The Simpleton Notion of ‘God’ is Unveiled Here

Me-Ki-Gal said:
i think it was loaded with information .
Click to expand...

So, at least we know that our universe had an inherent workable structure since it did amount to things such as life, a capability that was there all along.

We are trying to mainly derive a Creator here now, but, of course, we can still put things against it, too, which are good to direct us better to the identification of a Creator for sure.
 
So, we must derive the existence of the Creator before we can go off supposing that He arranged the universe to be what it is via its beginning. This is not negative, but just saying that His identification must come first; otherwise, all thereafter would be just idle talk.

We’re not real interested in the fine details of the mechanics of the implementation, for it is the message of reality that matters, not the method, which is kind of like that music still comes across as music whether from a live band or a music player, but we could entertain major shifts such as that all is accomplished through consciousness; however, in that case, the intricate brain would not really be doing much of anything, it not really being there but for show as a grand hoax, as dream stuff, so, let’s at least stick to reality as we know it, it showing consciousness as requiring a brain, that it can go away to anesthesia, etc.

Why would a Creator have to be so?
 
SciWriter said:
OK, no one is putting anything good, but one thing by LG, so we are going to have to derive the Creator; yes! meaning me and whomever wants to help.

The Creator needs to be surmised because it doesn’t even let out a peep about its existence, which is odd, but we’ll go with that since personal testimony can be all over the place.
Click to expand...
if it was all over the place you wouldn't see a host of common general principles that are more or less the same.

don't know how you managed to overlook that
So, what we thought could have been the chaos of the big bang could either have been an orderly event leading to what we had that the Creator completely planned and foresaw or at least had the right mixture to lead to some human mammal life.

We do know that the species were not made outright, intact, as is, and immutable,
Click to expand...
bogus statement.

Its just your humble opinion that species are not intact or immutable or even that such characteristics translate as being not made "outright"
so that’s why we’re, and we know of the big bang and the possible inflation, so that’s why we say that the Creator would have been behind the creation of the universe 14 billion years ago.
Click to expand...
based on your totally subjective opinion that we are not made intact (by some vague criteria you don't clarify)

Its quite clear when you depart from science to drive home your ideology of godlessness.


Next time, we’ll get into how He became or how He can be eternal.

Who wants to help?
Click to expand...
what problems do you have with it?
What are the required characteristics of eternality ... preferably not just your opinion
 
SciWriter said:
So, we must derive the existence of the Creator before we can go off supposing that He arranged the universe to be what it is via its beginning. This is not negative, but just saying that His identification must come first; otherwise, all thereafter would be just idle talk.

We’re not real interested in the fine details of the mechanics of the implementation, for it is the message of reality that matters, not the method, which is kind of like that music still comes across as music whether from a live band or a music player, but we could entertain major shifts such as that all is accomplished through consciousness; however, in that case, the intricate brain would not really be doing much of anything, it not really being there but for show as a grand hoax, as dream stuff, so, let’s at least stick to reality as we know it, it showing consciousness as requiring a brain, that it can go away to anesthesia, etc.

Why would a Creator have to be so?
Click to expand...


You apparently want to discuss why a creator is required for the universe or not but you're simply sidetracking instead.
 
Last edited:
Big Chiller said:
You apparently want to discuss why a creator is required for the universe but you're simply sidetracking instead.
Click to expand...

Well, I hope not, but if so it can be corrected. Wanted to derive the Creator first before talking too much about an implementation of reality.
 
A slight tangent:

Few have thought of what a forever system really entails, and so we must delve into it since for Source to be everything it must be eternal in duration and infinite in extent or at least in its potential reach, and, of course, we hope to show that the Source and the Creator are one and the same.

Could the Creator have evolved from Totality or must it be primary? I’d say primary, but…

A forever system such as Totality without it being the Creator, per say, has only itself as a precursor, which leads to some amazing realizations, for example that it has no first anythings, which naturally ranges through everything produced, from material to stars to beings to bubbles of universes.

Picture this more within a greater cosmos or in an eternal universe if there is no greater cosmos, for either one or the other could be. I am not saying that our own universe is eternal.

So, there could be one or more very powerful beings that have arisen during eternity, becoming quite talented, and one could have formed our universe; yet, we are not really concerned with evolved alien life, but the very first life before all else of the one Creator, so, close, but no cigar.

So, let’s go with that a Creator had to be First and thus responsible for carrying out all else, as anything else would not be primary.

Could the Creator have been around forever, a system already made but never having been made?

I’m also assuming that it/He is a mind since it could foresee, plan, create, and maintain everything that became of it or is a part of it if that’s what everything is.
 
lightgigantic said:
What are the required characteristics of eternality ... preferably not just your opinion
Click to expand...

The eternal Creator:

It was forever there, intact, is now, and ever will be, being unmakable, since it never was made, and unbreakable, since it is primary and can have no parts or substructure. Infinitely old, but essentially ageless since impervious and unchangeable. This is not to say that it couldn't create whatever it wanted to, and in particular it has chosen, for example, for our universe to be based on two stable matter particles, the electron and the proton, with a photon as the energy 'particle'. Of course, all this is contingent on there being a Creator, so we only use it provisionally.
 
SciWriter said:
No, a Creator could have allowed evolution to proceed or guided it. There is triple confirmation of evolution, as fossils, DNA, and embryonics are a match.
Click to expand...
Incorrect

Ideas about evolution are the consequence of ideas about fossils, dna and embryonics.

And regardless, if you think it says anything about establishing the non-existence of a creator I think you have a lot more explaining to do
 
SciWriter said:
The eternal Creator:

It was forever there, intact, is now, and ever will be, being unmakable, since it never was made, and unbreakable, since it is primary and can have no parts or substructure. Infinitely old, but essentially ageless since impervious and unchangeable. This is not to say that it couldn't create whatever it wanted to, and in particular it has chosen, for example, for our universe to be based on two stable matter particles, the electron and the proton, with a photon as the energy 'particle'. Of course, all this is contingent on there being a Creator, so we only use it provisionally.
Click to expand...
then you are certainly grasping at straws since this phenomenal world (including its protons and photons) are generally understood to be a contingent potency of the creator (which doesn't necessarily render the essence of the phenomenal world bereft of eternality ... merely established in a relationship of contingency).

IOW it seems to be a running error in all your approximations of eternality and the creator that you've missed the notion one can have several players operating under the umbrella of a singular authority - such is the folly of a simpleton's notion of godlessness I guess.
 
Last edited:
SciWriter said:
Well, I hope not, but if so it can be corrected. Wanted to derive the Creator first before talking too much about an implementation of reality.
Click to expand...

How can the Creator be derived?

"Deriving the Creator" is a contradiction in terms.


SciWriter said:
Why people believe in the Creator doesn't do much for its actuality, so come and help us truly derive it as something that must be; otherwise, there is just worthless suppositioning beyond, regardless of the comfort one may obtain:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2816554&postcount=98
Click to expand...

"To derive that which must be" is a contradiction in terms.
 
lightgigantic said:
this phenomenal world (including its protons and photons) are generally understood to be a contingent potency of the creator (which doesn't necessarily render the essence of the phenomenal world bereft of eternality ... merely established in a relationship of contingency).
Click to expand...

One cannot use beforehand towards the proof the result of what one has not proven ("generally understood").
 
Signal said:
How can the Creator be derived?

"Deriving the Creator" is a contradiction in terms.

"To derive that which must be" is a contradiction in terms.
Click to expand...

Things can possibly be derived, but if not always, then it makes those undecidable and renders all philosophy moot, and this will become my conclusion in the second post to come next.

It will then be a wonder, and a further subject of study of the human condition, as to why senseless discussions continue on tangents that have already presumed the unproven 'God', such as about the Trinity or something that can't matter without the Creator having been identified.
 
lightgigantic said:
what problems do you have with it?
What are the required characteristics of eternality ... preferably not just your opinion
Click to expand...

Continued…

Eternality has some very serious problems. How can something be already made and defined forever without it ever having been made and defined?

This suggests that no thing can be eternal. What does this leave? Nothing. Plus, there would seem to be no other source, anyway.

One of the reasons for inventing the Creator was to allow for the cause and effect of life and the universe, yet this is only a larger failure, as least an an ‘answer’, for it’s just another, larger question of the same nature, now gone quite beyond repair.

So… (See next post for the final conclusion)
 
One conclusion is that metaphysics is incapable of producing a positive result other than neutrality or nothing. We might even deduce that all questions about the nature and properties of the universe as a whole are formally undecidable. The alternative is that the universe does not conform to a logically defensible metaphysical position, a conclusion which would render philosophy largely a waste of time. (summarized from Peter Jones)

Yet, from this there is one conclusion remaining: we are free to be, if only from not knowing, and, curiously, this allows one to make whatever meaning of existence that they choose. Some may then use probability to decide, and some may just choose what they feel like. Existence, then, comes to totally precede essence in importance.
 
SciWriter said:
No, a Creator could have allowed evolution to proceed or guided it. There is triple confirmation of evolution, as fossils, DNA, and embryonics are a match.
Click to expand...

But were still not to sure how the first single cell organism came to being. Maybe it was created with purpose to evolve into all the creatures of Earth, each one specifically.
 
Bottom line is we have no idea why the Creator came here. We have no idea why he did what he did. My assumption he created us as a more perfect life form than were he came from. Furthermore, it is my assumption he was made eternal, always has been always will be. From that, I assume there are more eternal beings from were Yahweh came. If he left he left for a reason. In the bible it talks about the constant wars in Heaven. Maybe when Heaven is brought to Earth Humans will be the tipping of the balance to win the war in our favor. Now, we have the anti-christ, and Satan. Satan was created by God, so I dont believe he has the power to conjure the anti-christ, however, he theoretically is on board with it and thats were his betrayal comes in. Who has the power to create another christ? A false christ. How about a false god? We understand very litte about the origins of anything before written history.

Many theist would never admit it, probably don't even realize, but the bible is the book of good and evil. God is the god, so who is the evil?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top