How was god created?

[74x12]

Assuming god is an entity is its own right, instead of a figment of the human imagination I believe it to be, how was it created? The answer, 'god was always there', is not logical, especially as many Biblical literalists state that there is an intelligent designer behind everything that exists.

Time is more or less an illusion that God is not subject to. You are; so you can't understand God from this limited perspective.

God is already there, before and behind. So He is everywhere at once. That includes the past, present and future. Because it is the universe that is subject to time and space. (Time space continuum) God is not. He is the author of it. All things emanate from His infinite mind and are held together by His command. He directs everything in this way. Because God needs a way to divide between what could be and what He desires to be indeed. Since He thinks of all possible things; that would mean if He just created everything He thought of; then there would be chaos. But by commanding for this or that to exist. He can separate between what could be and what should be and so He creates an orderly universe.

This chaos is called the abyss or the great deep. It is from here that God called for things to come out and they came so He created everything. That includes time which is just another dimension. Some people claim to have even seen the primordial waters of creation and even the river of time itself. This river is like a frozen river basically from that perspective. And in it are all the instances of time. To us it is flowing on and on; but to God it's frozen and still.

By going against the Word of God any creature is going against what holds them together. So they are turning back to a chaotic state of being from which they came. This is obviously unsustainable. That is why God wants people to repent of their wrong doing and try to obey. Because yes He is merciful and yes HE will wait for a time; but the state of being which is against the Word of God is unsustainable. It cannot last in an orderly form. This is why the current world and everyone in it is in danger unless they repent and trust in the mercy that God has already provided.

God's mind is so beyond everything that He must humble Himself to behold what is in heaven itself; much more so the things on earth. But He does do it and He does love us. That is those who are created in His image. Because He made you that way a reflection of His eternal glory. Which honor we mortals cannot even truly comprehend.

 

[paarsurrey]

Can't say... What objective, tested, peer reviewed evidence do you have for this hypothesis?
NB: quoting ancient writings isn't evidence -- they're not research based, tested or vetted, either.
No, nature did, through known processes.

"objective, tested, peer reviewed evidence"

It doesn't make sense.

• Science never took the issue that "G-d did not exist". Why put this question to deaf and dumb science when it never related to it, please?
• Science never took the issue that "G-d exists". Why put this question to deaf and dumb science when it never related to it, please?
• Science never took the issue that "How was G-d created?". Why put this question to deaf and dumb science when it never related to it, please?

Science is a tool that deals in physical and material realms and leaves the ethical, moral and spiritual questions to deal with. Right, please?

Regards
____________
[6:104]لَا تُدۡرِکُہُ الۡاَبۡصَارُ ۫ وَ ہُوَ یُدۡرِکُ الۡاَبۡصَارَ ۚ وَ ہُوَ اللَّطِیۡفُ الۡخَبِیۡرُ ﴿۱۰۴﴾
Eyes cannot reach Him but He reaches the eyes. And He is the Incomprehensible, the All-Aware.
[6:105]قَدۡ جَآءَکُمۡ بَصَآئِرُ مِنۡ رَّبِّکُمۡ ۚ فَمَنۡ اَبۡصَرَ فَلِنَفۡسِہٖ ۚ وَ مَنۡ عَمِیَ فَعَلَیۡہَا ؕ وَ مَاۤ اَنَا عَلَیۡکُمۡ بِحَفِیۡظٍ ﴿۱۰۵﴾
Proofs have indeed come to you from your Lord; so whoever sees, it is for his own good; and whoever becomes blind, it is to his own harm. And I am not a guardian over you.
https://www.alislam.org/quran/6:104

 

[Valjean]

"objective, tested, peer reviewed evidence"

It doesn't make sense.

• Science never took the issue that "G-d did not exist". Why put this question to deaf and dumb science when it never related to it, please?
• Science never took the issue that "G-d exists". Why put this question to deaf and dumb science when it never related to it, please?
• Science never took the issue that "How was G-d created?". Why put this question to deaf and dumb science when it never related to it, please?

Science is a tool that deals in physical and material realms and leaves the ethical, moral and spiritual questions to deal with. Right, please?Right.
When did I ever say God was within science's purview?
____________
[6:104]لَا تُدۡرِکُہُ الۡاَبۡصَارُ ۫ وَ ہُوَ یُدۡرِکُ الۡاَبۡصَارَ ۚ وَ ہُوَ اللَّطِیۡفُ الۡخَبِیۡرُ ﴿۱۰۴﴾
Eyes cannot reach Him but He reaches the eyes. And He is the Incomprehensible, the All-Aware.
[6:105]قَدۡ جَآءَکُمۡ بَصَآئِرُ مِنۡ رَّبِّکُمۡ ۚ فَمَنۡ اَبۡصَرَ فَلِنَفۡسِہٖ ۚ وَ مَنۡ عَمِیَ فَعَلَیۡہَا ؕ وَ مَاۤ اَنَا عَلَیۡکُمۡ بِحَفِیۡظٍ ﴿۱۰۵﴾
Proofs have indeed come to you from your Lord; so whoever sees, it is for his own good; and whoever becomes blind, it is to his own harm. And I am not a guardian over you.
https://www.alislam.org/quran/6:104

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Assuming god is an entity is its own right, instead of a figment of the human imagination I believe it to be, how was it created? The answer, 'god was always there', is not logical, especially as many Biblical literalists state that there is an intelligent designer behind everything that exists.

This question again.

Listen you, this is simple. To be God means to be eternal. To be eternal means to be outside of time, as in there was no "before" you always existed. If you have to make an origin story, God was born among shapeless undifferentiated matter. Why that way? Because all of us humans replicate that in the womb. But it is important to not that God wasn't created by anything (to be God, by definition is to be the original cause of things) but rather was born one day. If God in fact ever did not exisr (again, eternal).

 

[JJ50]

This question again.

Listen you, this is simple. To be God means to be eternal. To be eternal means to be outside of time, as in there was no "before" you always existed. If you have to make an origin story, God was born among shapeless undifferentiated matter. Why that way? Because all of us humans replicate that in the womb. But it is important to not that God wasn't created by anything (to be God, by definition is to be the original cause of things) but rather was born one day. If God in fact ever did not exisr (again, eternal).

And in English?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

@JJ50, is there a reason you've avoided post #11?

 

[SalixIncendium]

@JJ50, is there a reason you've avoided post #11?

Likely for the same reason she avoided post #54.

 

[MJFlores]

Words, words, words, with no evidence to back them up.

The mere fact that we the things our eyes can see are evidence to back them up.

Romans 1:18-22 Common English Bible (CEB)
God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodly behavior and the injustice of human beings who silence the truth with injustice. This is because what is known about God should be plain to them because God made it plain to them. Ever since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities—God’s eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, because they are understood through the things God has made. So humans are without excuse. Although they knew God, they didn’t honor God as God or thank him. Instead, their reasoning became pointless, and their foolish hearts were darkened. While they were claiming to be wise, they made fools of themselves.

 

[JJ50]

The mere fact that we the things our eyes can see are evidence to back them up.

Romans 1:18-22 Common English Bible (CEB)
God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodly behavior and the injustice of human beings who silence the truth with injustice. This is because what is known about God should be plain to them because God made it plain to them. Ever since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities—God’s eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, because they are understood through the things God has made. So humans are without excuse. Although they knew God, they didn’t honor God as God or thank him. Instead, their reasoning became pointless, and their foolish hearts were darkened. While they were claiming to be wise, they made fools of themselves.

The Bible is just a book, not evidence.

 

[Darkforbid]

It's covered in Genesis

 

[paarsurrey]

This question again.

Listen you, this is simple. To be God means to be eternal. To be eternal means to be outside of time, as in there was no "before" you always existed. If you have to make an origin story, God was born among shapeless undifferentiated matter. Why that way? Because all of us humans replicate that in the womb. But it is important to not that God wasn't created by anything (to be God, by definition is to be the original cause of things) but rather was born one day. If God in fact ever did not exisr (again, eternal).

"To be God means to be eternal. To be eternal means to be outside of time, as in there was no "before" you always existed."

I agree with one on what I have colored in magenta.
When we have specified "G-d" the being who always existed, from eternity to eternity, it is unreasonable to go against the starting specification. There is no Scientific justification to do that futile exercise. Science, as I understand, only deals what had already got created, is being created or will be created (by G-d). If not, then anybody please quote from Science in this connection.
I agree with one on what I have colored in magenta.
Anybody, please

Regards
___________
[14:11]قَالَتۡ رُسُلُہُمۡ اَفِی اللّٰہِ شَکٌّ فَاطِرِ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ الۡاَرۡضِ ؕ یَدۡعُوۡکُمۡ لِیَغۡفِرَ لَکُمۡ مِّنۡ ذُنُوۡبِکُمۡ وَ یُؤَخِّرَکُمۡ اِلٰۤی اَجَلٍ مُّسَمًّی ؕ قَالُوۡۤا اِنۡ اَنۡتُمۡ اِلَّا بَشَرٌ مِّثۡلُنَا ؕ تُرِیۡدُوۡنَ اَنۡ تَصُدُّوۡنَا عَمَّا کَانَ یَعۡبُدُ اٰبَآؤُنَا فَاۡتُوۡنَا بِسُلۡطٰنٍ مُّبِیۡنٍ ﴿۱۱﴾
Their Messengers said, ‘Are you in doubt concerning Allah, Maker of the heavens and the earth? He calls you that He may forgive you your sins, and grant you respite till an appointed term.’ They said, ‘You are but men like ourselves; you desire to turn us away from that which our fathers used to worship. Bring us, then, a clear proof.’
https://www.alislam.org/quran/14:11

 

[WalterTrull]

The answer, 'god was always there'

Well... kinda depends on your belief about time. No passage, always there.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But even to be able mention the word energy, even in the zero energy universe, assume you mean the "scientific" meaning of zero energy?

I mean the number 0.
+1 and -1 cancel eachother out.
The sum of both is 0.

And assuming that there is gravity rather than not doesn't offer an explanation to where gravity were even possible in the first place. So one could assume that gravity is just eternal right?

I don't know what gravity *is*, nore where it came from. Isn't that, btw, kind of THE problem in physics these last decades? To unify gravity with the other forces of the universe? Just about every theoretical physicist on the planet works on that problem one way or the other.

This further illustrates the point I was making: those questions you asked, may not even be valid.
In a very real way, your questions are loaded with unjustified assumptions / premises.

But does the motivation matter in this case?

It does, if you care about being rationally justified in your answers / beliefs.

If a scientific answer is merely guesswork

That's a contradiction in terms, akin to a "married bachelor".
If it's mere "guesswork", then it isn't scientific.

and is pretty much impossible to test and therefore verify as I see it

True, one couldn't directly test a multi-verse.
But let's make something clear here... the multi-verse isn't a stand alone hypothesis. It is rather a prediction from other hypothesis / theories. Those models make other predictions as well.

A scientific prediction is necessarily accurate IF the model that makes the prediction is accurate.
So if you have a model that makes 100 predictions, 1 of which is the untestable multi-verse and the 99 others being testable predictions about our universe, and suppose all of them come back succesfull...
Then it becomes pretty rational, and scientifically justified, to assume that that last prediction is accurate as well.

So, to summarize: no, the multi-verse is not some "mere guesswork" that was dreamed up late at night after having too much coffee. It's rather a scientifically motivated prediction from scientific explanatory models concerning the early universe.


"god(s)" isn't even remotely in the same category.

So isn't it a lot like saying that if some one have a scientific motivation when it comes to unicorns, then that is more valid than some that hasn't, that seems wrong, I think

No, that's exactly right.
If there is proper scientific motivation to assume unicorns exist, then unicorns become a plausible area of investigation. The same goes for god(s) But off course, there is no such scientific motivation for unicorns. Or god(s).

 

[Nimos]

I don't know what gravity *is*, nore where it came from. Isn't that, btw, kind of THE problem in physics these last decades? To unify gravity with the other forces of the universe?

To have gravity, one would need have some sort of mass. So isn't the question where all the mass came from the interesting question?

True, one couldn't directly test a multi-verse.
But let's make something clear here... the multi-verse isn't a stand alone hypothesis. It is rather a prediction from other hypothesis / theories. Those models make other predictions as well.

What other hypothesis or theories support a multiverse? Nothing as far as I know, makes it a more plausible explanation than there not being one. But rather an idea that could explain why our Universe seem to be fine tuned for it being able to exist in the first place.

Besides that we have no evidence that Universes are able to pop into existence as the multiverse suggest, as we only have our own to compare to.
So whether one call it a hypothesis, theory or a guess in this case, doesn't seem a lot different to me.

If you could observe or measure a sudden change in the background radiation from the Big bang, it could suggest that there are more Universes and that one were colliding with ours. But again no such thing have been observed.

So if you have a model that makes 100 predictions, 1 of which is the untestable multi-verse and the 99 others being testable predictions about our universe, and suppose all of them come back succesfull...
Then it becomes pretty rational, and scientifically justified, to assume that that last prediction is accurate as well.

But which model does this when it comes to the multiverse?

If there is proper scientific motivation to assume unicorns exist, then unicorns become a plausible area of investigation. The same goes for god(s) But off course, there is no such scientific motivation for unicorns. Or god(s).

But just because one makes an hypothesis about unicorns doesn't make it more valid. As such creatures have never been observed. Which to me doesn't seem much different than the multiverse, no one have observed it or found any evidence that such thing should be possible, it merely fill in a gap of how our universe were possible, or maybe I misunderstood something?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To have gravity, one would need have some sort of mass. So isn't the question where all the mass came from the interesting question?

Maybe. In either case, the point is that we don't really have an answer at this point.

What other hypothesis or theories support a multiverse? Nothing as far as I know, makes it a more plausible explanation than there not being one.

Inflation theory.

Universe May Exist in a Multiverse, Cosmic Inflation Suggests | Space

"It's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse," Alan Guth, an MIT theoretical physicist

But rather an idea that could explain why our Universe seem to be fine tuned for it being able to exist in the first place.

No. Inflation theory address the initial expansion of the early universe.

Besides that we have no evidence that Universes are able to pop into existence as the multiverse suggest, as we only have our own to compare to.
So whether one call it a hypothesis, theory or a guess in this case, doesn't seem a lot different to me.

It's none of all 3, as I have just explained in the post you are responding to...
It's not a guess, nore a hypothesis / theory on its own.
It's a prediction flowing from models that address the universe itself, like inflation.

If you could observe or measure a sudden change in the background radiation from the Big bang, it could suggest that there are more Universes and that one were colliding with ours. But again no such thing have been observed.

I've already fully acknowledged that it might very well turn out to be impossible to test the prediction of the multi-verse.

But just because one makes an hypothesis about unicorns doesn't make it more valid. As such creatures have never been observed.

You're still not getting it, it seems.
Do you know what scientific predictions are and how they relate to the models they flow from?

For unicorns to be analogous to the multi-verse in terms of justification, you'ld require an actual scientific model which predicts unicorns. Even if they are predicted in such a way that they would essentially be untestable. You still require a scientific model from which such a prediction naturally flows.

There are no such models. Not for unicorns, not for gods. But there are for a multi-verse. Note that I'm not saying those models are accurate and therefor, the multi-verse is real.

I'm saying the models exist, in advanced physics at the very frontier of our knowledge. They might be accurate, they might be wrong. Time and experiments / tests / research will tell.

Which to me doesn't seem much different than the multiverse, no one have observed it or found any evidence that such thing should be possible, it merely fill in a gap of how our universe were possible, or maybe I misunderstood something?

The difference, to repeat myself once more, lies in the justification / motivation for even suggesting them in the first place.

One flows as a prediction from a scientific model that attempts to explain observable reality.
The other is indistinguishable from sheer imagination.

 

[Nimos]

No. Inflation theory address the initial expansion of the early universe.

Yes, but inflation theory tells us about how our Universe started, but that is not what im referring to. And also, I don't see this making a multiverse more valid, as again, it simply seems to offer an explanation for the fine tuning. Now we have very good evidence for inflation. But still you don't get around the issues that it still doesn't explain why multiverses might be possible, from what or in what these are created in the first place.

To me this offers a just as good explanation as God did it. Because if an infinite amount of Universes can be created eventually one that we have will exist, which obviously explain why we are here. But assuming that multiverse is true, is sort of also assume that its infinite, just as God. It moves the creation outside our Universe just as with God, which in itself is fine, but everything besides that is just theories. So nothing prevent anyone from claiming that God created the potential multiverse, if no natural explanation can be given, so a scientific explanation doesn't seem to have anymore value than one saying that a God did it, that is my point.

It's a prediction flowing from models that address the universe itself, like inflation.

Yes, but its just as testable as God did it right? So the prediction is basically worthless as I see it.

For unicorns to be analogous to the multi-verse in terms of justification, you'ld require an actual scientific model which predicts unicorns. Even if they are predicted in such a way that they would essentially be untestable. You still require a scientific model from which such a prediction naturally flows.

As above, if you put forward a hypothesis that is impossible to test, it seems to have little value. Unless those that came up with the multiverse idea, have put forward what would proof that it is true. Again, the only thing I can think of that would potentially point towards it, seems to be changes or interfering in the background radiation.

But there are for a multi-verse. Note that I'm not saying those models are accurate and therefor, the multi-verse is real.

What other than the our Universe had a beginning and that it could explain the fine tuning is in that model?

One flows as a prediction from a scientific model that attempts to explain observable reality.
The other is indistinguishable from sheer imagination.

I would agree with that to some degree. But also I think one have to be careful giving credit to something that is nothing more than theories, unless those suggesting them, have clearly stated what evidence would make such true.

Otherwise its just seems a lot like a scientific God.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Assuming god is an entity is its own right, instead of a figment of the human imagination I believe it to be, how was it created? The answer, 'god was always there', is not logical, especially as many Biblical literalists state that there is an intelligent designer behind everything that exists.

In dealing with this topic it’s important to understand our limitations. We are humans not God so do not possess God’s knowledge of Himself. We see God through human eye glasses.

But Only God can fully know Himself and His Eternal Nature. We would have to be God to fully comprehend Him and His Nature and as finite humans that’s impossible.

Prophets and Messengers speak of an Ancient Being an Eternal One but also state that God is the Unknowable Essence. Through His Messengers we can know what His Will is for us is and know some of His attributes such as love, compassion, justice and so on. But more than that we don’t know.

This quote is from a provisional translation of a Tablet of Baha’u’llah called the Tablet of the Manifestation. I’ll leave a link so anyone can read more if they so wish. I find it fascinating and very deep and enlightening.In it Baha’u’llah states that........

In every world, He appears according to the capacity of that world.

Verily, were God the Exalted to appear in His (proper) grade and form, and in a manner befitting His Station, no one could ever approach Him or endure to be near Him.

No other save Himself can know Him, and no one can ever approach Him!

So what we see of God is not God as He really is but tailored to our capacity. So in the human world He sends Prophets in human form so we can relate to Him but God is not human. The term God always was is beyond our comprehension because only God has knowledge of His Eternal Being always having existed.we cannot imagine eternity because we were born not unborn as God is.

 

[JJ50]

In dealing with this topic it’s important to understand our limitations. We are humans not God so do not possess God’s knowledge of Himself. We see God through human eye glasses.

But Only God can fully know Himself and His Eternal Nature. We would have to be God to fully comprehend Him and His Nature and as finite humans that’s impossible.

Prophets and Messengers speak of an Ancient Being an Eternal One but also state that God is the Unknowable Essence. Through His Messengers we can know what His Will is for us is and know some of His attributes such as love, compassion, justice and so on. But more than that we don’t know.

This quote is from a provisional translation of a Tablet of Baha’u’llah called the Tablet of the Manifestation. I’ll leave a link so anyone can read more if they so wish. I find it fascinating and very deep and enlightening.In it Baha’u’llah states that........

In every world, He appears according to the capacity of that world.

Verily, were God the Exalted to appear in His (proper) grade and form, and in a manner befitting His Station, no one could ever approach Him or endure to be near Him.

No other save Himself can know Him, and no one can ever approach Him!

So what we see of God is not God as He really is but tailored to our capacity. So in the human world He sends Prophets in human form so we can relate to Him but God is not human. The term God always was is beyond our comprehension because only God has knowledge of His Eternal Being always having existed.we cannot imagine eternity because we were born not unborn as God is.

That is all conjecture on your part.

 

[loverofhumanity]

That is all conjecture on your part.

Not if Baha’u’llah is a Manifestation of God it’s not. If He is then He’s telling the truth and that explains a lot. He’s telling us we are wasting our time trying to figure out something we can never know. We are human. We have limitations. Common sense really.

 

[JJ50]

Not if Baha’u’llah is a Manifestation of God it’s not. If He is then He’s telling the truth and that explains a lot. He’s telling us we are wasting our time trying to figure out something we can never know. We are human. We have limitations. Common sense really.

In your opinion, not mine,