who is god?

[§outh§tar]

You are leading the answer if you ask 'who' (which implies, obviously, the same when you ask 'what is god?')

A better request is 'describe God' especially since many theists on these forums believe God to be personal. For the mathematicians/scientists, 'define God' is the safest (best) way to go about it.

 

[lightgigantic]

What constitutes the inertia to be god? Self is god because God comes from our awareness of self. That is why we are the only animal that has god.

Seems like I mistook inertia to mean ignorance or illusion.
But you are still on the same track so I can continue regardless

I guess one of the easiest evidences that the living entity is not god is the fact that the living entity is always under the full control of the laws of material nature - if you say this is only due to the ignorance of the living entity that he is in fact god then you have a corrupted definition of god or have given th epower of god to illusion, because god being supremely cognizant and powerful cannot be over run by one of his energies (ie illusion)

The inertia (I take it you mean power of independence) of the living entity and god are not the same - we are minutely independent and god is supremely independent

 

[Oniw17]

I didn't mean god as the force of destiny, but rather the thought that it is god. In otherwords, the fact that we choose to conceptualize nature as an entity is a result of self-awareness. Because we are aware of our selves as separate entities(the reason for names), the ignorant who came before us had to give an entity to everything, living things, nature, and even rocks(for pagans).Material nature is indeed more than self, but it is not god, only the events that god was meant to describe because the predecessors that we had as a species were too ignorant to explain them by other means.

 

[lightgigantic]

I can't respond to this because I don't understand it - but here goes anyway ....

I didn't mean god as the force of destiny, .

-force of destiny ?- neither did I - I mentioned independence

but rather the thought that it is god. .

- if destiny is just a thought why can't thought surmount providence?

In otherwords, the fact that we choose to conceptualize nature as an entity is a result of self-awareness. Because we are aware of our selves as separate entities(the reason for names),.

- do we have any other sort of awareness to call on? The very nature of having awareness means cosnsciously discriminating between the knower and the object of being known.

the ignorant who came before us had to give an entity to everything, living things, nature, and even rocks(for pagans).Material nature is indeed more than self, but it is not god, only the events that god was meant to describe
because the predecessors that we had as a species were too ignorant to explain them by other means.

-god is meant to describe something - but you have just relegated god to a mental thought? Our predecessors were to ignorant to explain the phenomena of the material creation - Then its not clear to me how we have advanced any -lol

 

[c7ityi_]

Yes it is easy to conceive of eternal time but it is more difficult to conceive of how eternal time activates lifeless matter.

Matter isn't lifeless.

If the self is god how is it that inerta can overcome the self? That would make inertia more powerful than god and thus inertia would be god.

Inertia doesn't overcome the self.

Well okay we can beg the question a bit further and ask how did variety emanate from space ....

Nothingness separates itself from its infinity (everything) so that it can be nothing.

To say that variety can emanate from nothing like colours can emanate from light means that light is nothing - light however is something

What is this something you talk about?

There are no possibilities in nothing - the evidence is that something has never come from nothing - or at least in those incidents where it appeared that something came from nothing, it was later revealed that the nothing was actually something we couldn't see. Nothing is impossible as long as there is something to make it possible

Nothing is the only logical. There is no reason for something else to exist. Why would God exist?

Well I can imagine something without a beginning and also an end-

I meant that I can't imagine how something could have existed forever.

 

[lightgigantic]

Matter isn't lifeless..

What symptoms of life are you monitoring in innate matter?

Inertia doesn't overcome the self..

Frankly I am a bit lost on what exactly you say inertia is in relation to god or the living entity - but it doesn't seem to answer how god (in the proper definition as possessed of all omnis) could succumb to the illusion of this material existence and still lay claim to being god - it doesn't explain how illusion became greater than god and god remained god in the balance.

Nothingness separates itself from its infinity (everything) so that it can be nothing..

I think because nothingness and infinity are concepts beyond our mundane comprehension you interchange the two but they are actually diametrically opposed - for instance variety can emanate from infinity but not from nothing

What is this something you talk about?.

It just takes a dark night for a person to realise that light is something - light is also a very important something if you happen to photosynthesize as well. I don't think it is true to call light nothing.

Nothing is the only logical. There is no reason for something else to exist. Why would God exist?.

The problem is this - if you have nothing but zero how do you end up with anything but zero - how is zero going to influence zero to produce anything but zero? Since we perceive value in this world, even if it is inferior value, it begs the question where did that variety come from - How did zero influence itself to become something other than zero?

I meant that I can't imagine how something could have existed forever.

That's because the vehicle you are using grasp eternality (the mind) is not eternal

 

[c7ityi_]

What symptoms of life are you monitoring in innate matter?

Motion. Attraction. Repulsion. Will.

it doesn't explain how illusion became greater than god and god remained god in the balance.

illusion isn't greater than god, the illusion came from god.

I think because nothingness and infinity are concepts beyond our mundane comprehension you interchange the two but they are actually diametrically opposed - for instance variety can emanate from infinity but not from nothing

I think nothingness and infinity are the only things we can comprehend.

It just takes a dark night for a person to realise that light is something - light is also a very important something if you happen to photosynthesize as well. I don't think it is true to call light nothing.

But you don't know what "something" is and what it's made of. It could as well be nothing.

How did zero influence itself to become something other than zero?

nothing isn't anything but nothing. nothing includes everything/infinity.

this site explains more: http://www.hatem.com/metah3.htm

That's because the vehicle you are using grasp eternality (the mind) is not eternal

I can grasp eternal nothing but not eternal something because it's illogical. Whatever we can imagine is possible, otherwise we couldn't be able to imagine it.

 

[Novacane]

asking that question is like asking: which came first the chicken or the egg? There is no answer. if you answered (chicken) then the statement appears: how can you have a chicken without an egg. or if you answer was (the egg) then the statement: how can you have an egg without a chicken. so the question is recursive and is never ending

in the case of god. the question who is god is never ending too. think about it this way:

humanity is created by god
god is created by god's god
god's god is created by god's god's god
god's god's god is created by god's god's god.

so this question is also recursive and can never be answered. if god created humanity then who created god. Then when you get that answer then another question is who created god's god? this goes on and on just like the chicken or the egg question.

In the big scheme of things, it doesn't matter whether we find out if God exists or not. Even if he does, what are you going to do about it? Tell him what? Yea........Right.

 

[Godless]

The problem is this - if you have nothing but zero how do you end up with anything but zero - how is zero going to influence zero to produce anything but zero? Since we perceive value in this world, even if it is inferior value, it begs the question where did that variety come from - How did zero influence itself to become something other than zero?

Good logical thinking, now all you! have to do is apply this same logic to your god.

(How did "god" influence itself to become something other than god?) How did god create itself out of nothing, and create "suposedly" the universe out of nothing. Thus, the universe had no begining, it's eternal existing forever to the past, as it is, and will be for eternity into the future. The Big Bang never happened

sciforum discusion on bb theory

Godless

 

[lightgigantic]

Good logical thinking, now all you! have to do is apply this same logic to your god.

(How did "god" influence itself to become something other than god?) How did god create itself out of nothing, and create "suposedly" the universe out of nothing. Thus, the universe had no begining, it's eternal existing forever to the past, as it is, and will be for eternity into the future. The Big Bang never happened

sciforum discusion on bb theory

Godless

My stance, which is different to c7ityi_'s, is that god is the abode of all variety and I think I mentioned earlier about god having supremacy over the living entity, the material manifestation and time (all of which are eternal) - it is just like how the sunglobe is superior to the sunshine because it is the source, but at the same time inseperable (you cannot seperate god from his energies any more than you can seperate sunlight from the sun). In other words god is never surrounded with nothing just as the sun is never surrounded by darkness - on the contray god is surrounded with everything and the sun is surrounded with illumination.

 

[Gordon]

Actually there is the riddle has been solved. Chicken and egg debate unscrambled

As for god, well theist around here will tell ya, that "IT" is eternal. Non created, the alpha,alpha, & omega.

Godless

And so a fish produced an amphibian egg, an amphibian produced a reptile egg, a reptile produced a bird's egg (all totally different structures) and eventually a reptile produced a mammal egg, and at some point an egg laying creature (reptile or monotreme, egg-laying mammal) produced a creature that it kept in its womb alive via a placenta for some many months until it could be born. Except that the creature of course being an egg layer didn't have either a womb or a placenta!

And you think theists need faith!!


regards,


Gordon.

 

[Gordon]

asking that question is like asking: which came first the chicken or the egg? There is no answer. if you answered (chicken) then the statement appears: how can you have a chicken without an egg. or if you answer was (the egg) then the statement: how can you have an egg without a chicken. so the question is recursive and is never ending

in the case of god. the question who is god is never ending too. think about it this way:

humanity is created by god
god is created by god's god
god's god is created by god's god's god
god's god's god is created by god's god's god.

so this question is also recursive and can never be answered. if god created humanity then who created god. Then when you get that answer then another question is who created god's god? this goes on and on just like the chicken or the egg question.

This is not in accordance with philosophical logic.

Philosophical premise: All effects have causes or else the definitions are meaningless. This is no different to saying that all triangle have three sides. They do because that's the definition.

Note that it is only effects that have causes, not everything because everything is not necessarily an effect. Confusion of this sort often arises in these sort of discussions.

The options therefore for the universe in accordance with philosophical logic are as follows:

1. The universe had a beginning (a 'Big Bang' type theory). This is an effect, therefore there had to be a cause. The cause could not have had a beginning or else that beginning would have been an effect. Therefore there is an infinite first cause, which is itself not caused. It is self existing. Ascribe any name you like to it. Note that there is no philosophical logical argument against such a self existing entity.

2. The universe had no beginning. Therefore it itself is infinitely old. This creates practical problems with the second law of thermodynamics since if the universe were infinitely old, entropy would long since have been total and nothing would be going on in the universe at all. This is observable not to be true. Therefore entropy has to have been reset to zero (an infinite number of times) or the second law of thermodynamics must have reversed direction (again an infinite number of times) so that entropy decreased back to zero again. These are effectively 'Oscillating Universe' theories. In either case you have an (infinite) number of effects (the changes in entropy). This would require an infinite cause if that cause itself were not to have its own cause. So again you have an infinite first cause, which is itself not caused. It is self existing. Again ascribe any name you like to it.

3. The second law of thermodynamics really does not operate in the universe as a whole and there is a whole different set of rules applying.

I am not aware of any satisfactory alternative that has been suggested that fits the evidence. Note that even the 'quantum fluctuations in the vacuum' theories still have effects happening and however you play with words, effects always have causes. A 'causeless effect' is as philosophically illogical as a triangle that does not have three sides.

Note 'Uncertainty' does not imply no cause. I can be uncertain about a coin landing heads or tails but there is certainly a cause (it's just that the number of variables operating is too great for me to be able to estimate the result - so I am 'uncertain'). Note also that 'chance' is only a description of this form of uncertainty. It does not exist as a causal force. 'Chance' can never make anything happen. If chance were a causal force we should be able to measure its effect with some form of unit. We can't and it isn't.

Ultimately you have no philosophical choice but an uncaused self existing first cause. This is philosophically logically acceptable. All other options abregate philosophical logic and you end up with the recursive argument you quote.

This may be an unsatisfactory outcome for some but it is the only outcome of the philosophical logic, avoiding recursion.


regards,


Gordon.







The universe had a