible, that logical impossibility is our inability to comprehend. However once logical impossibility is assumed to be possible, there's no point at all to any form of philosophy because that one fact destroys all possible chance of arguing anything.

2- of course our mind's can grasp infinity. We think it can't because we just try to think of something really big, but still finite. To be honest I find it personally reasonable and easy to suppose the Universe may have no beginning to its existence.
hammersklavier
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 03:25 pm
@Welshie,
Corollaries to your question Alan:

1. Should God be the cause of existence but not part of existence (i.e., acting ex mundi), His being must be separate and therefore definable. Since definability, although it does not necessitate finiteness, certainly does seem to dictate it, such a God would necessarily not be truly and totally infinite but must instead be somewhat infinite. If God is, as we perceive Him to be, totally perfect in every way, then any non-infinitude on His part would itself necessitate His nonexistence (since what is perfect is infinite and beyond the realm of human understanding).
2. Should God be part of existence but not the cause of existence, how could He be omnipotent? If He is not omnipotent, how could He be perfect? If He is not perfect, how could He be God?
3. Should God be neither a cause nor a part of existence, how could we say He even exists at all?

Therefore, I subscribe rather to the theory of God as self-causing monism*: I think God is a self-causing causer, that is, not only did He cause the Universe but also that He sustains it, and more bluntly, is it, and we are in him in a similar manner as, say, the pancreas and the liver are in the human body.

--------
*If you're wondering why this sounds familiar, it's because it's the Hindu perception of Brahman, the Taoist perception of the Tao, and the Sufi Muslim concept of Allah (among others). One of the reasons I think this characterization has come about so widely is because this is, by far, the best way to resolve the causal-monist dilemma (that is, should God exist, His nature is more likely to be this than any other).
0 Replies
 
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 11:47 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Hi All!

Personally Spinoza's god makes the most sense to me, and thus god is the totality of all that exists, god is substance extended, and modified into the plurality of all forms.
WithoutReason
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 01:32 am
@boagie,
If I were a theist, I would likely subscribe to the traditional theory that God has no beginning and is therefore uncaused. I wouldn't have a problem believing that an omnipotent supernatural being could have always existed. I always understood time to be just another part of our natural universe, meaning that God would presumably exist outside of time. If this is true, then time-oriented concepts such as a "beginning" would have no applicability to him.

On the other hand, I do have a difficult time accepting that something natural such as the universe could have always existed. Personally I do not believe this is the first time the universe has existed, nor do I believe it to be the last. But even if the universe is forever expanding, condensing, and big-banging, someone with human understanding like myself is likely to doubt that the universe could have always existed. Something had to cause that first particle to come into existence. Or did it? While I view these questions with a human mind, I also recognize that fact and am open to the possibility there is simply more to the nature of reality than I am capable of comprehending. Maybe there is something about that eternal cycle of life and death of the universe that we just cannot grasp, and maybe concepts such as a "beginning" (and even an end, for that matter) have no applicability to the universe either.
0 Replies
 
click here
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 04:59 am
@Welshie,
Welshie wrote:
I know there are things that are hard for us to comprehend, such as higher mathematical dimensions (although I'm starting to think that the human mind could indeed comprehend them if we knew what it was we were trying to comprehend). I don't really think so many people should use that fact (as they do) to just get away from certain questions they don't like.


I'm not trying to get away from a question I don't like.

I do believe that there truly are things which we can't get our minds around as I said having the universe without a beginning I'll mention more below.

Welshie wrote:

1- certain things are logically impossible. There are some things attributed to God that turn out to be logically impossible, and theists in their defense argue "but our silly little human minds can't understand it". This is silly; human minds can understand logic. The only way we can say things are beyond human capacity to understand is if we assume that the logically impossible is in fact possible, that logical impossibility is our inability to comprehend. However once logical impossibility is assumed to be possible, there's no point at all to any form of philosophy because that one fact destroys all possible chance of arguing anything.


When we assume that the logically impossible is in fact possible we are not assuming it is possible within our laws or views of the world. That as you say is just stupid then it isn't logically impossible since it is possible. We assume that it is only possible outside of our logic hence it being impossible to comprehend with out finite minds. Sometimes we as humans become haughty and assume that we can or do know everything or one day will. We can only wish that and have no proof otherwise.

Welshie wrote:

2- of course our mind's can grasp infinity. We think it can't because we just try to think of something really big, but still finite. To be honest I find it personally reasonable and easy to suppose the Universe may have no beginning to its existence.


If the universe has no beginning to its existence how do you explain your existence right now. If the universe has no beginning you can never get to a specific point on the line of time. It is easy to say that you will one day be 100 years down the road because we are starting at a specific date and will end at a specific date.

If the universe has no beginning then you can't get to present time. It is logically impossible. A philosopher once gave the example that you are looking to borrow a book from someone though someone who you think has it says "no it is as Joe's". So you go to Joe's and he says "no, it is at Susies". If no one actually owns the book you will never get it.

You can never get to a specific point of time if you do not have a starting spot. If you assume the universe has no beginning then present day is impossible yet here we are, just a small spot in time.

I don't see how you can understand that as that is outside of our system of logic unless you assume that the universe had a beginning.
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 06:55 am
@click here,
Guys,

You all make such logical sense that I am at a loss to respond to which of you so I will start with :meeting:

Welshie

[QUOTE]
I personally don't think God is 'a being' somewhere, supreme or not. If he was then technically he wouldn't be God, he would be an immortal human with perfect morals, infinite knowledge and infinite power.

I don't think God is 'a being'. I think God is Being itself... or to put in other words, I think God is Existence itself. Because everything owes it's existence to Existence (by definition), this means everything owes it's existence to God.

This also means God isn't necessarily an actual literal physical cause for the Universe. If the Universe had a natural explanation, and before it nothing existed, then "nothing" EXISTED, so Existence (God) was always there. And if the Universe it eternal, and has always existed, again, so has God.

Either way, everything owes it's existence to God no matter what the material cause of any other material thing is.

That's my theory anyway...


[/QUOTE]

Firstly I like your opening

"I PERSONALLY" You make this as a personal viewpoint and not a proven fact. It is great to debate with a person like you!

The reason I started this topic is that many religions, Islam, Christian and Judaism have this idea of a Supreme Being, and they even give him a gender and a name.

God to me is all "that is" The term "being" gives the wrong impression that God exist as some sort of a great unit.

God is evolving, and we are rapped up in this intelligent evolution if you like.

It might be hard to think of God as evolving, but we see the universe changing and evolving there is even a new science called cosmological evolution. Everything is about change even God

God although to us is at this "moment" is everything that IS he is also everything that will be a CEASELESS CREATOR of which we are part, like it or not, believe it or not, we are going for a ride into eternity.

Smile guys, God has not played a cruel trick and just given us such a brief earthly existence, infinitesimally minute immeasurably tiny moment as compared to infinite eternity awaiting us :bigsmile:
0 Replies
 
Welshie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 10:09 am
@click here,
click here wrote:
When we assume that the logically impossible is in fact possible we are not assuming it is possible within our laws or views of the world. That as you say is just stupid then it isn't logically impossible since it is possible. We assume that it is only possible outside of our logic hence it being impossible to comprehend with out finite minds. Sometimes we as humans become haughty and assume that we can or do know everything or one day will. We can only wish that and have no proof otherwise.

Logical impossibility is not the same as being impossible according to our physical laws. Logical impossibility means it MUST be impossible, for example a 3-sided square is logically impossible.

click here wrote:
If the universe has no beginning to its existence how do you explain your existence right now. If the universe has no beginning you can never get to a specific point on the line of time. It is easy to say that you will one day be 100 years down the road because we are starting at a specific date and will end at a specific date.

You are thinking in terms of a beginning. You are trying to find a cause for the Universe, and saying 'if there is no cause there is no Universe'. Although if the Universe had no beginning, it had no cause, this doesn't mean it can't exist. Nothing needed to bring it into existence if it was already there.

You can get to a specific point in time. If you want a starting point, name a specific moment as point 0 (such as 0AD) and you can count backwards or forwards from there. You will just never reach the beginning or end; it will go on til infinityBC and infinityAD.

click here wrote:
If the universe has no beginning then you can't get to present time. It is logically impossible.

How is it logically impossible?

click here wrote:
A philosopher once gave the example that you are looking to borrow a book from someone though someone who you think has it says "no it is as Joe's". So you go to Joe's and he says "no, it is at Susies". If no one actually owns the book you will never get it.

This only works if the book never exists. There is a difference between the book never existing (in which case it needs a cause to bring it into existence), and the book ALWAYS existing (so it needs no cause, as it was already there).

click here wrote:
You can never get to a specific point of time if you do not have a starting spot. If you assume the universe has no beginning then present day is impossible yet here we are, just a small spot in time.

I don't see you're logic. If there is no beginning, the present is not impossible. In fact the present is the most important thing, because it is always right in the middle, between infinity on both sides.
click here
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 10:58 am
@Welshie,
Welshie wrote:
Logical impossibility is not the same as being impossible according to our physical laws. Logical impossibility means it MUST be impossible, for example a 3-sided square is logically impossible.

And why is a 3 sided square impossible? Because we have defined what a sqaure is. So it is only impossible under the laws by which we define a square as. So again it is only logically impossible within our laws and views of the world.

Welshie wrote:

You are thinking in terms of a beginning. You are trying to find a cause for the Universe, and saying 'if there is no cause there is no Universe'. Although if the Universe had no beginning, it had no cause, this doesn't mean it can't exist. Nothing needed to bring it into existence if it was already there.


If the universe is 'allready there' and had no beginning then again I state that you can not get to a specific point in time if there is no starting poing.


Welshie wrote:

How is it logically impossible?


Can you count to infinity? No because infinity is not a set number that you can reach. You can count to a specific point on the progression of infinity if and only if I set a specific number to count to. For this example I will say 1 billion. But how do you do that? Well you start at 1 and start counting till you get to that number. How what if I told you that you had to get to 1 billion but you had to start at negative infinity. There would be no starting place for you to begin counting as you would infinitly regress. Any time that you would start to count you could always add another zero to what ever number you start from. If there is no starting point from which you can begin from then it is impossible for you to count to 1 billion.

Now do you understand? For the example, to keep things simple, '1 billion' is present day. Present day can not be attained if the universe regresses infinitely.
0 Replies
 
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 11:13 am
@Alan McDougall,
Welshie

Quote:

I don't see you're logic. If there is no beginning, the present is not impossible. In fact the present is the most important thing, because it is always right in the middle, between infinity on both sides.


I agree without a beginning the arrow of time would be pushed back to the infinite eternal past.

Time must start somewhere. The universe is trapped in linear time , but the creator exists and must exist above and outside time, in all seing moment.
0 Replies
 
Elmud
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2009 09:35 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall wrote:
Hello All,

I have long investigated and argued the point about GOD as some sort of a being sitting on a throne in the heavens.

If this is the case then He is separate from matter, energy and just like the rest of us can be found "somewhere"


Thus, this god will dwell within existence and not be the cause thereof and the theory of most scientist atheists and astrophysicists would be correct that god is a part of existence there is no creator of existence

Then if God exist he is just some mighty being or supreme being if you like

The ultimate enigma will remain, what or who is the source of all things??.

The most amazing and puzzling thing to me is "my own existence"



Alan

How could that person not be both alan?:perplexed:
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2009 03:21 pm
@Elmud,
Elmud

Hi :bigsmile:



Quote:
How could that person not be both alan


Well he could if he were a "he" and if he were a "person", but to sit on some throne like some great science fiction entity, surrounded by angels and beings blazing with multi colored rainbows "seems to me" just a show to impress the peasants.

Of course god could do both but he would have to shrug off some off his infinity and restrict himself to a throne inside a universe and this might be an illusion and untruth about who God really

Of course all this is just my silly little finite mind trying in vain to comprehend how the being that is all that

"IS"

will function :perplexed: :perplexed:
Axis Austin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2009 12:15 am
@Alan McDougall,
Welshie: I have never found myself so agreeing with another person on these topics. What you said is exactly what I would say, but better. So thanks!

To others: why must there be a beginning of time to find out when "now" is. It seems we have a better sense of when "now" is than when the "beginning" is. To find a point on the timeline we don't need a beginning, we just need some reference point. Any will do. As Welshie suggested, perhaps it's 0AD. Or maybe it's the everchanging "now". If we pick 0AD then we can know that we exist in 2009 because it is 2009 years after 0AD, not because it is x years after the beginning. If there is no beginning, that doesn't matter. Events could happen y years before 0AD as well.

click here: I'm tempted to agree with you about the three sided square thing: we've created the notion of the square. However, how do you explaining a three-sided object that has four sides? You can't, it's logically impossible (different from physically impossible).

To Alan: Does God have to be either the creator or part of creation? Can't he be both?
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2009 12:50 am
@Axis Austin,
Hey guys I put these two quotes together

Quote:

Originally Posted by click here http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
If the universe has no beginning then you can't get to present time. It is logically impossible.
How is it logically impossible?


I agree with click here about time, if time runs from past to present and into the eternal future in a linear way, then for us to have reached the moment we call the present the universe must have a beginning and moment of creation. The big bang is as good a theory as any for this

Like click here stated if the universe has no beginning, then the arrow of time, cause and effect could never have reached the present time.

This arrow of time in a universe with no beginning would be pushed back into the eternal infinite time and we would simply never have come into existence

An analogy for click her statement could be, Suppose there is tack race between athletes but their start line has no real point and everytime they want to start the contest they find the start line somewhere further back, so they try to start the race from the further back start line, but as soon as they approach it it is pushed back further, this continues forever

Would we the hopeful crown ever see these guys racing in front of us, no

In an eternal universe there simply cannot be linear time because the arrow of time would be pushed back into the eternal past and in this type of universe nothing can happen and we would not exist

If God is not everything, then what is not God?
0 Replies
 
click here
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2009 04:58 am
@Axis Austin,
Axis Austin wrote:
Welshie: I have never found myself so agreeing with another person on these topics. What you said is exactly what I would say, but better. So thanks!

To others: why must there be a beginning of time to find out when "now" is. It seems we have a better sense of when "now" is than when the "beginning" is. To find a point on the timeline we don't need a beginning, we just need some reference point. Any will do. As Welshie suggested, perhaps it's 0AD. Or maybe it's the everchanging "now". If we pick 0AD then we can know that we exist in 2009 because it is 2009 years after 0AD, not because it is x years after the beginning. If there is no beginning, that doesn't matter. Events could happen y years before 0AD as well.


The reference point that you speak of is the starting point. That is what I am talking about. Without a reference/starting point you can not get to 2009. Try to get to 2009 without starting somewhere. You can't do it.

Axis Austin wrote:

click here: I'm tempted to agree with you about the three sided square thing: we've created the notion of the square. However, how do you explaining a three-sided object that has four sides? You can't, it's logically impossible (different from physically impossible).


When I was talking about logical impossibilities it has spawned from Welshie stating that God was bound by logical impossibilities. I was merely saying that we have defined what a logical impossibility is it exists as an impossibility only by our definitions. When we deem a characteristic of God to be 'logically impossible' we are only saying that to us it makes no sense otherwise. As I stated in my OP I believe our minds our finite and we can not grasp anything past what we have defined as a logical impossibility.
0 Replies
 
Justin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2009 07:44 am
@Welshie,
Alan McDougall wrote:
I have long investigated and argued the point about GOD as some sort of a being sitting on a throne in the heavens.

If this is the case then He is separate from matter, energy and just like the rest of us can be found "somewhere"


What are we investigating? Humankind has created the idea of a God sitting on a thrown, often times next to Jesus with angels singing and the holy spirit floating around above both of them. This is the idea of man. Shall we investigate an idea from a man who during the creation of this very idea the man thought the world was flat?

God is man's creation. God as man refers to comes in so many shapes and sizes and flavors it's almost impossible to choose which breed or variety of God one shall follow. Most of these Gods that man has defined to fit the bill are separate from matter.

The fact is that humankind, in it's created separation from a created deity has in fact created this separation and continues to do so. Humankind is the only one that would think of a throne and only because of ego and separation. Take a look at the thrones we have today separating man from man. Surely God needs a throne too.

Alan McDougall wrote:
Thus, this god will dwell within existence and not be the cause thereof and the theory of most scientist atheists and astrophysicists would be correct that god is a part of existence there is no creator of existence


God does not dwell. Only a man created god can dwell within existence. He can also be the cause of such existence as well as a father to another man who was Jesus. All of this, in it's entirety created by man.

If there be energy, then God be that universal energy that is part of existence. God be the mind we be the manifestation of that mind, or reflection of that mind, registered in matter. All the while not being separate from matter and not being separate from God. God being the thought and creation being the manifestation.

click here wrote:
Sometimes we as humans become haughty and assume that we can or do know everything or one day will. We can only wish that and have no proof otherwise.


The above is your perception based on traditional beliefs that God is separate from mankind. This is embracing the belief system that has been passed down for generations and generations by other men. Men, who at the time thought the world was flat. This, to me, does not make any sense at all. Basically it's saying that you are separate from God or creation and that we can only wish. We do have proof and it's all over but the ego of man is blind to see the proof standing before him.

Shall we continue to indoctrinate humankind with the logic of a cave man? Have we not evolved to the point of going past that of the cave man?

click here wrote:
If the universe has no beginning to its existence how do you explain your existence right now. If the universe has no beginning you can never get to a specific point on the line of time. It is easy to say that you will one day be 100 years down the road because we are starting at a specific date and will end at a specific date.


This is true if your perceptions says it is. Time has no beginning and end. The time pieces, the seasons, the day and night were all called that by men... cave men. These definitions are that of mankind from thousands of years ago. Funny thing is, it repeats itself over and over. The Sun rises every day and the universe is in complete balance ever repeating itself over and over. It is you and I that create this idea of God and time.

click here wrote:
If the universe has no beginning then you can't get to present time. It is logically impossible. A philosopher once gave the example that you are looking to borrow a book from someone though someone who you think has it says "no it is as Joe's". So you go to Joe's and he says "no, it is at Susies". If no one actually owns the book you will never get it.


This only confused me. Owning something in the physical world is also a delusional logic of the cave man. As the seasons change and the earth unfolds and as the plants die off and all comes back again, so does human life. The only separation we have from the infinite is the separation we create with our ego.

click here wrote:
You can never get to a specific point of time if you do not have a starting spot. If you assume the universe has no beginning then present day is impossible yet here we are, just a small spot in time.

I don't see how you can understand that as that is outside of our system of logic unless you assume that the universe had a beginning.


Our system of logic has been brainwashed in our children and in our ancestors for many many years. Now can you see why? Humankind while extremely intelligent, are the stupidest of all beings. We are so darn intelligen that we literally create an idea outside of ourselves then clothe it and spruce it up and show it off and place ourselves within it... an idea. An Ego. Our ego is us. With our ego dominating our thinking mind and our universal mind of creation, we are too blind to see anything but.

click here wrote:
And why is a 3 sided square impossible? Because we have defined what a sqaure is. So it is only impossible under the laws by which we define a square as. So again it is only logically impossible within our laws and views of the world.


Right on. This makes sense. So how can God be a god within creation if we have defined god separate from creation? How is it logically possible? The ceiling is the ceiling we create.... with god.

click here wrote:
If the universe is 'allready there' and had no beginning then again I state that you can not get to a specific point in time if there is no starting poing.


This is only your own perception of it and it's obviously not in line with my perception of it. Where are you trying to get to or go? What specific point in time are we trying to get to? There is no beginning and there will be no end, all there is, is here and now. The more we are blinded by our ego the more we tend to think our time here is limited and we are living for something else. Not realizing that the something else we live for stands before us, is us.

click here wrote:
Can you count to infinity? No because infinity is not a set number that you can reach. You can count to a specific point on the progression of infinity if and only if I set a specific number to count to. For this example I will say 1 billion. But how do you do that? Well you start at 1 and start counting till you get to that number. How what if I told you that you had to get to 1 billion but you had to start at negative infinity. There would be no starting place for you to begin counting as you would infinitly regress. Any time that you would start to count you could always add another zero to what ever number you start from. If there is no starting point from which you can begin from then it is impossible for you to count to 1 billion.

Now do you understand? For the example, to keep things simple, '1 billion' is present day. Present day can not be attained if the universe regresses infinitely.


No I don't understand. Cavemen counted. You are using caveman logic. Again, fundamental idea that God is, 'somewhere out there'. This may have worked when people thought the earth to be flat but it doesn't apply today unless you are willing to carry that idea and those ancient traditions into the here and now.

Like the numbers, there is no end. Just add a zero. There's also no beginning, just progression and evolution and rebirth. Let's start an infinity and count to infinity.

Oh yeah, 2012 is the end of the world. :nonooo: - PEACE!
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2009 07:57 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall wrote:
Hello All,

I have long investigated and argued the point about GOD as some sort of a being sitting on a throne in the heavens.

If this is the case then He is separate from matter, energy and just like the rest of us can be found "somewhere"


Thus, this god will dwell within existence and not be the cause thereof and the theory of most scientist atheists and astrophysicists would be correct that god is a part of existence there is no creator of existence

Then if God exist he is just some mighty being or supreme being if you like

The ultimate enigma will remain, what or who is the source of all things??.

The most amazing and puzzling thing to me is "my own existence"



Alan


The traditional view, I think, is that God caused everything other than Him to exist, And, of course, then, God must exist. If you are asking whether God exists "in the same way" as His creation exists, my answer is that everything exists in the same way. Although, of course, different kinds of things exist. I don't think it makes much sense to talk about the cause of existence as if existence were just the name of something else that exists. But it does, of course, make sense to ask why this or that exists.
0 Replies
 
click here
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2009 09:31 am
@Justin,
Justin wrote:

The above is your perception based on traditional beliefs that God is separate from mankind. This is embracing the belief system that has been passed down for generations and generations by other men. Men, who at the time thought the world was flat. This, to me, does not make any sense at all. Basically it's saying that you are separate from God or creation and that we can only wish. We do have proof and it's all over but the ego of man is blind to see the proof standing before him.

Shall we continue to indoctrinate humankind with the logic of a cave man? Have we not evolved to the point of going past that of the cave man?


I am simply saying that people think we will have the answer to everything one day. There is no proof of that.


Justin wrote:

Right on. This makes sense. So how can God be a god within creation if we have defined god separate from creation? How is it logically possible? The ceiling is the ceiling we create.... with god.


I'm not quite sure what you are referring to. I never was talking about God within creation or outside.


Justin wrote:

This is only your own perception of it and it's obviously not in line with my perception of it. Where are you trying to get to or go? What specific point in time are we trying to get to? There is no beginning and there will be no end, all there is, is here and now. The more we are blinded by our ego the more we tend to think our time here is limited and we are living for something else. Not realizing that the something else we live for stands before us, is us.


No I don't understand. Cavemen counted. You are using caveman logic. Again, fundamental idea that God is, 'somewhere out there'. This may have worked when people thought the earth to be flat but it doesn't apply today unless you are willing to carry that idea and those ancient traditions into the here and now.

Like the numbers, there is no end. Just add a zero. There's also no beginning, just progression and evolution and rebirth. Let's start an infinity and count to infinity.


Caveman logic? I don't see how you don't understand the example. I want you to try this. Count to 100 but don't start counting. You say, "how can I get to 100 if I never start counting?" that is the whole point. If you don't have a specific number to start from like, -1000, you will never ever get to 100. You absolutely must have a starting point otherwise you can't get to 100.

In this example 100 is a representation of 'now', 'here', or 'present day' (ignoring the fact that 'now' is always 'moving' to keep things simpler)

You will never ever count to 100 unless you start counting at a specific number. How can the universe have no beginning and get to present day?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is God part of existence or cause of existence
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/07/2023 at 07:08:26