The Origin of GOD

[Kizzi]

Could the Origin of God be explained by God devising some way of bringing himself into existence (assuming what we know and don't know about reality)? :)

 

Kizzi

[skuinders]

That is contradictory. If something doesn't exist, how can it "devise" anything? It isn't possible because there is no "it" which can devise.

[blazer2000x]

One of the very defenitions of God is that He's eternal. He that was and is and is to come. Nothing could have created God, because then that would be eternal and we would refer to it as God instead. So we can devise from this that God has no origin, but has always been and always will be.

[Pathogen]

The origin of God is a somewhat difficult subject to debate with Christians, Muslims etc. as many are quite willing to point out that the 'Big Bang' theory and other similar theories must be wrong as 'something must have created the matter,' yet often don't seem very willing to believe the same thing about God. Surely if they believe God can be created from nothing, or God has always been there, they can believe the same thing about matter?

Personally, I'll stick to my beliefs in atheism, I might not understand everything about the beginning of the universe and life, but the scientific theories seem considerably more logical to me than the existence of an invisible omnipresent being.

 

Another view I've heard about the creation of God is that he was made by another, more powerful God, though that simply leads us back to square one, where did he come from?

And then there's always the theory that God was made in much the same way as anything else originally was, the bonding and reaction of certain elements to eventually form life, though that then leads us back to the question "where did all that come from?

It's an unsolveable debate, if God exists then there is no way we could ever understand where he came from, or even comprehend some of the possibilities.

[skuinders]

One of the very defenitions of God is that He's eternal. He that was and is and is to come. Nothing could have created God, because then that would be eternal and we would refer to it as God instead. So we can devise from this that God has no origin, but has always been and always will be.

Something cannot be infinitely old because any given instance in its life will never come. There has to be a finite beginning for there to be a present.

[Kizzi]

That is contradictory. If something doesn't exist, how can it "devise" anything? It isn't possible because there is no "it" which can devise.

 

Maybe this tells us God devised a way of bringing himself into existence AFTER bringing himself into existence! A truely ingenious Creation(/Time) paradox.

 

:) Kizzi

[blazer2000x]

Please bear in mind that time did not always exist. If you are asking where God came from, then you must believe in God, otherwise you would be asking as useless a quiestion as "why is the moon made of cheese?". God has existed for all eternity, but time did not exist before He created it. We cannot understand this to any great depth, because we and everything we have ever seen and experienced in this physical world has always been limited by time. These questions have no simple answers and most likely never will.

That doesn't mean you should ever stop asking though. :)

[skuinders]

I don't understand why one would make all of these additional assumptions without evidence and in the name of a line of thought that has lead to many incorrect assertions in the past. Call me logical, but it is just outrageous to me.

[bumab]

Something cannot be infinitely old because any given instance in its life will never come. There has to be a finite beginning for there to be a present.

 

True. Thus, God would have to exist outside of time, which is certainly in line with most relgions. God is not infinitly old, rather simply "is." Time doesn't apply.

[Pathogen]

Please bear in mind that time did not always exist. If you are asking where God came from, then you must believe in God, otherwise you would be asking as useless a quiestion as "why is the moon made of cheese?"

 

 

I don't think you need to believe in God in order to question his origin, you can say "If there is a God, then where did he come from?"

[bumab]

I don't think you need to believe in God in order to question his origin, you can say "If there is a God, then where did he come from?"

 

I agree with you. But, the phrasing of that question- "if there is a God, then where did he come from?" implies a God within time. Going back to the religous side- many religions say God it outside of time. Thus, it is a non-sensical question.

[blazer2000x]

<<I don't think you need to believe in God in order to question his origin, you can say "If there is a God, then where did he come from?">>

 

IF the moon is made of cheese, why is it made of cheese?

[skuinders]

I agree with you. But, the phrasing of that question- "if there is a God, then where did he come from?" implies a God within time. Going back to the religous side- many religions say God it outside of time. Thus, it is a non-sensical question.

What is nonsense is the use of the term "existence" to describe an entity inside of a place without time. The "eternal" and "timeless" arguments are really just excessive and unreasonable. Unfortunately, they are also impossible to refute.

[bumab]

What is nonsense is the use of the term "existence" to describe an entity inside of a place without time. The "eternal" and "timeless" arguments are really just excessive and unreasonable. Unfortunately, they are also impossible to refute.

 

Why? The number 4 is a thing outside of space and time. It is timeless, it would exist even if there were less then 4 things in the universe.

[skuinders]

Why? The number 4 is a thing outside of space and time. It is timeless, it would exist even if there were less then 4 things in the universe.

Point taken. What if we narrowed it down to intelligent entity?

[bumab]

Point taken. What if we narrowed it down to intelligent entity?

 

Well- you've got two things to define:

intellegent: i'll leave that alone for now

entity: i'll take a guess- by entity you mean some physical being that has some spatial dimensions and some temporal dimensions (i.e. it takes up some space for some amount of time). In this case- sure, it couldn't exist outside of time.

 

But notice, according to the definition I forced upon you, you've built your opinion as to the answer into the question. If you define an entity as something which exists within time, of course it exists within time. Therefore, it cannot be eternal and active, according to what you so rightly said earlier. BUT, you can't define your answer into the question.

 

So, I assume I misunderstood. What do you mean by entity?

[skuinders]

Back to the non-intelligent entity: if something is not in space or time, can it exist? After thinking about your number 4 example... I still say no. The notion of 4 exists as only an abstraction - in the minds of creatures intelligent enough to recognise it. You wouldn't say 4 could create a planet like Earth and everything on it, would you? Without humans (or some other intelligent beings that use number systems :) ), 4 doesn't exist. I think this pin-points our fundamental disagreement.