What created God?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhekti

Let's then begin with the idea of no-God...does it solve anything?

---

No, and nobody claims that it does. What's your point?

Allah has no "corporeality" and therefore is free from the restrictions of life/death/time. Allah can move throughout time without defficiency unlike human beings who can never move backwards and cannot predict their futures either. This concept also takes care of that nasty role played by 'predestination' i.e. if Allah knows what is going to happen then what say I?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

No, and nobody claims that it does. What's your point?

---

I don't know. I was just rearranging BeingaBunny's proposition in:

Quote:

---

One problem I have with the idea of God is that, as an answer to life, it doesn't solve anything.

---

Hello, BeingaBunny. You posed some very interesting questions here, and I can provide no answer, of course, but may offer my opinions. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeingaBunny

One problem I have with the idea of God is that, as an answer to life, it doesn't solve anything. I mean, if God created us, then what created God? It solves the question of our own existence and creates the same question of His existence - solving nothing. It merely moves the same question to another subject, which I daresay is rather fallacious.

That said, if God presides over our universe, outside of what we have here, entropy must be going on somewhere because God obviously came from something somewhere. Or - what? - he just poofed in?

The answer that he is omnipotent and can do whatever the hell he wants just isn't very satisfying or realistic. I mean, if he did create our universe, he must have an objective. Why would an omnipotent being have or need an objective?

---

Though I consider myself no true religion (my, I admit, odd attempt to avoid mass subjectivism), I agree greatly with Lector's proceeding post --

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lector

To seek an explanation of the origin of God is more or less an oxymoron. God did not have a begining because He is not a finite being like we are. I realize this is difficult to wrap our minds around and this because the finite (us) is incapable of comprehending the infinite (God). In fact if we could fully understand God, in my oppinion he would be a pretty lame God. I mean if this god was someone whom I could completely understand then that would mean he was not that much higher of a being than me. The simple fact that I am unable to fully comprehend God shows me how much greater He is than me.

---

I do not at all find it ridiculous to seek an explanation to explain a Supreme Being, existence, superior morals, etc.; in fact, I find it more a philosopher's admirable way of life, though it may have no end. Simply, humans, provided we have finite minds (consisting of immeasurable levels of cognition, personality, and behavior) cannot learn, explain, provide proof, or imagine everything. Assuming a Superior Being does exist, one cannot even imagine what everything (or nothing) seemed like before the universe; human rely greatly on their senses and cognition to explain things (in essence, perceiving and judging), but if there seems absolutely nothing to potentially sense and nothing to think of (such as the universe before its existence), the thought merely seems impossible to imagine or comprehend.

-----

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeingaBunny

Well I did a bit of research on the old web. The christian concensus seems to be that God cannot be created, and that he doesn't need to be because he is outside of time. That said, he also created the universe and created time inside of it.

If god is outside of time, where there is no before and after, then he could not have created the universe - because creating anything simply indicates before and after, before universe and after universe, which means that god must be affected by time in his "realm" - at least henceforth from creation. The only way God wouldn't be affected by time is if he did not create the universe and god merely exists outside of it, neither creating the other.

Therefore it is impossible that god, from this aspect, created the universe, unless he is affected by time. In which case, where did he come from?

---

Where ever you found this source, I cannot disagree more. The statement that 'God cannot be created' seems entirely wrong; as I always say, subjectivism seems entirely inevitable (and I care not of anyone's objections to this argument), but with the perception of some Supreme Being, assuming His/Her/Its existence, in a way, creates a perception - assuming attributes, mannerisms, ethics, etc. I can take this argument further when one encounters a mentally ill individual claiming that 'he/she is God;' of course, I cannot prove the person wrong, but he/she has created the mentality that he/she 'is God.'
Furthermore, the statement that 'God exists outside of time,' I apologize if I offend anyone's beliefs, sounds ridiculous and perplexing to me. Any statement or theory that proclaims that a Supreme Being exists outside or inside something imposes limits, entirely contradicting the idea of an Infinite Being. Hence, in an especially Epicurean philosophy, did God create everything, then place Himself/Herself/Itself outside of it? No; stating that 'air exists outside of oxygen' seems similar.
Lastly, I think that a thought of 'before and after' in creation of the universe seems slightly unrealistic and inexact. Time, to humans, seems entirely began by the earth revolving around the sun and the appearance of day and night - 24 hours, 1440 minutes, 86400 seconds. I think it safe to assume that the universe existed before the earth and the sun, and taking the Big Bang Theory into consideration, perhaps they all came into existence and once; even before any existence and/or creation of the universe, earth, and sun, no time, nor concept of time, could have existed.

Mono, could you expand on your statement that says:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mono

Any statement or theory that proclaims that a Supreme Being exists outside or inside something imposes limits, entirely contradicting the idea of an Infinite Being.

---

By the way, I think air does exist outside oxygen. (air is not only of oxygen, right?)

I have a problem here. I don't know wh at people mean when they say god.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beingabunny

I have a problem here. I don't know wh at people mean when they say god.

---

I think that the word 'God' may refer precisely to what is printed in the dictionary; something along the lines of :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dictionary

** God **

1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
3. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
4. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
5. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.

---

I think that any theoretical Supreme Being consisting of and wielding the attributes mentioned above should be sufficient for the kind of discussion taking place here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhekti

I don't know. I was just rearranging BeingaBunny's proposition in:

---

I think that the idea here is that theists claim that God's existence satiates the ultimate questions; those of origins, life, purpose, and destination.

The atheist doesn't claim that God's non-existence solves them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhekti

Mono, could you expand on your statement that says:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mono

Any statement or theory that proclaims that a Supreme Being exists outside or inside something imposes limits, entirely contradicting the idea of an Infinite Being.

---

---

Indeed, I can.
Many religions, especially those having many followers, I have noticed, tend to declare God/Allah/Yahweh etc. as infinite in size, meaning consisting of no limits, beyond imagination and comprehension - transcendental, in essence. Stating that infinity exists inside or outside anything, in this case, contradicts the concept of infinity, meaning that a human mind may comprehend it. I particularly used this statement a few posts ago stating that a Supreme Being, according to its definition, cannot exist outside of time; time, one may notice, seems something measurable, understood, and utilized by humans, while something infinite can seem neither measured nor understood entirely and holistically.
Take, for example, a pitcher full of water. The water inside the pitcher does not appear infinite, or else we could not comprehend its immensity; therefore, it remains inside the pitcher. The air outside the pitcher one also cannot call infinite because its measurable concentration, in terms of chemistry, inside the pitcher combined with water, and its limitations outside the pitcher a person can comprehend. In conclusion, the water, pitcher, and air all seem finite; if either the water, pitcher, or air seemed infinite, one cannot perceive the infinity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhekti

By the way, I think air does exist outside oxygen. (air is not only of oxygen, right?)

---

Yes, I apologize. Typing with so many thoughts whirling in my mind, I actually intended to write the reciprocal of that statement, oxygen existing outside of air. Though merely an analogy, and as long as you understood my statement and what I intended, I do not see a large problem, but thank you. :)

This question which need time to prove .

I agree with Mono that God cannot be infinite and still be inside or outside of something, very good point. But as far as God's association with time I don't hink that He exists either inside or outside of time, what I mean is that, isn't time merely a construct of man to keep track of things? And wouldn't confining God either inside or outside of a construct of man essentialy make God out to be lower than man?
When I think of God being infinite, I guess I don't really think of Him being so physicaly enormouse so as to encompas all other physical things, but God's infinitness (if that is even a word) has more to do with His infinite power, knowledge, wisdom, love, justice... I could go on forever lol.

.....and time is a circle isn't it? Divided into 360 degrees eh? 60 seconds and then 60 minutes and before you know it you have a derivitive which looks like a circle which is divided into day and night using the number 12, which we know is an arbitrary reckoning because we have proof that it can be 'altered' and must be altered depending on climate (Daylight Savings Time, GMT + 3, etc.).

Is Allah outside of time? Who knows...but it would explain alot of things like prophecy and that age old conundrum over Free Will. That is, if God knows what I am going to type next, did he force me to type it? If Allah has no limitations regarding Time then simply, he would know it to exist prior to my pitiful creation of this lackluster post.

And I ask the moderators here to bear with me...I ain't involved in 'conversions' if that was what you were thinking when you erased my topic and threatened to erase yet another post besides that. Muslims don't convert because sheesh, we can't convert. That is not up to us. :)

The bottom line within these posts I've read however always seems to be about the corporeality of Allah. The mere mention of Allah's "existence" is an insistence on placing human value on the 'life' of the Creator/Sustainer/All Cognizant. Why I'd go so far as to suggest that even Athiests break their own commandment when they state, "There is no God." How is it that they deny something that does not exist in the first place per their own definition.
The Quran says this however....that God will always be a topic. There is no eradicating it from the discussion whether you are in favor or against.

Allah is unimaginable. People do try though and they also try to imagine heaven....how many movies are made and profitted from that help the viewer to 'imagine' heaven? Lots of money being made there! And how many manage to help the viewer imagine hell? None really, they simply like to portray this particular Limbo we are in as a kind of "hell already". Well, if there are 'two' options at the end of this game, where are we then "existing"?

Limbo? Perhaps. And there, the Quran suggests, we are being monitored so closely that what passes through our jugular vein (Sura 57, Iron) is even counted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mono

Indeed, I can.
Many religions, especially those having many followers, I have noticed, tend to declare God/Allah/Yahweh etc. as infinite in size, meaning consisting of no limits, beyond imagination and comprehension - transcendental, in essence. Stating that infinity exists inside or outside anything, in this case, contradicts the concept of infinity, meaning that a human mind may comprehend it. I particularly used this statement a few posts ago stating that a Supreme Being, according to its definition, cannot exist outside of time; time, one may notice, seems something measurable, understood, and utilized by humans, while something infinite can seem neither measured nor understood entirely and holistically...

---

Thank you for your further explanation, mono. And, I think you really have a clear and sharp thought.

Now I understand what you mean and I agree with you. Religions that tend to declare God/Allah/Yahweh/etc as transcendental in essence would face insoluble difficulty in dealing with the concept of infinity. There is a contradiction in these kind of religions.

But, I remember that there is a religion that acknowledges that God is transcendent and immanent. The God of this religion, it is told, decided to make himself knowable (thus communicable) by stripping himself down into, to use your metaphor, a "pitcher". If this God had not done that, there would've been no chance for the people of this religion (and I'd say, people of the world) to talk about God in human terms. The "pitcher" this God had poured himself into is a personality, a human being. And, the whole process, if i'm not mistaken, is called incarnation.

I think, this religion is a controversial religion. It is a subversive religion, risking its God as a subject of ridicule. But, I think if a God can only be transcendent, can't be immanent, can't make himself exist in time and space as his own creation does, then he is not at all a God.

well said bhekti

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lilac Cotton

.....and time is a circle isn't it? Divided into 360 degrees eh? 60 seconds and then 60 minutes and before you know it you have a derivitive which looks like a circle which is divided into day and night using the number 12, which we know is an arbitrary reckoning because we have proof that it can be 'altered' and must be altered depending on climate (Daylight Savings Time, GMT + 3, etc.).

Is Allah outside of time? Who knows...but it would explain alot of things like prophecy and that age old conundrum over Free Will. That is, if God knows what I am going to type next, did he force me to type it? If Allah has no limitations regarding Time then simply, he would know it to exist prior to my pitiful creation of this lackluster post.

---

Hello, Lilac Cotton, welcome to the forum.
To answer your question, I believe a Supreme Being, assuming existence, does not seem within or without time; I feel I know this confidently, but desire not to offend anyone's faith. How you applied that to concepts of free will greatly interests me. Indeed, every human action requires time, and time, itself, appears measurable, able for comprehension, and even altered, as you demonstrated, I entirely agree that a Supreme Being would 'know' (despite using a humanistic term) what you will write in this post, what will occur years from now, etc. Interesting . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhekti

Now I understand what you mean and I agree with you. Religions that tend to declare God/Allah/Yahweh/etc as transcendental in essence would face insoluble difficulty in dealing with the concept of infinity. There is a contradiction in these kind of religions.

But, I remember that there is a religion that acknowledges that God is transcendent and immanent. The God of this religion, it is told, decided to make himself knowable (thus communicable) by stripping himself down into, to use your metaphor, a "pitcher". If this God had not done that, there would've been no chance for the people of this religion (and I'd say, people of the world) to talk about God in human terms. The "pitcher" this God had poured himself into is a personality, a human being. And, the whole process, if i'm not mistaken, is called incarnation.

I think, this religion is a controversial religion. It is a subversive religion, risking its God as a subject of ridicule. But, I think if a God can only be transcendent, can't be immanent, can't make himself exist in time and space as his own creation does, then he is not at all a God.

---

You definitely have some fascinating thoughts not worth overlooking, bhekti, thanks for your response. Though I have no intention of 'preaching' my skepticism, I would also never call another's religion or faith necessarily untrue, but only in disagreement to mine. As you described, yes, some religions 'strip down,' as you said, a Supreme Being to His/Her/Its suddenly-human abilities, such as listening, responding, etc.
If it seems inside the person's praying mind that a Supreme Being listens, I will not confiscate that from him/her, nor discriminate, though some controversy will persist inside myself, as if, like you said derived from my rather rudimentary analogy, making a pitcher of water from a Supreme Being. In my opinion, infinity cannot get dissected, but I will not insult anyone else's faith or beliefs, of course. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mono

.... In my opinion, infinity cannot get dissected, but I will not insult anyone else's faith or beliefs, of course. ;)

---

I highly appreciate your humble response, mono. ;)

Would you mind if I ask you about how you get your conclusion "infinity cannot get dissected"? How am I supposed to understand the word "dissected" here? I'm trying to avoid misinterpretation.

:thumbs_up