Who made God?

[PolyHedral]

Of course time always existed. That's a tautology.

 

[Thief]

What do you mean by "spirit"?

Does spirit have substance? If so, then why isn't it subject to the "problems" above? If not, then how can it be the impetus for substance?

FINALLY!...the word 'impetus'....

NOW consider which came first....spirit...or substance.

(Substance as 'self' starting?......yet it has no 'self'...)

And let's dismiss that define spirit routine.

This is a religious forum.
Faith needs no proving.

Spirit first.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is time an invention, or did time as we know it always exist ?

For each second ahead we can also think of counting endlessly one second back.

Seems as if eternity is in our hearts and minds.

You didn't really answer the question.

What does the question "did time as we know it always exist?" mean if you're not referring to time? The word "always" is defined in terms of time; it's nonsensical to say "time always existed" or "God always existed outside of time". You might as well be talking about the Invisible Pink Unicorn (which, in a divine mystery, is simultaneously invisible AND pink).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

FINALLY!...the word 'impetus'....

NOW consider which came first....spirit...or substance.

(Substance as 'self' starting?......yet it has no 'self'...)

So? What does "self" have to do with anything?

And let's dismiss that define spirit routine.

This is a religious forum.
Faith needs no proving.

Or no understanding, apparently.

But since, as you say, faith needs no proving, I think the answer is clear: the answer isn't "spirit first" or "substance first"; it's spaghetti first.

And since we're apparently playing the "religious claims are unassailable" game, you aren't allowed to refute this.

 

[ninerbuff]

It's great how anyone can make god as great as they want god to be.:thud:

 

[Thief]

So? What does "self" have to do with anything?


Or no understanding, apparently.

But since, as you say, faith needs no proving, I think the answer is clear: the answer isn't "spirit first" or "substance first"; it's spaghetti first.

And since we're apparently playing the "religious claims are unassailable" game, you aren't allowed to refute this.

So you don't really want to play?......do you?

 

[McBell]

So you don't really want to play?......do you?

What?
Are you suddenly changing the rules?

 

[Sententia]

anything that is physical will be bound by the same logic that we are bound by, but God is not physical... so how can we apply our logic to something that does not exist in our form.

for us it is logic that we keep both feet on the ground... but God has no feet
for us it is logic to eat 3 good meals a day... but God does not eat
for us it is logic to count 1 day by 1 rotation of the earth...but God is not located on earth.

so what is logical for us, may not be for a being who does not exist within our physical world is what i'm saying.

So logic is well and good except when it comes to god? God just is not logical so why be bound by it? But yet god is.

Is god just being logical? According to your argument if I understand it then the answer is no. Its not logical but it doesn't have to be because god is not bound by our logic.

Thus not bound - to rationally explain to someone how god can be when the logic behind the declaration "can be" is not applicable to god is then considered to be what?

I'm not even grasping that you are attempting to make any argument. You seem to be sidestepping and saying look what I believe and what god is to me is just not bound by logic but why would you expect such if you consider god is not bound by logic to begin with. Hes not a vulcan...

for us it is logic that we keep both feet on the ground... but God has no feet

Consider poison ivy... It has no feet but keeps its roots in the ground. You don't get what it is to be poison ivy... The fact that this plant has no feet is relevant. Hah... have you even thought about a fish or a whale... What about potential possible life not bound to a gravitational field and just floating through the universe feeding on space dust and dark matter? Sure we don't know if such creatures exist but why does us having to know or even logically be able to consider them not mean they aren't there. (Anyone else recall a similar argument about a teapot?)

for us it is logic to eat 3 good meals a day... but God does not eat

Nor does a rock. Any how would you explain or expect exactly 3 meals a day to animals that constantly eat or hibernate. What about poison ivy? Does it have breakfast or lunch? In addition 3 meals a day is both logical and accepted logic every where on earth for all people and is truth everywhere.... God and poison ivy vines do not abide logic lightly and thus don't need to have 3 meals.

for us it is logic to count 1 day by 1 rotation of the earth...but God is not located on earth.

Clearly. God is instead, according to you, bound to 1 rotation of the earth as equivalent to 1000 of such rotations. To be fair I was taught the same as a Jehovah witness... but how does that make it more plausible and how do you mesh that?

I mean you are a basically saying god exists outside of time and logic and a year to him is like 1000 of our years but is that true? Or are you just saying like... Could it be 10,000 or more... could it be a day? Can god not live a day as you would live a day? Is he day bound to that same ratio always?

And don't you miss the point? I don't find any of your three presented arguments particularly well thought out. I think you have a belief and are trying to justify it... (Which who of us does not have beliefs and would not try to justify them?) I just feel in this case you have said its not logical but so what.... who says god needs to be logical? So if you want to debate your beliefs but debate it while excluding logic then what form of communication would you prefer for a debate? (Dice rolling?)

Just sayin.

 

[Sententia]

So, to repeat my view on the topic ...

if (God), then

for all X

God != X;​

Walk me through this?

If (God) then for All X?

Ok... Already lost....

What if not (God) for All Y?

God != X but God = Y?

Its late and shorthand but not following what you are trying to say but perhaps a more simplified version would not only be more accessible to me but also to most of your audience.

 

[Pegg]

IIRC, here's what led us to this point:

- as part of your argument that God doesn't need a creator or a cause, you argued that God is "not subject to time".
- in response, a few people pointed out that a God who is "not subject to time" would be unchanging and static, because change requires time. IOW, a God who exists outside of time could never actually do anything within time.
- in response to this, you argued (I think) that God isn't subject to time, but can still change (and do things) anyhow.
- I asked you how this could be the case, since I see this claim as inherently contradictory.

But you say you don't want to debate any more; does this mean that you're no longer interested in defending your claim that God is not subject to time?

Oh yes, thats right... thats well summed up

Lets put it this way...even scientists such as Steven Hawking have said that time did not exist before the big bang... so time in our universe is limited. But God is outside of our universe, and we just dont know what exists outside of it, time may be irrelevant there no matter what happens. So we just cannot say that God is limited to the way time exists inside the very universe he created.

 

[Thief]

What?
Are you suddenly changing the rules?

Quote a rule.....try.....

When discussing God....what applies?.....other than faith?

For now the choice is at hand.

The universe is 'self' starting and a basic law of inertia is false....
cause and effect are faulted.
or
'Something'...made it go .....'bang'....

 

[haribol]

The idea of time and space is irrelevant since God is above and over the boundaries of time and space. Our dimensional minds are limited by time and space. All our thoughts, imaginations are derived from our sensory perceptions. We see, hear, smell, fear and taste things and understand them and there may be some larger truths than we know or some subtler facts than we generally can imagine or perceive where no science or logic works and maybe faith does. That there is something truer, subtler is an idea of faith.

Maybe that is God. My understanding of God is something different, not mythological

 

[PolyHedral]

So, to repeat my view on the topic ...

if (God), then

for all X

God != X;​

That God doesn't exist, because it is not consistent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you don't really want to play?......do you?

On the contrary! I'm quite into the game. You can tell by the way I played the FSM.

Quote a rule.....try.....

When discussing God....what applies?.....other than faith?

How is "faith" - in the way you're using the term in this thread - materially different from "my say-so"?

Are all of your opinions immune to debate, or only your opinions about God?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh yes, thats right... thats well summed up

Lets put it this way...even scientists such as Steven Hawking have said that time did not exist before the big bang... so time in our universe is limited. But God is outside of our universe, and we just dont know what exists outside of it, time may be irrelevant there no matter what happens. So we just cannot say that God is limited to the way time exists inside the very universe he created.

It seems to me that the part in blue and the part in red contradict each other. If you say we don't know what exists outside the universe, how can you say that you know God exists outside the universe?

 

[McBell]

Quote a rule.....try.....

Wow.
Interesting how you have already forgotten your mantra..
Faith requires no proof.
Or is that only when it is YOUR faith?

When discussing God....what applies?.....other than faith?

It is faith of which I talk.
Please pay attention.

For now the choice is at hand.

And I STILL choose to dismiss the god you paint as nothing more than fanciful hallucinations of a delusional mind.

The universe is 'self' starting and a basic law of inertia is false....
cause and effect are faulted.
or
'Something'...made it go .....'bang'....

I am not the least bit interested in your false dichotomy.

 

[bhaktajan]

I think it is a better Idea to talk about Madam “Maya”.

We have neglected to post all about the topic, “Maya”.

As, those-in--the-Know know Madam “Maya” has a wily way about our attachments et al.

We should stop the neti-neti process . . . and define to the enth-degree, "MAYA" ---Illusion.

It is more nobel to explore who we are in MAYA.

How do we express ourselves as Maya survivalist beings.

“We are spirits in the material world” ---that world is a merciful concession to us fallen souls ---yet, IOW, that’s the POSH way of speaking!

“We are spirits in the Maya” ----if we explore/acknowledge this vantage point, we will know what we are ‘up against’.

Maya is an opponent to our daily desires. Maya conquers us everyday and moment. We are slaves to Maya etc etc etc

Please.

 

[Pegg]

It seems to me that the part in blue and the part in red contradict each other. If you say we don't know what exists outside the universe, how can you say that you know God exists outside the universe?

i think it can be said because from our perspective (and the perspective of all people who believe God is the creator) the physical universe is one of his creations... so he cannot exist within it, otherwise he could not say of himself that he is eternal

 

[camanintx]

Lets put it this way...even scientists such as Steven Hawking have said that time did not exist before the big bang... so time in our universe is limited. But God is outside of our universe, and we just dont know what exists outside of it, time may be irrelevant there no matter what happens. So we just cannot say that God is limited to the way time exists inside the very universe he created.

If time is a human creation then why can't it be applied anywhere? In other words, why are you exempting God?

 

[McBell]

i think it can be said because from our perspective (and the perspective of all people who believe God is the creator) the physical universe is one of his creations... so he cannot exist within it, otherwise he could not say of himself that he is eternal

So you are merely tossing God around like a rag doll until it makes sense to you where he fits in?