what was here before god??

WiDGe->

seriously. does the bible say anything about this? did god create himself?

PDN

According to Habakkuk 1:12, God is eternal - "from everlasting".

There was never a time when He did not exist.

Pompey Magnus

But from a scientific point of view there was never a time when the matter in my body did not exist either. God cannot be older than the Universe. The idea that God was around before the Universe was created makes no sense in science as there was no "before". Time was created at the big bang, there was no such thing as time before the big bang.

WiDGe->

its all a bit mad isnt it?? by that i mean science and religion. we never know where we came from, and doubtless we ever will. its something that ive been struggling to realise this past while. what was here before everything?? just elements in space?? and then before that again?? so many questions!!

Akrasia

WiDGe-> wrote: »

its all a bit mad isnt it?? by that i mean science and religion. we never know where we came from, and doubtless we ever will. its something that ive been struggling to realise this past while. what was here before everything?? just elements in space?? and then before that again?? so many questions!!

There is no logical justification for the existence of god. There is no philosophical proof that works without turning into a circular argument.

There is no need for an un-caused cause or a first mover because if it is believable that a sophisticated, complex being like 'God' could exist forever, then it should be just as believable (if not more so) that the matter and energy in the universe has always existed and didn't need to be created.

kelly1

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

But from a scientific point of view there was never a time when the matter in my body did not exist either. God cannot be older than the Universe. The idea that God was around before the Universe was created makes no sense in science as there was no "before". Time was created at the big bang, there was no such thing as time before the big bang.

God exists outside of time because for Him there is only the eternal now, no past and no future. Time only exists within the created universe.

Akrasia wrote: »

There is no logical justification for the existence of god. There is no philosophical proof that works without turning into a circular argument.

True, there is no proof that God exists but it's reasonable to say that something caused the big-bang. Everything except God must have a cause.

Akrasia wrote: »

There is no need for an un-caused cause or a first mover because if it is believable that a sophisticated, complex being like 'God' could exist forever, then it should be just as believable (if not more so) that the matter and energy in the universe has always existed and didn't need to be created.

Have you not read Hawking (and Penrose)? They proved that time began with the big-bang. It's generally accepted that the universe began in a singularity but scientists don't know what caused the singularity. I would suggest that the mathematical models break down because the big-bang came out of nothing.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Everything except God must have a cause.

Er, why does god not need a cause? Why do you allow yourself a get-out clause that you deny to everybody else?

.

Pompey Magnus

Perhaps there are Über Gods which created Yahweh and will judge him, and in turn they were created by even higher Gods and so on? If we accept there is one God then why stop there?

Popinjay

robindch wrote: »

Er, why?

Because he said so! Honestly, must I explain everything.

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

Er, why?

You must know the argument for this? Assuming that God does exists, it makes no sense that God is a created being because you then have to ask the question who created God and so it goes back along an infinite chain of creator and creation. So the suggestion that God is created is absurd.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

You must know the argument for this? Assuming that God does exists, it makes no sense that God is a created being because you then have to ask the question who created God and so it goes back along an infinite chain of creator and creation. So the suggestion that God is created is absurd.

Not really. There is no logical reason to say that. Why can't the thing that created God be infinite? Why can't God have evolved from non-Godlike infinite particles?

Akrasia

kelly1 wrote: »

You must know the argument for this? Assuming that God does exists, it makes no sense that God is a created being because you then have to ask the question who created God and so it goes back along an infinite chain of creator and creation. So the suggestion that God is created is absurd.

This is the Perfect example of circular theological 'reasoning'
You say it makes no sense that God is a created being and use that to deduce that god must have existed forever.

The alternative, that God doesn't have a creator because god doesn't exist never crosses your mind.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

Not really. There is no logical reason to say that. Why can't the thing that created God be infinite? Why can't God have evolved from non-Godlike infinite particles?

Infinite in what sense Wicknight? And what are infinite particles???

Akrasia wrote: »

This is the Perfect example of circular theological 'reasoning'
You say it makes no sense that God is a created being and use that to deduce that god must have existed forever.

The alternative, that God doesn't have a creator because god doesn't exist never crosses your mind.

You may have missed the fact that I used the word "assuming". If you assume that God exists, then it's illogical to say that He was created because time began at the big-bang a finite number of years ago. You can of course also assume that God doesn't exists but then you have the big question of what created the big-bang. So you make your choice.

Akrasia

kelly1 wrote: »

True, there is no proof that God exists but it's reasonable to say that something caused the big-bang. Everything except God must have a cause.

I didn't mean physical proof, I meant a logical reason why we should believe in god, where god is necessary in order for the universe to make sense.

Have you not read Hawking (and Penrose)? They proved that time began with the big-bang. It's generally accepted that the universe began in a singularity but scientists don't know what caused the singularity. I would suggest that the mathematical models break down because the big-bang came out of nothing.

The Big Bang is one of a number of theories that attempt to explain the origin of the universe. The big bang is described as a singularity, but it is possible that the universe is infinite and creates and destroys itself in a loop that lasts for all eternity, recycling matter and energy.

We have the theory of the big bang, we also have the theory of the impending big crunch where all the matter in the universe is eventually sucked back into the center. It makes perfect sense to believe that this is part of a cycle of explosions and contractions that requires no beginning or end. Much more sense than to believe that a god created one universe out of nothing that will eventually be destroyed.

And even if there was some overarching creator. There is no logical reason why it should bare any resemblance to the judaeo christian entity this forum is devoted to

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

....True, there is no proof that God exists .....

Ah hallo?!?! What about Jesus, Noel? Was he not proof?

FruitLover

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Ah hallo?!?! What about Jesus, Noel? Was he not proof?

If some guy came up to you on the street and said "here bud, I'm the son of God!", would you consider it proof?

Akrasia

kelly1 wrote: »

Infinite in what sense Wicknight? And what are infinite particles???

You may have missed the fact that I used the word "assuming". If you assume that God exists, then it's illogical to say that He was created because time began at the big-bang a finite number of years ago. You can of course also assume that God doesn't exists but then you have the big question of what created the big-bang. So you make your choice.

Thats the whole point of circular reasoning. It can 'prove' absolutely anything you like if you make 'assumptions' without any basis.

"This kitchen fork could not have been forged by man because it is made out of enchanted steel that means it will never break, Therefore it was crafted by some kind of enchanter"
Its a perfectly valid piece of logical reasoning, except it is 100% dependent on the two propositions, that the fork is actually enchanted, and that humans or nature are incapable of replicating the properties of an enchanted fork without the need for a 'mystical enchanter'
Christians take things a step even further to say 'It must have been made by an enchanter, therefore: Gandalf the wizard must exist'. which is a logical fallacy.

bonkey

kelly1 wrote: »

You must know the argument for this? Assuming that God does exists, it makes no sense that God is a created being because you then have to ask the question who created God and so it goes back along an infinite chain of creator and creation. So the suggestion that God is created is absurd.

The original statement which was questioned stated that everything except God must have a cause.

This answer suggests that the original statement should have read : "assuming that God exists, everything except God must have a cause", which is substantially different and still not necessarily true. It doesn't prevent something other than God also existing without a cause.

It is only once we assume God exists and assume that all that is not God was created by God, do we arrive at the conclusion. However, at such a point, it should be clear that our 'conclusion' is no more than a restatement of our assumptions!

CerebralCortex

FruitLover wrote: »

If some guy came up to you on the street and said "here bud, I'm the son of God!", would you consider it proof?

No. But Noel's faith is based around the "truth" that is Jesus. Besides I don't think I was sarcastic enough for you to get it.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

You must know the argument for this? Assuming that God does exists, it makes no sense that God is a created being because you then have to ask the question who created God and so it goes back along an infinite chain of creator and creation. So the suggestion that God is created is absurd.

Yes, and the question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" is also absurd for the same reason -- because it assumes something that is not true -- in this case, that you are, or were, beating your wife.

Saying that god is uncaused violates the rule of causation that you use to "prove" god's existence.

And in any case, why cannot there be a chain of one or more gods creating each other somehow, or a god which is created at the big-bang, or some other celestial configuration? I'm sure there are hundreds or thousands of variations -- why is your one true?

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

Not really. There is no logical reason to say that. Why can't the thing that created God be infinite? Why can't God have evolved from non-Godlike infinite particles?

And you say that there is no logical reasoning behind God who exists outside of time and has existed eternally?

Honestly, this string of thread is amazing.

Depeche mode wants to rely on science to prove to him that the God of teh Christian Bible exists or doesnt exist, which amazes me because science can not prove such a thing.

Wicknight really really eants God to succumb to wicknights view on logic and resoning when God knows so much more that anyone and opertaes onlogic and reasoning that transcends any information athat we'll ever know.

BrianCalgary

Akrasia wrote: »

The alternative, that God doesn't have a creator because god doesn't exist never crosses your mind.

No because God doesn't need a creator.

Has it ever crossed your mind that God soes exist yet you refuse to acknowledge His existence?

BrianCalgary

Akrasia wrote: »

I didn't mean physical proof, I meant a logical reason why we should believe in god, where god is necessary in order for the universe to make sense.


The Big Bang is one of a number of theories that attempt to explain the origin of the universe. The big bang is described as a singularity, but it is possible that the universe is infinite and creates and destroys itself in a loop that lasts for all eternity, recycling matter and energy.

We have the theory of the big bang, we also have the theory of the impending big crunch where all the matter in the universe is eventually sucked back into the center. It makes perfect sense to believe that this is part of a cycle of explosions and contractions that requires no beginning or end. Much more sense than to believe that a god created one universe out of nothing that will eventually be destroyed.

And even if there was some overarching creator. There is no logical reason why it should bare any resemblance to the judaeo christian entity this forum is devoted to

So you have a theory called the Big Bang, the big crunch, plus a series of explosions (every explosion I have ever witnessed destroyed, didnt build up).

We have teh living Christ, who raised form teh dead others and then Himself.

You can believe in theories of explosions, I'll take Jesus Christ. And you call Christians illogical?

kelly1

Akrasia wrote: »

This is the Perfect example of circular theological 'reasoning'
You say it makes no sense that God is a created being and use that to deduce that god must have existed forever.

No, I think you're misconstruing what I'm saying. Firstly I'm assuming that God exists. If you suggest God was created, then it's logical to ask who created Him. Yes? And if you follow this logic you have to come to the conclusion that God's creator was created and so on ad infinitum. So it's illogical so think that God was created if you assume that a god exists. Yes?

Akrasia wrote: »

The alternative, that God doesn't have a creator because god doesn't exist never crosses your mind.

Of course it did!

Akrasia

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So you have a theory called the Big Bang, the big crunch, plus a series of explosions (every explosion I have ever witnessed destroyed, didnt build up).

There is a lot of scientific evidence for a big bang. There is no evidence at all for a universe created by a god in 6 days.

We have teh living Christ, who raised form teh dead others and then Himself.

You can believe in theories of explosions, I'll take Jesus Christ. And you call Christians illogical?

If you're unable to comprehend the idea of the big bang and want to reduce it down to a cartoon version of 'explosions' then just say so.

'Explosions only destroy.... Bad explosion.....'

The Big bang was an enormous release of matter and energy that over billions of years, arranged themselves through forces like gravity, magnetism and chemical reactions in the vacuum of space into the celestial bodies that make up our universe.
God is nowhere to be seen.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Infinite in what sense Wicknight? And what are infinite particles???

Infinite as in eternal and everywhere. In other words, God but without the intelligence.

kelly1 wrote: »

You may have missed the fact that I used the word "assuming". If you assume that God exists, then it's illogical to say that He was created because time began at the big-bang a finite number of years ago.

Well yes but given that we have no idea what anything was like outside of the framework of this universe it is equally illogical to say that God couldn't have been created. Assuming God exists he could exist in a space-time set up separate and independent to ours and could have been created.

I'm not saying he was. I am merely pointing out that it is as impossible for you to make judgements about the nature of a being outside of the universe as it is for me. You can no more say he is couldn't have been created as I can say he must have been created.

kelly1 wrote: »

You can of course also assume that God doesn't exists but then you have the big question of what created the big-bang. So you make your choice.

Well yes but the point is that saying "God did it" doesn't actually answer the "big question" because you are left explaining the existence of God, which to be honest seems far more difficult to explain than the Big Bang happening through a non-intelligent event.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

No, I think you're misconstruing what I'm saying. Firstly I'm assuming that God exists. If you suggest God was created, then it's logical to ask who created Him. Yes? And if you follow this logic you have to come to the conclusion that God's creator was created and so on ad infinitum. So it's illogical so think that God was created if you assume that a god exists. Yes?

There are a number of (large) jumps in your logic

If we assume that a all powerful eternal being can exist that doesn't mean that God must be himself eternal. God could have been created by a being that was eternal. God would have been created, but his creator wasn't.

Your logic only holds if you assume that an non-created eternal being cannot create another created eternal being, and since we are way way into the realm of supernatural all powerfulness I see no reason to suppose that.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And you say that there is no logical reasoning behind God who exists outside of time and has existed eternally?

No, I said that there is no logical reason to suppose that the only two possible outcomes is that God is either a non-created eternal being or what ever created him would itself have to be created and as such you end up in an infinite loop.

I see little reason why a third option, that God was created by a being that itself was not created but eternal, or even a fourth option, that God evolved naturally from non-intelligent substance.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Wicknight really really eants God to succumb to wicknights view on logic and resoning when God knows so much more that anyone and opertaes onlogic and reasoning that transcends any information athat we'll ever know.

That seems to be your excuse for everything these days.

JoeB-

The point is that the universe itself may be eternal and infinite... but to posit the existence of an infinite creator is pure folly.

After all the universe is known to exist (and so an explanation for it's existence must be forthcoming) whereas God is only conjecture. The second, important, point is that the complexity we observe in the universe comes from the application of simple rules... there can be no answer to the complexity of a creator god as rules don't apply to him, he simply popped into existence.

So the universe is simple and structured, God however, with his traits is most definitely not simple and is completely arbitrary.... so it is very difficult to explain how such a complex being could simply be?

If you accept God you may as well believe in any number of creator gods, each creating more and all being infinite in nature.

Read Hawkins 'Brief History of Time' for a good explanation which is godless... or Dawkins who shatters the argument the God doesn't himself need a cause or creator.

The universe evolves, it started simply, then gradually became more complex. (The universe may not have 'started' in some senses, to say it 'started' may just be an analogy which is the closest our current understanding can come to explaining it)

God himself is quite simply unbelieveable... but to attach human characteristics and traits to him is even worse folly.

As I asked before, God would instantly become depressed and suicidal if he is as described, have you considered this or do you have any answer to it? (After all, like Noel says he is trapped in an eternal 'present', what torture that must be)

JoeB-

The point is that the universe itself may be eternal and infinite... but to posit the existence of an infinite creator is pure folly.

After all the universe is known to exist (and so an explanation for it's existence must be forthcoming) whereas God is only conjecture. The second, important, point is that the complexity we observe in the universe comes from the application of simple rules... there can be no answer to the complexity of a creator god as rules don't apply to him, he simply popped into existence.

So the universe is simple and structured, God however, with his traits is most definitely not simple and is completely arbitrary.... so it is very difficult to explain how such a complex being could simply be?

If you accept God you may as well believe in any number of creator gods, each creating more and all being infinite in nature.

Read Hawkins 'Brief History of Time' for a good explanation which is godless... or Dawkins who shatters the argument the God doesn't himself need a cause or creator.

The universe evolves, it started simply, then gradually became more complex. (The universe may not have 'started' in some senses, to say it 'started' may just be an analogy which is the closest our current understanding can come to explaining it)

God himself is quite simply unbelieveable... but to attach human characteristics and traits to him is even worse folly.

As I asked before, God would instantly become depressed and suicidal if he is as described, have you considered this or do you have any answer to it? (After all, like Noel says he is trapped in an eternal 'present', what torture that must be)

Fanny Cradock

JoeBallantine wrote: »

The point is that the universe itself may be eternal and infinite... but to posit the existence of an infinite creator is pure folly.

Fanny Cradock

I just had to post, I couldn't just leave it at a smiley, Joe . The irony in your sentence amused me. I love the way you make your own leaps of faith about the eternal and the infinite nature of the universe - concepts you would have to agree are beyond our comprehension - but then deny others the same privilege in relation to God, an eternal and infinite being.

I was slightly taken aback by your definitive statement in relation to the simplistic nature of the universe. Now, unless you are furrowing away at the forefront of quantum mechanics (or some other near incomprehensible division of physics), and are soon planning to unveil your 'theory of everything', I wonder how you can prop up such a bold theory? My understanding of the universe, which I admit is mostly cobbled together from a host of BB2 documentaries, was that it is a fiendishly complex thing.

Ah, maybe you are right, though. The universe could be just a simple affair - lets forget about all about quarks and leptons and all those other funny things that pop into and out of existence. At this stage who can say for certain what the answers are? I'll just have to keep watching those documentaries in hope that I find out soon.

Theories of the workings of the universe aside, I do have to take exception to the underlying thrust of your post, Joe. From my perspective you seem to think that our understanding of the universe ('which one?' I here you ask) is a thing to beat over the heads of Christians (please excuse the hyperbole). It's not though! Indeed, many people quite happily marry the two together - even to the point of praising God through their pursuit of scientific wonders! That science hasn't sunk God must be a bitter pill to swallow. I can only imaging that from your perspective this must seem incomprehensible - hence your post.

Finally - it's late after all - I again take exception to another of yoru claims. Specifically, that God is 'quite simply unbelievable'. The very fact that you are debating on a Christian forum with Christians should provide sufficient proof to sink that theory. People do believe in God, Joe. They also love him and recognise his love for them. And who knows - maybe one day you will too

Húrin

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

But from a scientific point of view there was never a time when the matter in my body did not exist either. God cannot be older than the Universe. The idea that God was around before the Universe was created makes no sense in science as there was no "before". Time was created at the big bang, there was no such thing as time before the big bang.

I suspect that God is capable of existing in planes, and times (if you will) that human rationality cannot understand.

iUseVi

kelly1 wrote: »

Firstly I'm assuming that God exists.

Well there's your problem.

Akrasia

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I just had to post, I couldn't just leave it at a smiley, Joe . The irony in your sentence amused me. I love the way you make your own leaps of faith about the eternal and the infinite nature of the universe - concepts you would have to agree are beyond our comprehension - but then deny others the same privilege in relation to God, an eternal and infinite being.

There is a significant difference. We know the universe exists, and we can engage in educated speculate about the nature of its existence. On the other hand, speculating about the nature of god is a lot like discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I was slightly taken aback by your definitive statement in relation to the simplistic nature of the universe. Now, unless you are furrowing away at the forefront of quantum mechanics (or some other near incomprehensible division of physics), and are soon planning to unveil your 'theory of everything', I wonder how you can prop up such a bold theory? My understanding of the universe, which I admit is mostly cobbled together from a host of BB2 documentaries, was that it is a fiendishly complex thing.

The universe is very complex, but it is made up of lots of very simple elements. It is their interactions that creates the complexity and diversity and poses such a challenge for us to understand it all. (plus the problem that the building blocks are very very small and difficult for us to measure, we're only now developing the technology)

Ah, maybe you are right, though. The universe could be just a simple affair - lets forget about all about quarks and leptons and all those other funny things that pop into and out of existence. At this stage who can say for certain what the answers are? I'll just have to keep watching those documentaries in hope that I find out soon.

These funny things probably are very simple once we figure out what they do. Our problem is with measuring and isolating them due to the scale of their world. Eventually science will probably figure these things out.

Theories of the workings of the universe aside, I do have to take exception to the underlying thrust of your post, Joe. From my perspective you seem to think that our understanding of the universe ('which one?' I here you ask) is a thing to beat over the heads of Christians (please excuse the hyperbole). It's not though! Indeed, many people quite happily marry the two together - even to the point of praising God through their pursuit of scientific wonders! That science hasn't sunk God must be a bitter pill to swallow. I can only imaging that from your perspective this must seem incomprehensible - hence your post.

It is a nail in the coffin of christianity, a religion that becomes more and more redundant the more we learn about the universe. Some physicists are deists who believe that there is some over arching force in the universe, but there is absolutely no reason to believe that it has anything to do with the judaeo christian god

Finally - it's late after all - I again take exception to another of yoru claims. Specifically, that God is 'quite simply unbelievable'. The very fact that you are debating on a Christian forum with Christians should provide sufficient proof to sink that theory. People do believe in God, Joe. They also love him and recognise his love for them. And who knows - maybe one day you will too

People used to believe in Thor and Zeus too. They're pretty unbelievable now

Akrasia

Húrin wrote: »

I suspect that God is capable of existing in planes, and times (if you will) that human rationality cannot understand.

Why would god create people that are incapable of understanding him, and then demand that we worship him?

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

Well yes but given that we have no idea what anything was like outside of the framework of this universe it is equally illogical to say that God couldn't have been created. Assuming God exists he could exist in a space-time set up separate and independent to ours and could have been created.

I'm not saying he was. I am merely pointing out that it is as impossible for you to make judgements about the nature of a being outside of the universe as it is for me. You can no more say he is couldn't have been created as I can say he must have been created.

Did you read my posts at all? You say God could have been created, but created by what?? Don't you see that it's absurd to say that God was created?

Akrasia

it is absurd to say that god is the un caused cause.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

There are a number of (large) jumps in your logic

If we assume that a all powerful eternal being can exist that doesn't mean that God must be himself eternal. God could have been created by a being that was eternal. God would have been created, but his creator wasn't.

Are you for real? Sounds like you're proposing an argument for the existence of God! By definition, God is the only eternal being and the only creator. Have you changed sides?

Wicknight wrote: »

Your logic only holds if you assume that an non-created eternal being cannot create another created eternal being, and since we are way way into the realm of supernatural all powerfulness I see no reason to suppose that.

There you go again! A created being cannot by definition be eternal. Both terms are mutually exclusive.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

You say God could have been created, but created by what??

By what isn't really important. The important bit is that you have no grounds to say that God could not have been created. If we want to start assuming all powerful supernatural beings exist it is entirely possible to imagine a being that could have created God.

kelly1

Akrasia wrote: »

it is absurd to say that god is the un caused cause.

Can you please explain why?

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Are you for real? Sounds like you're proposing an argument for the existence of God! By definition, God is the only eternal being and the only creator.

No, by religious belief God is the only eternal being. That isn't the same thing.

If you are going to accept that it is possible your God exists It is entirely possible to envision other eternal beings.

kelly1 wrote: »

A created being cannot by definition be eternal. Both terms are mutually exclusive.

Only in time. But then God exists outside of time does he not?

God could have been created outside of time and still would be eternal from the point of view of our time.

BTW I am not attempting to argue that any of this is real.

My point is that it is rather silly to start making assertions that God as you understand it is the only logical answer to various questions.

Your concept of God is not logical but theological. There is no logical reason why any of the things you believe about God have to be the only possible solution.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

By what isn't really important. The important bit is that you have no grounds to say that God could not have been created. If we want to start assuming all powerful supernatural beings exist it is entirely possible to imagine a being that could have created God.

You've missed my point again.

OK, we have being 'A' whom we think might be God. If something created 'A', then that something, being 'B' must either be uncreated or created. If that being 'B' is uncreated then by definition, that being is God. If being 'B' is created, then we have to find another creator, being 'C'. An on and on it goes until you find an uncreated being.

But why go along this chain at all. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to have just one eternal uncreated being? Otherwise you end up with loads of created 'gods' and one true God.

PDN

If we are using the word 'God' in its usual sense on this board of a supreme eternal Being, then anything that is created cannot, by definition, be God. Whoever created whatever you previously thought of as God would then become God.

The concept of a created eternal Being is a logical impossibility.

Akrasia

kelly1 wrote: »

Can you please explain why?

If the universe needed a cause, then so did god.

It is absurd to try and justify your belief in god by claiming that something had to create the universe (appealing to the law of cause and effect) and then completely ignoring that same law when referring to god.

(please don't post something like 'god doesn't need to obey laws' I'm referring to the logic that you use)

Either the law of cause and effect is true, or it isn't. If everything needs a cause then so does god, and if there are some exceptions to the law, then it makes much more sense to simply assume that the universe itself is such an exception (and then you don't need to invent a supernatural entity)


And this whole discussion is mute anyway when we consider that the bible creation story is laughably inconsistent with the scientific evidence that we have available to us.
The earth is not the centre of the universe, we are probably not even the only planet in the universe that has intelligent life.

Akrasia

PDN wrote: »

If we are using the word 'God' in its usual sense on this board of a supreme eternal Being, then anything that is created cannot, by definition, be God. Whoever created whatever you previously thought of as God would then become God.

The concept of a created eternal Being is a logical impossibility.

Only on the basis of a definition of god that theologens have invented out of thin air.

Tomk1

So Kelly1 STATES: (because of divine knowledge)

kelly1 wrote: »

God exists outside of time because for Him there is only the eternal now, no past and no future. Time only exists within the created universe.

If your god exists outside of "time":) why interact with humans 6000-2000 years ago but not today.Also if your god is eternal, why why why create humans. According to religion the only purpose of us humans is to worship, seems abit pointless. If humans are your gods attempt for ofsprings then it could make more sence.

kelly1 wrote: »

True, there is no proof that God exists but it's reasonable to say that something caused the big-bang. Everything except God must have a cause.

Agree Kelly1: There is no proof that god exists, we both agree.
There is prove of the big bang, fine we don't know ALL, but life would be pretty boring if we knew ALL.

Anyway the big bang contradicts the ironage book "Bible" by which Ussher calculated the universe as 6000years old. so do you believe the big bang happened or in the magic 6-days.

What did your god do on the 8-day

Stompbox

BrianCalgary wrote: »

No because God doesn't need a creator.

Has it ever crossed your mind that God soes exist yet you refuse to acknowledge His existence?

Has it ever crossed your mind that God's creation is impossible hence God does not exist?

Honestly, this whole arguement is entirely fruitless and will yield no answers. It's likely we'll never know the truth of our existence which happens to be incredibly annoying.

philologos

Sweet wrote: »

Has it ever crossed your mind that God's creation is impossible hence God does not exist?

Honestly, this whole arguement is entirely fruitless and will yield no answers. It's likely we'll never know the truth of our existence which happens to be incredibly annoying.

That's subject to opinion also. The prophets came for a reason, and that was to tell us of God's nature, through personal experiences and prayer, I have also come to know God better than I ever had before. Understandably some people do get confused at how Christians come to this conclusion, it's down to experience, and down to rational thinking and thought from Christian philosophers, and from the historical evidence that links the Biblical narratives to the times that they were written in. Truly intriguing stuff.

Tomk1

Jakkass:

Jakkass wrote: »

The prophets came for a reason, and that was to tell us of God's nature, through personal experiences and prayer

What has this to do with What was there before god? I would call "Stephen Hawkins, Einstein" prophets of reason & personal experience

Just because someone runs around saying their god speaks to them and that "the end is nigh" just means they ought to seak therapy, but every crazy will find followers.

philologos

Tomk1 wrote: »

Jakkass:


What has this to do with What was there before god? I would call "Stephen Hawkins, Einstein" prophets of reason & personal experience

Just because someone runs around saying their god speaks to them and that "the end is nigh" just means they ought to seak therapy, but every crazy will find followers.

Slightly off topic, but I was responding to Sweets post about how we will never find answers. Arguably a small amount of the answers have already been recieved through the prophets.

Perhaps some consider Einstein, and Stephen Hawking to be prophets in that regard. However they do not have the authority as prophets of God, this is what I'm concerned with.