Zone1 How Did God Come Into Existence?

[Donald H]

Of course it is. You can only use science to describe the events of creation and evolution of space and time. Everything before that is the realm of philosophy. It's common knowledge. So for you to argue against something that is common knowledge is strange.

Logic is reasoning conducted or assesed according to strict principles of validity

Which of the beliefs of your flock represents strict principles when their beliefs are a scattershot at finding truth?

You're permitted by your church to believe whatever the hell you want, as are all the flock. Are yours and their beliefs representing strict principles on evolution or creation?

If you choose to stick to your religious beliefs as belief in the supernatural then you have some answering to do

It's not me who has insulted you by calling your beliefs unnatural!

 

[ding]

Logic is reasoning conducted or assesed according to strict principles of validity

An argument is valid if the premises and conclusion are related to each other in the right way so that if the premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true as well.

Which of the beliefs of your flock represents strict principles when their beliefs are a scattershot at finding truth?

The question you should be asking yourself is which beliefs of mine do you believe are not related to each other so that my premises are not true, and which of my conclusions do you believe is false.

You're permitted by your church to believe whatever the hell you want, as are all the flock. Are yours and their beliefs representing strict principles on evolution or creation?

No. I am permitted by my Creator to believe and do anything I want and will get to experience the consequences of my thoughts and actions. The same thing applies to you whether you believe it or not.

If you choose to stick to your religious beliefs as belief in the supernatural then you have some answering to do

It's not me who has insulted you by calling your beliefs unnatural!

Your only reason for being here is to subordinate belief in God.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

God was invented by humans as a convenient way of explaining things.

Before humans, there was no God.

Before humans, there was God

 

[Donald H]

The question you should be asking yourself is which beliefs of mine do you believe are not related to each other so that my premises are not true, and which of my conclusions do you believe is false.

Your beliefs are just as valid as Backagain's beliefs in a literal bible and his belief in strictly creation only.
Why would I be concerned about your partial rejection of creation?

Backagain can't be accused of being a Christian backslider.

 

[ding]

Your beliefs are just as valid as Backagain's beliefs in a literal bible and his belief in strictly creation only.
Why would I be concerned about your partial rejection of creation?

Backagain can't be accused of being a Christian backslider.

Are they? Wouldn't they need to have their premises and conclusions related to each other in the right way so that if the premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true as well?

So are all beliefs valid? No. Everything has to be tested. But I'm ok with Backagain or anyone else for that matter working out their own path. The problem is that you subversive types like to stir up division. You're kind of like that snake in the garden.

 

[onefour1]

If He doesn't have a creator and has always been, how can this be? This part has always confused me.

In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we do not believe that when God creates things, that he creates them from nothing. Some how over time some have come to believe that the word, "creation" when speaking of God means, "creation out of nothing". Through the Prophet Joseph Smith, God has revealed that the elements of the universe are eternal in nature and that mankind's intelligence is also eternal and was not created or made and neither indeed can be.

Doctrine and Covenants 93:33
33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

Doctrine and Covenant 93:29
29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

What this means is that matter and intelligence are self-existing and have always existed. It means that when God creates things he creates from that which has always existed. He forms things from eternal chaotic matter and intelligences that have always existed. I have always found it strange that some believe that God existed before everything was created from nothing and that before his very first creation, God existed for an eternity past with nothing but himself in existence for an eternity past.

 

[ninja007]

If He doesn't have a creator and has always been, how can this be? This part has always confused me.

His ways are higher then our ways; does the clay say to the potter why did you make me? if we could understand God He wouldnt be God now would He?

 

[ding]

Why would I be concerned about your partial rejection of creation?

For starters you are concerned because I don't consider my interpretation to be a partial rejection of creation or any type of rejection whatsoever.

But more importantly you consider my interpretation to be a threat to your atheism and that is what you are concerned about and why you try to create division when there is none.

 

[Donald H]

For starters you are concerned because I don't consider my interpretation to be a partial rejection of creation or any type of rejection whatsoever.

You've accepted Darwinian evolution. What more do I have to say about your partial rejection of creation and of your rejection of 'Genesis' as being literally true.

Nobody can say anything to help you clear that hurdle, nor should they. It's yours to deal with.

But more importantly you consider my interpretation to be a threat to your atheism and that is what you are concerned about and why you try to create division when there is none.

You can believe you're a threat to atheism if you choose. I consider your progress on accepting evolution to be a gift to all atheists.

It's individuals such as Backagain that threaten sanity and atheism, in that they threaten violence on behalf of their beliefs.

 

[ding]

You've accepted Darwinian evolution. What more do I have to say about your partial rejection of creation and of your rejection of 'Genesis' as being literally true.

Nobody can say anything to help you clear that hurdle, nor should they. It's yours to deal with.

Belief in God and evolution are not mutually exclusive no matter how many times you try to say they are. Just because you interpret Genesis like the Westboro Baptists doesn't mean I do.

Belief in God doesn't undermine evolution: Column

Religion shouldn't get in the way of science, and vise versa.

www.usatoday.com

Famous Christians Who Believed Evolution is Compatible with Christian Faith - BioLogos

The list includes some of the most influential Christians of the last 150 years, such as Billy Graham and C.S. Lewis.

biologos.org

 

[ding]

You can believe you're a threat to atheism if you choose. I consider your progress on accepting evolution to be a gift to all atheists.

It's individuals such as Backagain that threaten sanity and atheism, in that they threaten violence on behalf of their beliefs.

Let me say it differently... I am a threat to your mission to subordinate Christianity. How's that?

 

[Road Runner]

His ways are higher then our ways; does the clay say to the potter why did you make me?

No because clay can't talk.

 

[toobfreak]

How Did God Come Into Existence?​

LEGOs. Two kids in a more giant universe built him from LEGOs.

If He doesn't have a creator and has always been, how can this be? This part has always confused me.

Seriously, it is part of the steady state concept. Since God is infinitely larger than us, our perceptions of him are very limited in what we can know, but as far as we can tell, God is beyond time, in fact, he CREATES time, so, by being beyond/above time, how can he be IN time? He can't since he creates time, so, how can he have a "beginning" or "end," both of which are concepts IN time?

Therefore, the easiest way to understand God's timeless, eternal nature is to understand that God is the only thing truly REAL. Everything else is temporal, unreal, a temporary reflection of some finite aspect of a higher reality, thus, for 70 years, we come into being with a finite consciousness reflecting God's unlimited infinite everlasting consciousness because consciousness is being.

 

[ding]

Therefore, the easiest way to understand God's timeless, eternal nature is to understand that God is the only thing truly REAL.

Exactly.

 

[Donald H]

Let me say it differently... I am a threat to your mission to subordinate Christianity. How's that?

What do 'you' believe?

according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, any believer may accept either literal or special creation within the period of an actual six-day, twenty-four-hour period, or they may accept the belief that the earth evolved over time under the guidance of God.

If you no longer accept evolution then you'll become a threat again. A threat to the sanity that your church begrudgingly had to accept.

 

[Donald H]

LEGOs. Two kids in a more giant universe built him from LEGOs.


Seriously, it is part of the steady state concept. Since God is infinitely larger than us, our perceptions of him are very limited in what we can know, but as far as we can tell, God is beyond time, in fact, he CREATES time, so, by being beyond/above time, how can he be IN time? He can't since he creates time, so, how can he have a "beginning" or "end," both of which are concepts IN time?

There's no concensus concerning time. Ding's belief on the universe having a beginning and an end is just as possible for Christians as yours.

I think that you've just adjusted your beliefs quicker than Ding on agreeing with the latest from science.

 

[toobfreak]

Exactly.

Since God IS reality, everything we see around us then must be illusion, unreal, like a reflection in a pool of water. The reflection does not last, but while it does, it carries a few limited qualities of reality. The reflection of a tree appears to have a trunk and leaves, likewise, the temporal universe like ourselves appear to have a temporary, limited set of godly qualities of consciousness, knowledge, bliss, compassion and power.

This is all now supported in some aspects of quantum theory which is now just beginning to explore these concepts:

Is Our Universe a Hologram? Physicists Debate Famous Idea on Its 25th Anniversary

The Ads/CFT duality conjecture suggests our universe is a hologram, enabling significant discoveries in the 25 years since it was first proposed

www.scientificamerican.com

Theory of Forms

By Jaafar Bouhlal Updated on March 04, 2023

www.philoschools.com

https://www.jstor.org/stable/20098785

Theory claims to offer the first 'evidence' our Universe is a hologram

Observations of the cosmic microwave background by the University of Southampton support the holographic Universe theory and quantum gravity

www.wired.co.uk

But according to Vedic scholars, the temporal, illusory nature of what we see created around us is best understood as maya or the dance of illusion:

Maya (religion) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Maya: The greatest secret of Hinduism

www.speakingtree.in

 

[Road Runner]

LEGOs. Two kids in a more giant universe built him from LEGOs.

Lol actually I think that it would be the other way around.

 

[toobfreak]

There's no concensus concerning time. Ding's belief on the universe having a beginning and an end is just as possible for Christians as yours.
I think that you've just adjusted your beliefs quicker than Ding on agreeing with the latest from science.

Actually the best theories of time and the universe agree with ancient Vedic scripture now that time and the universe are oscillatory--- that time and the universe--- at least our universe among countless others--- are created, expand, evolve, then wither, contract and die only to be created all over again.

Einstein and Hoyle just could not accept it, but as science evolves, that truly appears to be the case.

Thus that which remains outside of Time to create the universes and expand them upon the Causal Ocean must be God. In that way, God can be thought of as the MEDIUM by which our temporary reality expands, much as the luminiferous ether was the medium by which light propagated.

Yeah, heavy stuff.

 

[toobfreak]

Lol actually I think that it would be the other way around.

Yeah, all fun aside, I was playing off the old idea that each universe is in fact a tiny particle/atom within an infinitely larger universe, first postulated to me from one of my psych professor's patient case-studies, with infinite universes both above and below our own.

Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Multiverse - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hindu cosmology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Pretty funny that after 5,000 years of scientific evolution, our research and discoveries lead us pretty much back to where we started!