In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
All I have to say is that I'm so glad I'm not the only one who has been wrapped around the axle about this one! And I am NOT going to try to solve it. I'm no Einstein or Newton, but if I ever answered this question I think my head would explode! I've wrestled with the how did God come to exist, if the universe is expanding where is it going concept since I was around 10 or so. 32 years of mental torture to be sure and no further along the path to enlightenment. I determin its just all a Mobias strip and turn over and go to sleep when these thoughts invade my mind in the wee hours. It is the only thing that can quiet the run away thoughts!
And now for a question to Bible readers. I have embarked on reading it for once end to end and not just listening to certain passages and reading the prescribed verses given to us at church.
When Moses leads his people out of Egypt and the Ten Commandments are given, God speaks to his people saying that he is their one true God and no others are to be held up before him. He is speaking to Abraham and his descendants. At this point in my reading I paused to wonder. He is stating that he is the God of Abraham, now for the question. Does God at this point deny there are other gods or is he stating he is the one true God for Abraham and his people, not necessarily the God of all human kind, thus validating the concept of Allah, and other dieties for the myriad folk who have inhabited our planet?
Step away from your computers as you read this if you fear lightening is ready to strike. I survived the posting of the question!
quote:Originally posted by susie
And now for a question to Bible readers. I have embarked on reading it for once end to end and not just listening to certain passages and reading the prescribed verses given to us at church.
When Moses leads his people out of Egypt and the Ten Commandments are given, God speaks to his people saying that he is their one true God and no others are to be held up before him. He is speaking to Abraham and his descendants. At this point in my reading I paused to wonder. He is stating that he is the God of Abraham, now for the question. Does God at this point deny there are other gods or is he stating he is the one true God for Abraham and his people, not necessarily the God of all human kind, thus validating the concept of Allah, and other dieties for the myriad folk who have inhabited our planet?
I'm afraid with your post we are moving from the muddy water of metaphysics to the even muddier water of hermeneutics. One would have to answer the question you asked in much the same way as one would answer what is the real meaning of King Lear or a painting by Picasso. We have moved one step further away from wondering about the meaning of life to wondering about the meaning of literature; in essence, questions of biblical interpretation are more akin to aesthetic criticism than ontology.
Thanks DWS at least I now know why I get migraines---hermeneutics[:0] .....yep doc that is what is ailing me! No wonder folks around me think I lost (not just slipped) a cog.[:o)]
My mom said she always knew I was different from other kids.
susie: Imagine having to explain why the Mona Lisa has her mysterious smile, and you start to get the idea. Some have argued that da Vinci used a technique (sfumato), where he deliberately shaded around the corners of the eyes and mouth to give her an indistinct expression. Others argue that if you remove the Mona Lisa figure from the painting, the backround is geometrically askew, accounting for a surreal appearance. How do you settle the matter? Most folks listen to these explanations and just decide based on what they think is right. I mean, do we actually go and perform experiments to settle the matter? Nope. And the same with hermeneutics (and history and art criticism and dream interpretation); what best suits us or makes the most sense is the one we agree to. But just because it best suits us or makes the most sense doesn't make it true; only true for us.
Thanks DWS, I actually do understand what you are saying. My problem has always been and I guess will continue to be that I don't change my perception or interpret something's construct to fit an image that will let my mind relax. I don't go around looking for incongrueties, but when they appear I can't seem to let them go. It is like the blind gentlemen that are describing an elephant from their various perspectives. Each is touching/feeling an elephant, but none "see" the same animal. We all absorb our world from a different viewpoint. How we descibe that view is our own which I guess goes back to another thread that was running on this board relating to posting quotes. Some settle for quoting others, some speak for themselves, some of us just wander around in the dark with a jar filled with fireflies.
Many of you have answered the question with one word found in your replies. Who made God can be answered by one word, FAITH! The faith that there is a God created God. Whether or not you have the faith does not lessen the idea there is a God. As long as 1 person has faith, God is real, to that 1 person if to no more. Faith is the one thing that people who believe in God rely upon. I must admit that I do not have the faith to believe in a certain God, yet as a man of science I do believe there is an energy of sorts that created and binds all things together. If that is God then so be it. Just my 2 cents worth.
quote:Originally posted by susie
It is like the blind gentlemen that are describing an elephant from their various perspectives. Each is touching/feeling an elephant, but none "see" the same animal.
Hermeneutics is like that, with the added dimension that the blind men claim they can tell from touch whether the animal is a Republican or a Sagitarius, morose or taciturn.
quote:familyguy. You misunderstood. The question is not who created all of this (genesis), but who created who created all of this. This supposes agency (thought and will) before existence (the all of this). To simply say we can't grasp it gets 7mmNut exactly back where he started. And believing in something we cannot grasp is precisely the little tailor's bet in The Emperor's New Clothes. quote:quote:
Originally posted by familyguy
That statement supposes that there is a 'before existence'. I'm saying that may not be the case, hence our difficulty with the question.
Even if there was no before existence (which I think only has linguisitic sense but no meaning), one thing we do know: There were billions of years and billions of things before man showed up. So the question becomes, are we a fluke or part of some grand plan on the part of an obviously very patient being?
The difficulty for me with your argument is the simultaneous (rather than antecedent) conditions of cause and effect. Of course you can claim such a state of affairs, but how do you describe the phenomenon of an apple falling from a tree before trees and gravity exist? I mean, I know what you're saying, just like I know what a unicorn is, but from that I would not expect anyone to argue that unicorns exist, or (since you say there is no before existence) that the idea of a unicorn has always existed.
Sorry for the long c&p, but I wanted it to be clear that there is no question in here like DWS claimed:
quote:I asked you how you would describe, in plain terms, what no before existence means other than as a lingusitic construct. I am still waiting.
There was no such question. Ask and I will answer; here is how I addressed that to begin with:
quote:It's called a suitable frame of reference. Everyone and everything we know has a beginning and an end. Energy doesn't, but we tend to view points of conversion as a beginning/ending. In short, we can't wrap our minds around the concept that something may have no beginning or end.
That's the short of it, it is my first response on this thread and there is a little more to it if you would like to (re?)read it.
I don't mind discussing, or arguing, or whatever. I don't even have to take comfort in feeling superior or 'right' (check out my argument with Salzo in the politics forum, I think he got the better of me). I've had people correct me on facts, and feel I've taken it with good grace; I've had people disagree and had great discussions.
It is becoming clear, though, that this is not the case here. You've lied (note the question you claimed above). You've put words in my mouth (not comparing what I say to something else, but claiming I stated something I did not). You use methods of analogy to ridicule instead of draw paralells to make a point. It is mean spirited and ignorant. Please stop.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
The difficulty for me with your argument is the simultaneous (rather than antecedent) conditions of cause and effect. Of course you can claim such a state of affairs, but how do you describe the phenomenon of an apple falling from a tree before trees and gravity exist?
Bolding mine. Do you have a reading deficit or is there another agenda?
The human mentality cannot comprehend the concept of GOD. Humans (scientists and physicists) can not comprehend the idea of gravity, time,and space. They have theories that sort of work ,about what they are but not what makes them. These are changing!!!Physicists are now using a super collider to find the GOD PARTICLE. Look it up on google. If I remember correctly it is a boson, particle #38.If they do then All physics laws will have to be revised. Example a Scientist projected an R.F. beam at a certain substance and the result they saw indicated that it exited BEFORE it entered. Quantum physics head scratcher!!!. Another physicist fired a single photon ( light quantum particle) at one of two slits, As it exited another photon appeared out of nothing from the other slit. Still scratching!!!!. They can't conceive of a particle being at two differen places at the same time.
I believe that A Creator GOD exists but he is not in our time stream, so we can't comprehend this concept. He created that which we call TIME and SPACE.
Years ago scientists postulated the possible existence of as many as 14 or more dimensions. And you want to try to understand this stuff?
Try picturing what it's like to be dead for eternity. Try to look in the mirror, realize that you are the only one you know whose face you cannot see without looking in a mirror, and then ask yourself what is the point of the world's going on after you're dead, and not there to see it anymore.
I once said to a Catholic girlfriend that maybe God remains hidden simply because if he were present, he would fill up the sky and no one would be able to accomplish anything other than stand transfixed in awe looking at his unimaginable visage like those people at the * of a Spielberg movie.
This stuff is fun to talk about, but there are no answers. There is only spirituality within us, and we fill the need as we see fit -- some even do it with science.
Life NRA Member
T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Susie;
To add a different twist to your question. Some, subscribe to the theory that aliens have visited earth. Being a much more advanced civilization, they "appear" to be gods, to the residents of this planet. "IF" there was the same "visitor" following Moses, it could explain the "miracles" surrounding him. After performing those so called "miracles" it would only follow that "that entity" would be the one true God for Abraham. Who simply gave them a set of (common sense) rules to live by.
Taking it a step farther, in regards to the different "religions" around the globe, it could be different visitors, at different times, from different locations, and the differences between the "interpretations" by humans. None of which, gives a complete picture, explaining God. Maybe because they can not.
Not that I subscribe to this theory. It is just one of the many thoughts that I have, when those two cells of gray matter I have left collide, in that empty space between my ears, when I think about this subject.
I can not picture God as a man shaped being, sitting on a throne somewhere, watching as life evolves. Although I can not adequately put it into words, my definition of God, is more like, a "sentient life force" that is in, and around, everything. Which is, was, and always will be. Who has the power to "suggestively" guide us through life, or to make those "Footprints in the Sand" when need be.
The rest is man (alien?) made.
DWS - quote:how do you describe the phenomenon of an apple falling from a tree before trees and gravity exist? If you are looking for me to phrase it in these terms, you really are missing my point. An apple has a beginning and an end. How do we begin to grasp the possibility of an apple that always has been?
The original question:
quote:who made God? Where does God come from?
The reply I gave, and even copied for you, was that there is the possibility that 'God' has always been, and we have a hard time with that concept.
quote:Do you have a reading deficit or is there another agenda?No reading deficit. Here is what you claimed to ask:
quote:I asked you how you would describe, in plain terms, what no before existence means other than as a lingusitic construct.
Here is what you actually asked:
quote:how do you describe the phenomenon of an apple falling from a tree before trees and gravity exist?
The two are unrelated. I've answere both, the first answer "Something that has no beginning, that has always been" and the second "You're talking about something with a beginning and an ending, that's not what I was talking about". The reading deficit comment was uncalled for.
quote:Originally posted by familyguy
The reading deficit comment was uncalled for.
And so, I suppose, was the comment about another agenda.
quote:Originally posted by interstatepawnllc
OK, so here is the hypothetical scenario. You live out in the boonies, nobody living around you for miles, except for one neighbor. That neighbor moves out and you get to pick which type of neighbor will move next to you from a personality standpoint. You only have two choices to pick from. Choice one would be a simple, mildly educated, salt of the earth type and the other would be a highly educated, opinionated, pontificating blowhard type. Which would you choose? I would have to go with choice one.
quote:Originally posted by familyguy
So basically I have a choice between Classic095 and Dances With Sheep? Think I'd take Classic.....
DWS - quote:And so, I suppose, was the comment about another agenda.
Nope. If you thought I had ulterior motives for arguing, I'd expect you to ask. I stated once before that this is not a peronal beef.
The c&p from another thread was A) meant to be funny; you are poked fun at here frequently (not necessarily in a mean spirited way) for your vocabulary and level of discourse; and was written before I found out you and ISP had a history.
I did not know there was something between you two, and if my misstep with what I thought was humorous (notice the emoticons) in fact insulted you, I wholeheartedly apologize.
Got a new gun for my ex-wife.....pretty good trade, huh?
quote:Originally posted by susie
....Does God at this point deny there are other gods or is he stating he is the one true God for Abraham and his people, .
Susie,
The Bible states there are "...many Gods and Lords..." but also states that there is "One true god for all man". The existance of other Gods is not denied, their usefulness and power is.
When you wrestle a 'gator, there ain't no good end!!
quote:Originally posted by 7mm nut
Ok, now I'm not a die hard bible person even though I have read it and even went to bible school as a child. Most religous folk who take it seriously will say that everything here on earth and even the other planets and so on and so on was all created by God. Nothing exists without his approval or creation. He is the man so to speak. So if nothing in this world can exist without him I just gotta know one thing, who made God?
Now this question is not meant to stir up trouble, I'm not trying to be a smarta$$, I really want to know, who made God? Where does God come from? Last year I made a post about who I feel God is and I was told by a few members that I made a good post, but I hear arguments from some that my theory is wrong about God not being a mystical person who exists in a form that we will never see but as a feeling inside of us. They say that we are made in his image, if so then I am wrong and there really is a God who really exists as either a soul or life form, if this is true then who made him?
This question is related to the cosmological argument for God's existence, sometimes called the "cosmological proof." This argument doesn't hold water, but since it is one of the oldest and most popular arguments for the existence of God, I'll explain it.
The argument goes like this:
Everything around us exists because of the activities of other things, which are also caused by the activities of other things. But it is impossible or illogical to have an infinite causal series. Therefore, there must be a "first cause" which is not caused by anything before it. That "first cause" is God.
I could sit here all day pointing out the flaws in this argument, not the least of which is the fact that even if it were logically sound, it would not prove God's existence, since the first cause could be anything from God to something natural.
Jacqueline
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants and the creed of slaves." -- William Pitt (1783)
"It is Deja Vu all over again." Not that plenty has not be posted here, I will take a crack: The existence of god is a matter of faith. One believes or one does not. There is simply no scientific or logical proof that leads unerringly to the conclusion that god exists. Apart from the question of the actual existence of god is they fact that man clear created god (or many!) out of his own need to explain his existence and the nature of the universe (or the valley his cave was in). Thus the question is not, "does god exist," nor, "who created god," but rather, "do you believe."
It has to be clear that something "Is, was, and ever shall be" whether it is energy, the universe, or god, and beyond a certain point asking who or why ceases to be a productive excercise. I come again to: Do you believe? If you do, God exists.
I was stating a theory on the shape and nature of time. This theory does not lend itself to applications in matter.No four dimensional planets where men ride around in Buicks singing lah-tee-dah wearing kilts and praying to cheap wristwatches.That reminds me.Everyone should be careful when gathering mushrooms for consumption.
People see ghosts.People have premonitions.Some see the future,some have past lives.People have feelings of deja vu.Indians have holy places where they can talk with their ancestors.Aborigines have dream time places where they can see back to the first men.The Mayans drew pictures of men in spacesuits.These things would be likely if all time is simultaneous.These holy places could be where the barrier between our time line and all time is weaker.
There is a large number of people on this planet who believe in a God that is,has always been, and forever will be. I offer a theory that makes this a possibility.
This theory can be ridiculed or distorted, but it does have some possibility.If we could accept this theory of simultaneous time as a premise, then we could move on to the really interesting theories of how to pass through the barrier and view the very face of God.
I would be very surprized if it resembled a circle with the numbers one through twelve around it's perimeter.
Big Daddy[Don't look good in plaid and carry an old pocket watch]Jr.
BDJ: You need to reread your Minkowski maybe. A mathematical model or graphical representation does not a God make; 2+2=4 is qualitatively different than 2 parsecs + 2 parsecs = 4 parsecs. If we buy your (or Minkowski's or any) theory of simultaneous time, the notion of free will all goes bye-bye; and it really doesn't matter what we do or what we think (about God or plaid or Buicks or anything) because everything is predetermined.
I would think that in the absence of linear time the force of will or focused intent would in itself equate to creation.I think I am, therefore I am.I think I'm tall slim and goodlooking therefore, uh, well maybe the force of will is not all powerful here.Very much enjoyed this topic.Gotta go coach the little ones' softball game.Gooo Wolves!!!
Big Daddy my heros have always been cowboys,they still are it seems
13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, "I AM" hath sent me unto you.
15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
If we buy your (or Minkowski's or any) theory of simultaneous time, the notion of free will all goes bye-bye; and it really doesn't matter what we do or what we think (about God or plaid or Buicks or anything) because everything is predetermined.
I don't buy the notion of simultaneous time, but I'm curious about how you think that simultaneous time would negate free will.
Jacqueline
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants and the creed of slaves." -- William Pitt (1783)
Simultaneous time would mean that all objects and events--past, present and future--would have to exist at the same time; they would be equally existent and existing in all moments of history. If objects and events exist equally in time, free will would be illusory because no matter what we intended to do and how convinced we were of our intention, the future of an object or event was already given at the time of its past and present.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
Simultaneous time would mean that all objects and events--past, present and future--would have to exist at the same time; they would be equally existent and existing in all moments of history. If objects and events exist equally in time, free will would be illusory because no matter what we intended to do and how convinced we were of our intention, the future of an object or event was already given at the time of its past and present.
People argue similarly about free will in the context of religion: whether it is possible to have free will if God already knows the choices you will make. I'm not religious, but is knowing the outcome the same as causing it? If I were on the top of a building and saw two cars about to collide, I wouldn't be correct to say that I caused the accident or denied them free will (unless I was attracting their attention in some way), but nonetheless, I would "know" the future.
I realize that this line of reasoning wouldn't apply to the problems you associate with the concept of simultaneous time. Nonetheless, if there is a god, I am certain that even he knew upon creating me that I would never believe in him. The fault lies with the manufacturer not the product.
Jacqueline
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants and the creed of slaves." -- William Pitt (1783)
I think there are parallels between Calvinism and Relativity in this regard, although the latter conveniently dodges the God question. As for the two cars about to collide and knowing the future: Miracles or intervention (pick one) can happen.
Comments
***KATN!***
When Moses leads his people out of Egypt and the Ten Commandments are given, God speaks to his people saying that he is their one true God and no others are to be held up before him. He is speaking to Abraham and his descendants. At this point in my reading I paused to wonder. He is stating that he is the God of Abraham, now for the question. Does God at this point deny there are other gods or is he stating he is the one true God for Abraham and his people, not necessarily the God of all human kind, thus validating the concept of Allah, and other dieties for the myriad folk who have inhabited our planet?
Step away from your computers as you read this if you fear lightening is ready to strike. I survived the posting of the question!
***KATN!***
And now for a question to Bible readers. I have embarked on reading it for once end to end and not just listening to certain passages and reading the prescribed verses given to us at church.
When Moses leads his people out of Egypt and the Ten Commandments are given, God speaks to his people saying that he is their one true God and no others are to be held up before him. He is speaking to Abraham and his descendants. At this point in my reading I paused to wonder. He is stating that he is the God of Abraham, now for the question. Does God at this point deny there are other gods or is he stating he is the one true God for Abraham and his people, not necessarily the God of all human kind, thus validating the concept of Allah, and other dieties for the myriad folk who have inhabited our planet?
I'm afraid with your post we are moving from the muddy water of metaphysics to the even muddier water of hermeneutics. One would have to answer the question you asked in much the same way as one would answer what is the real meaning of King Lear or a painting by Picasso. We have moved one step further away from wondering about the meaning of life to wondering about the meaning of literature; in essence, questions of biblical interpretation are more akin to aesthetic criticism than ontology.
My mom said she always knew I was different from other kids.
***KATN!***
***KATN!***
It is like the blind gentlemen that are describing an elephant from their various perspectives. Each is touching/feeling an elephant, but none "see" the same animal.
Hermeneutics is like that, with the added dimension that the blind men claim they can tell from touch whether the animal is a Republican or a Sagitarius, morose or taciturn.
Originally posted by familyguy
That statement supposes that there is a 'before existence'. I'm saying that may not be the case, hence our difficulty with the question.
Even if there was no before existence (which I think only has linguisitic sense but no meaning), one thing we do know: There were billions of years and billions of things before man showed up. So the question becomes, are we a fluke or part of some grand plan on the part of an obviously very patient being?
The difficulty for me with your argument is the simultaneous (rather than antecedent) conditions of cause and effect. Of course you can claim such a state of affairs, but how do you describe the phenomenon of an apple falling from a tree before trees and gravity exist? I mean, I know what you're saying, just like I know what a unicorn is, but from that I would not expect anyone to argue that unicorns exist, or (since you say there is no before existence) that the idea of a unicorn has always existed.
Sorry for the long c&p, but I wanted it to be clear that there is no question in here like DWS claimed:
quote:I asked you how you would describe, in plain terms, what no before existence means other than as a lingusitic construct. I am still waiting.
There was no such question. Ask and I will answer; here is how I addressed that to begin with:
quote:It's called a suitable frame of reference. Everyone and everything we know has a beginning and an end. Energy doesn't, but we tend to view points of conversion as a beginning/ending. In short, we can't wrap our minds around the concept that something may have no beginning or end.
That's the short of it, it is my first response on this thread and there is a little more to it if you would like to (re?)read it.
I don't mind discussing, or arguing, or whatever. I don't even have to take comfort in feeling superior or 'right' (check out my argument with Salzo in the politics forum, I think he got the better of me). I've had people correct me on facts, and feel I've taken it with good grace; I've had people disagree and had great discussions.
It is becoming clear, though, that this is not the case here. You've lied (note the question you claimed above). You've put words in my mouth (not comparing what I say to something else, but claiming I stated something I did not). You use methods of analogy to ridicule instead of draw paralells to make a point. It is mean spirited and ignorant. Please stop.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
The difficulty for me with your argument is the simultaneous (rather than antecedent) conditions of cause and effect. Of course you can claim such a state of affairs, but how do you describe the phenomenon of an apple falling from a tree before trees and gravity exist?
Bolding mine. Do you have a reading deficit or is there another agenda?
I believe that A Creator GOD exists but he is not in our time stream, so we can't comprehend this concept. He created that which we call TIME and SPACE.
Try picturing what it's like to be dead for eternity. Try to look in the mirror, realize that you are the only one you know whose face you cannot see without looking in a mirror, and then ask yourself what is the point of the world's going on after you're dead, and not there to see it anymore.
I once said to a Catholic girlfriend that maybe God remains hidden simply because if he were present, he would fill up the sky and no one would be able to accomplish anything other than stand transfixed in awe looking at his unimaginable visage like those people at the * of a Spielberg movie.
This stuff is fun to talk about, but there are no answers. There is only spirituality within us, and we fill the need as we see fit -- some even do it with science.
Life NRA Member
T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
To add a different twist to your question. Some, subscribe to the theory that aliens have visited earth. Being a much more advanced civilization, they "appear" to be gods, to the residents of this planet. "IF" there was the same "visitor" following Moses, it could explain the "miracles" surrounding him. After performing those so called "miracles" it would only follow that "that entity" would be the one true God for Abraham. Who simply gave them a set of (common sense) rules to live by.
Taking it a step farther, in regards to the different "religions" around the globe, it could be different visitors, at different times, from different locations, and the differences between the "interpretations" by humans. None of which, gives a complete picture, explaining God. Maybe because they can not.
Not that I subscribe to this theory. It is just one of the many thoughts that I have, when those two cells of gray matter I have left collide, in that empty space between my ears, when I think about this subject.
I can not picture God as a man shaped being, sitting on a throne somewhere, watching as life evolves. Although I can not adequately put it into words, my definition of God, is more like, a "sentient life force" that is in, and around, everything. Which is, was, and always will be. Who has the power to "suggestively" guide us through life, or to make those "Footprints in the Sand" when need be.
The rest is man (alien?) made.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
The original question:
quote:who made God? Where does God come from?
The reply I gave, and even copied for you, was that there is the possibility that 'God' has always been, and we have a hard time with that concept.
quote:Do you have a reading deficit or is there another agenda?No reading deficit. Here is what you claimed to ask:
quote:I asked you how you would describe, in plain terms, what no before existence means other than as a lingusitic construct.
Here is what you actually asked:
quote:how do you describe the phenomenon of an apple falling from a tree before trees and gravity exist?
The two are unrelated. I've answere both, the first answer "Something that has no beginning, that has always been" and the second "You're talking about something with a beginning and an ending, that's not what I was talking about". The reading deficit comment was uncalled for.
The reading deficit comment was uncalled for.
And so, I suppose, was the comment about another agenda.
quote:Originally posted by interstatepawnllc
OK, so here is the hypothetical scenario. You live out in the boonies, nobody living around you for miles, except for one neighbor. That neighbor moves out and you get to pick which type of neighbor will move next to you from a personality standpoint. You only have two choices to pick from. Choice one would be a simple, mildly educated, salt of the earth type and the other would be a highly educated, opinionated, pontificating blowhard type. Which would you choose? I would have to go with choice one.
quote:Originally posted by familyguy
So basically I have a choice between Classic095 and Dances With Sheep? Think I'd take Classic.....
[:D][:p][8D][:0][:D]
So much for the no before existence theory.
Nope. If you thought I had ulterior motives for arguing, I'd expect you to ask. I stated once before that this is not a peronal beef.
The c&p from another thread was A) meant to be funny; you are poked fun at here frequently (not necessarily in a mean spirited way) for your vocabulary and level of discourse; and
I did not know there was something between you two, and if my misstep with what I thought was humorous (notice the emoticons) in fact insulted you, I wholeheartedly apologize.
Got a new gun for my ex-wife.....pretty good trade, huh?
....Does God at this point deny there are other gods or is he stating he is the one true God for Abraham and his people, .
Susie,
The Bible states there are "...many Gods and Lords..." but also states that there is "One true god for all man". The existance of other Gods is not denied, their usefulness and power is.
When you wrestle a 'gator, there ain't no good end!!
"Molon Labe!" Spartan General-King Leonidas
Ok, now I'm not a die hard bible person even though I have read it and even went to bible school as a child. Most religous folk who take it seriously will say that everything here on earth and even the other planets and so on and so on was all created by God. Nothing exists without his approval or creation. He is the man so to speak. So if nothing in this world can exist without him I just gotta know one thing, who made God?
Now this question is not meant to stir up trouble, I'm not trying to be a smarta$$, I really want to know, who made God? Where does God come from? Last year I made a post about who I feel God is and I was told by a few members that I made a good post, but I hear arguments from some that my theory is wrong about God not being a mystical person who exists in a form that we will never see but as a feeling inside of us. They say that we are made in his image, if so then I am wrong and there really is a God who really exists as either a soul or life form, if this is true then who made him?
This question is related to the cosmological argument for God's existence, sometimes called the "cosmological proof." This argument doesn't hold water, but since it is one of the oldest and most popular arguments for the existence of God, I'll explain it.
The argument goes like this:
Everything around us exists because of the activities of other things, which are also caused by the activities of other things. But it is impossible or illogical to have an infinite causal series. Therefore, there must be a "first cause" which is not caused by anything before it. That "first cause" is God.
I could sit here all day pointing out the flaws in this argument, not the least of which is the fact that even if it were logically sound, it would not prove God's existence, since the first cause could be anything from God to something natural.
Jacqueline
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants and the creed of slaves." -- William Pitt (1783)
"If Helen Keller falls in the forest...?" (So much material and so little time.)
You'd make Berra shake his head. Where's my tortilla, I've got someone that needs wrapping.
Clouder...
It has to be clear that something "Is, was, and ever shall be" whether it is energy, the universe, or god, and beyond a certain point asking who or why ceases to be a productive excercise. I come again to: Do you believe? If you do, God exists.
My heros have always killed cowboys.
People see ghosts.People have premonitions.Some see the future,some have past lives.People have feelings of deja vu.Indians have holy places where they can talk with their ancestors.Aborigines have dream time places where they can see back to the first men.The Mayans drew pictures of men in spacesuits.These things would be likely if all time is simultaneous.These holy places could be where the barrier between our time line and all time is weaker.
There is a large number of people on this planet who believe in a God that is,has always been, and forever will be. I offer a theory that makes this a possibility.
This theory can be ridiculed or distorted, but it does have some possibility.If we could accept this theory of simultaneous time as a premise, then we could move on to the really interesting theories of how to pass through the barrier and view the very face of God.
I would be very surprized if it resembled a circle with the numbers one through twelve around it's perimeter.
Big Daddy[Don't look good in plaid and carry an old pocket watch]Jr.
Big Daddy my heros have always been cowboys,they still are it seems
"Save the Whalers, they need jobs too."
Big Daddy my heros have always been cowboys,they still are it seems
Gotta go coach the little ones' softball game.Gooo Wolves!!!
Don't worry. You won a billion years ago (6-4, Wolves).
Big Daddy my heros have always been cowboys,they still are it seems
i have a few whacked ideas but, i dont know if anyone would be interested. i dont want to cause trouble
http://65.61.153.217/page.php?x=917423
http://www.outwar.com/page.php?x=1052316
14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, "I AM" hath sent me unto you.
15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.
Where there is no vision,the people perish!
If we buy your (or Minkowski's or any) theory of simultaneous time, the notion of free will all goes bye-bye; and it really doesn't matter what we do or what we think (about God or plaid or Buicks or anything) because everything is predetermined.
I don't buy the notion of simultaneous time, but I'm curious about how you think that simultaneous time would negate free will.
Jacqueline
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants and the creed of slaves." -- William Pitt (1783)
Simultaneous time would mean that all objects and events--past, present and future--would have to exist at the same time; they would be equally existent and existing in all moments of history. If objects and events exist equally in time, free will would be illusory because no matter what we intended to do and how convinced we were of our intention, the future of an object or event was already given at the time of its past and present.
People argue similarly about free will in the context of religion: whether it is possible to have free will if God already knows the choices you will make. I'm not religious, but is knowing the outcome the same as causing it? If I were on the top of a building and saw two cars about to collide, I wouldn't be correct to say that I caused the accident or denied them free will (unless I was attracting their attention in some way), but nonetheless, I would "know" the future.
I realize that this line of reasoning wouldn't apply to the problems you associate with the concept of simultaneous time. Nonetheless, if there is a god, I am certain that even he knew upon creating me that I would never believe in him. The fault lies with the manufacturer not the product.
Jacqueline
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants and the creed of slaves." -- William Pitt (1783)