A Universe from Nothing?

[Thief]

Are you saying God made the universe from nothing?

so....you can't fathom the entire universe in one small location?

ok...most of us can't

but science would have you believe it
I do

and with all things crushed into one location....
science can offer no further explanation

I can.....God did it

Someone had to be...first

 

[Ben Dhyan]

so....you can't fathom the entire universe in one small location?

ok...most of us can't

but science would have you believe it
I do

and with all things crushed into one location....
science can offer no further explanation

I can.....God did it

Someone had to be...first

So where is God in relation to the universe...omnipresent with it...or external to it? And where was G-d before the creation of the entire universe in one small location...what space did G-d occupy?

 

[Thief]

So where is God in relation to the universe...omnipresent with it...or external to it? And where was G-d before the creation of the entire universe in one small location...what space did G-d occupy?

you think God is not Spirit?

the science rules don't apply to spirit

 

[Ben Dhyan]

you think God is not Spirit?

the science rules don't apply to spirit

Ok then....where was spirit in relation to the universe...omnipresent with it...or external to it? And where was spirit before the creation of the entire universe in one small location...what space did spirit occupy?

 

[Thief]

Ok then....where was spirit in relation to the universe...omnipresent with it...or external to it? And where was spirit before the creation of the entire universe in one small location...what space did spirit occupy?

you are still trying to put God in a petri dish

can't be done

 

[paarsurrey]

Are you saying God made the universe from nothing?

I think I mentioned in some post in this sub-forum that G-d is the Creator of "Something" and "Nothing" without Him we can neither comprehend "Something" nor "Nothing", in isolation from Him or without Him our "Science" as well as "Philosophy" and or "Mathematics", all becomes gibberish. Right? Please
Regards

 

[Ben Dhyan]

you are still trying to put God in a petri dish

can't be done

I am not trying to put God anywhere...I am trying to understand where or how you think God/Spirit exists in relation to the manifested universe? For example is God/Spirit omnipresent?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I think I mentioned in some post in this sub-forum that G-d is the Creator of "Something" and "Nothing" without Him we can neither comprehend "Something" nor "Nothing", in isolation from Him or without Him our "Science" as well as "Philosophy" and or "Mathematics", all becomes gibberish. Right? Please
Regards

God is "Something" but "Nothing" does not exist...so God cannot create from something that does not and can not exist!

 

[Valjean]

and with all things crushed into one location....
science can offer no further explanation

I can.....God did it
Someone had to be...first

"God did it" isn't an explanation, it's just an assertion of agency.

you are still trying to put God in a petri dish

can't be done

If God, like pink unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, can't be seen, examined or measured, maybe the most reasonable course would be to withhold belief in Him till some more substantial evidence develops.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If God, like pink unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, can't be seen, examined or measured, maybe the most reasonable course would be to withhold belief in Him till some more substantial evidence develops.

That would be the reasonable course, but theists are driven by a need to believe. Faith is not rational.

 

[gnostic]

If God, like pink unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, can't be seen, examined or measured, maybe the most reasonable course would be to withhold belief in Him till some more substantial evidence develops.

That would be the reasonable course, but theists are driven by a need to believe. Faith is not rational.

They will be shaking like a leaf, if they don't get daily wishes and superstitions, called "faith".

I think you would call it - withdrawal symptom.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Interestingly, made form nothing the earth was formless and void 'toku bohu'
is repeated in Deuteronomy... the dessert is a void wasteland and God made a people from it wandering 40 years after leaving
Egypt

The Spirit hoovered over the waters in creating the forless and void world in Genesis
God as eagle hoovered over a people in the formless and void dessert to make a nation


see WIki on Tohu wa bohu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tohu_wa-bohu

 

[loverofhumanity]

That would be the reasonable course, but theists are driven by a need to believe. Faith is not rational.

Of course Faith is rational. When scientists hypothesise and theorise they are having faith in an unknown yet to be proven and that process of having faith that they are on the right track eventually leads them to discoveries which they eventually prove but all along it is an act of faith that they were on the right path.

Scientists currently have faith that there is other life in the universe so they spend billions on telescopes and robots and spaceships to go and investigate on purely faith. They have no evidence and no proof whatsoever. It is purely faith and belief that make them search,

 

[VioletVortex]

Of course Faith is rational. When scientists hypothesise and theorise they are having faith in an unknown yet to be proven and that process of having faith that they are on the right track eventually leads them to discoveries which they eventually prove but all along it is an act of faith that they were in the right path.

Scientists currently have faith that there is other life in the universe so they spend billions on telescopes and robots and spaceships to go and investigate on purely faith. They have no evidence and no proof whatsoever. It is purely faith and belief that make them search,

Spiritual paths are all based upon theories. Though these theories are not fully scientific in nature, some of them can prove quite relevant. Just because it isn't backed up by mainstream "scientific" evidence does not mean it is invalid

 

[Rick O'Shez]

When scientists hypothesise and theorise they are having faith in an unknown yet to be proven and that process of having faith that they are on the right track eventually leads them to discoveries which they eventually prove but all along it is an act of faith that they were on the right path.

Scientists set out to test the validity of theories, but those theories are based on initial evidence, practical or theoretical. With "God" as a theory there is no objective initial evidence ( unless you count some convoluted theological arguments ) and no way to test.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Scientists set out to test the validity of theories, but those theories are based on initial evidence, practical or theoretical. With "God" as a theory there is no objective initial evidence ( unless you count some convoluted theological arguments ) and no way to test.

There is no initial evidence of life on other planets. Yet billions are spent on research in the belief and faith that there is life but it's only an assumption not based on any evidence.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There is no initial evidence of life on other planets. Yet billions are spent on research in the belief and faith that there is life but it's only an assumption not based on any evidence.

I think very little is spent on SETI, so it's not a good example. The point is that you cannot do SETI for God, and it seems extremely unlikely that anyone will ever invent a "God detector".

 

[loverofhumanity]

I think very little is spent on SETI, so it's not a good example. The point is that you cannot do SETI for God, and it seems extremely unlikely that anyone will ever invent a "God detector".

I was referring to scientists assuming there's life on other planets without any evidence. It's based upon pure faith and belief not initial evidence.

But the benchmarks to prove God would be based on different measurements such as is there a force behind scripture just like gravity is an invisible force.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I was referring to scientists assuming there's life on other planets without any evidence. It's based upon pure faith and belief not initial evidence.
But the benchmarks to prove God would be based on different measurements such as is there a force behind scripture just like gravity is an invisible force.

SETI isn't based on "pure faith" but on probability, given the vast number of planets out there capable of supporting life.

But how can we talk about a probability for God? And how could we ever test for Gods existence, given that he never shows up?

 

[loverofhumanity]

SETI isn't based on "pure faith" but on probability, given the vast number of planets out there capable of supporting life.

But how can we talk about a probability for God? And how could we ever test for Gods existence, given that he never shows up?

SETI It is based on an assumption not evidence at all.

No need to talk about a probability of God. There's ample proof.

Whereas existence itself is proof enough there is a God. From the tiniest molecule to the most complex form of life, complete order and balance exist.