Where and when was God formed?

[coldcreation]

Happy New Year CC. Within the yadas was indeed a tasty bit of mind food to begin the new year. I am right with you on the universe being eternal. Gravity as the form of God? Hmmm...

 

Bill

 

I didn't want to imply that I thought gravity was god.

 

My personal view on He has been made clear in other threads.

 

Here it is again for those who missed it:

 

Man created god, not the other way around.

 

That answers, albeit indirectly, the question of this thread: Where and when was God formed?

 

When: He was formed probably when primitive homonid bipeds tried to expain things like a mango falls (instead of floating away) from a tree. Or why bananas grew from a seed turned green, then yellow, then brown, then withered away to nothing.

 

Where: That could have been in Africa (I have no reason to doubt the "out-of-Africa-theory.")

 

Coldcreation

 

Coldcreation

[questor]

CC, here again is shown the inability of many to separate the idea of a man made concept of a creator from the possible existence of a supreme being. why is it so difficult to imagine the universe without man or the earth. without that ability all these arguments fall back on the same old refrain. ''God is a creation of man's mind'' that is true, but in the absence of man, the universe would still exist. the question them becomes how was the universe itself created. that is the question to be argued. whatever event caused the universe to be or if it was always here, something created or caused to happen at different time periods, stellar formation and death, fission and fusion, formation of elements and all the other physical forces and

laws that are apparent. the basic question is, what do you believe caused this to happen? you believe in cold creation. what do you think initiated this process,

and if it is not still occurring, why not?

[coldcreation]

CC, here again is shown the inability of many to separate the idea of a man made concept of a creator from the possible existence of a supreme being. why is it so difficult to imagine the universe without man or the earth. without that ability all these arguments fall back on the same old refrain. ''God is a creation of man's mind'' that is true, but in the absence of man, the universe would still exist. the question them becomes how was the universe itself created. that is the question to be argued. whatever event caused the universe to be or if it was always here, something created or caused to happen at different time periods, stellar formation and death, fission and fusion, formation of elements and all the other physical forces and

laws that are apparent. the basic question is, what do you believe caused this to happen? you believe in cold creation. what do you think initiated this process,

and if it is not still occurring, why not?

 

Hello Questor,

You do raise interesting points, but no one ever said it was difficult to imagine the universe without man or the earth. It is not difficult at all. In that case there would be no such thing as god. The universe evolves without something supreme, supernatural, superior, divine, metaphysical.

 

There simply is no need to introduce an outside (or even inside) force other than those that are already known (the four forces of nature).

 

An infinite universe is not created at any given time. Certainly, chemical creation, or fusion does occur. It is doubtful that galaxies have always existed, as postulated in the quasi-steady state cosmology model. Why, to the ladder, is beyond the scope of this thread. So too is the concept of the Coldcreation theory. (For that, and hence, for the answer to your last four questions above, see the thread titled Material Creation. There, you will note that no matter how far back in time you wish to consider, the universe will always contain, zero point fluctuations of zero point (or ground state) energy, ZPF, ZPE, and to that, you can include zero point gravitation, ZPG©. The universe could never have been at any time during its history a perfectly flat, isotropic, homogenous, stable equilibrium state. That state would violate GR, QM and thermodynamics.)

 

It is via ZPF and interactions of the irreducible ZPE that evolution was inevitable, without a creator.

 

Had there been no physical explanation for evolution (in the large-scale sense of the term, not solely Darwinian), the creator idea would have still been untenable. As there simply is no way to explain IT by physical means.

 

I disagree with someone above that says we have a limited capability of conceptualizing, visualizing or imagining all possible histories of the universe. This unlimited imagination, ironically, is what permits us to invent concepts such as He, and such as evolution in accord with natural laws. The only problem is then to disentangle, distinguish between those histories that are possible and those that are not (or at least very unlikely), i.e., that are pure machination.

 

Coldcreation

[questor]

CC, you still haven't dealt with the fact that your suppositions have not been proved. you speak with certainty about theories. when the data is all in, then we decide about the beginning of the universe and life. your data may point a certain way to you, but not to the majority of the scientific community.

[coldcreation]

CC, you still haven't dealt with the fact that your suppositions have not been proved. you speak with certainty about theories. when the data is all in, then we decide about the beginning of the universe and life. your data may point a certain way to you, but not to the majority of the scientific community.

 

Data doesn't point in a certain direction, interpretations of it do. The question really is: which interpretation and the predictions therof best fit the observational data. There is more, much more. If the data does not fit the prediction, either the theory must be changed (if possible without dark matter, dark energy, or god) or abandoned.

 

cc

[questor]

yes, unless the data is incomplete, flawed, or misinterpreted.

[Tarantism]

you guys are wasting your time.

 

there is no god. im sorry to say that he does not exist. if you want to believe it that is your buisness. eventually, however, some innovative "god-questioning scientist" is going to discover something, be it an extention of string theory or otherwise, that will describe some process that we cannot yet explain an that scientist will disprove god. it is bound to happen.

 

///

[coldcreation]

Data doesn't point in a certain direction, interpretations of it do. The question really is: which interpretation and the predictions thereof best fit the observational data. There is more, much more. If the data does not fit the prediction, either the theory must be changed (if possible without dark matter, dark energy, or god) or abandoned.

 

cc

 

Just to finish up with this thought. (Yesterday I was distracted).

There is of course data that does not require as much interpretation as other data. Data that points directly to the increase (or non-decrease) of entropy with time, and the conservation of energy are some examples: that is why these are attached to physical laws.

 

Keep in mind too that data is never "all in." There is always more to be collected.

 

Where is the data for your belief, beside the apparintion of the leg of Jesus in St. John's cave at Patmos.

 

cc

[Vending]

you guys are wasting your time.

 

there is no god. im sorry to say that he does not exist. if you want to believe it that is your buisness. eventually, however, some innovative "god-questioning scientist" is going to discover something, be it an extention of string theory or otherwise, that will describe some process that we cannot yet explain an that scientist will disprove god. it is bound to happen.

 

///

 

Actually, there is no possible way to disprove that a god exists. At least not using science. There were always be things that lie within the realm of science that science will be unable to prove. This stems from the fact that science demands of itself that it be logically valid and that Godel guy proved that any logical system powerful enough to be usefull can never be self-consitant.

 

Thus there will always ALWAYS be unanswered questions in science and there will always be people that claim that god fits into these unanswered questions.

 

--------

 

On another note, i always find it interesting that (on both sides of the debate) people assume that if we can explain all the natural phenomenon then that must mean there is no god. This seems like quite a jump to me. I mean, let us postulate that there is a god and that he followed the "watchmaker" senario. That is, he made the universe in such a way that it would function by well-defined rules and that it would contunue to do so for the rest of time. Then we would expect that all the natural laws could be worked out and understood (ignoring the godel thing, for now), yet there would have still been a god.

 

The point is this, people cannot know everything. If there is a god, then there is not nessesarily any contraints placed on his actions. Therefore, there is no way to ever prove that he does not exist. There will always be someway to belive in a god that is logically consistant with everything that we know. That is just the facts. Trying to argue that god (in general) does not exist will never be able to yeild a positive result.

 

Now that is not to say that such discussions are not INTERESTING...

[Abstruce]

you guys are wasting your time.

 

there is no god. im sorry to say that he does not exist.

 

To complicate this argument is to perform mental masturbation.

 

All Gods do exist in religious folklore, folklore is substantiated by faith that exist in the the mind of the individual religious fundamentalist, this is fact.

 

The final fact. All Gods are man made.

[HydrogenBond]

If we go back to genesis; the universe was formless and void and spirit of God was brooding over the deep..., Let there be light, etc. From this one can loosely deduce that God is not energy or matter. Therefore God can not be composed of the physical substance found in our universe.

 

If God can create light out of a void, and God is not light, he would have to be composed of a substance from which light can form. I still like the idea of particles moving faster than C. The speed of light is the limit of the physical universe. But C did not appear in the void universe until after God said, let there be C. A slow down from C+ should theoretcially be able to form a C limited universe.

 

At C we have total time dilation, according to special relativity. As such, energy is a particle with an eternal reference. Something faster than C would also have an eternal reference but being faster than C should have a little extra time potential to it. It can create eternal things and still exist.

[Abstruce]

If we go back to genesis; the universe was formless and void and spirit of God was brooding over the deep..., Let there be light, etc. From this one can loosely deduce that God is not energy or matter. Therefore God can not be composed of the physical substance found in our universe.

 

Lets play the insanity of Christianity.

 

If God created light on the first day along with day and night.

 

What then was the reason he needed to create the Sun and the Moon on the third day?:)

 

One last thing that proves Judaism is bogus, the fossil record.

 

Dinosaurs eat fish.:evil:

[Rincewind]

If God created light on the first day along with day and night.

 

What then was the reason he needed to create the Sun and the Moon on the third day?

I read ages ago that the belief of the ancient (I think) Sumerians, was that light and dark were the properties of day and night -- they were specific entities -- and that the sun, moon and stars were there merely to enhance the day and night.

[Southtown]

Lets play the insanity of Christianity.

 

If God created light on the first day along with day and night.

 

What then was the reason he needed to create the Sun and the Moon on the third day?:)

Ya, I've already designed and fabricated the coffee table, why do I need to put it in my house?

 

One last thing that proves Judaism is bogus, the fossil record.

 

Dinosaurs eat fish.;)

“

15 Behold now, behemoth, which I made as well as thee; He eateth grass as an ox.

16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, And his force is in the muscles of his belly.

17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: The sinews of his thighs are knit together.

18 His bones are as tubes of brass; His limbs are like bars of iron.

19 He is the chief of the ways of God: He only that made him giveth him his sword.

20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, Where all the beasts of the field do play.

21 He lieth under the lotus-trees, In the covert of the reed, and the fen.

22 The lotus-trees cover him with their shade; The willows of the brook compass him about.

23 Behold, if a river overflow, he trembleth not; He is confident, though a Jordan swell even to his mouth.”

—

Job 40:15-23

[Rincewind]

If God created light on the first day along with day and night.

 

What then was the reason he needed to create the Sun and the Moon on the third day?

Ya, I've already designed and fabricated the coffee table, why do I need to put it in my house?

Eh? I don't understand. :)

[questor]

if God was the Creator, then he was here before creation. if man was made in his image, then he is shaped like a man. if he is omni-present, then he is everywhere. so far, i don't recall that anyone on this site has actually defined

and described what he means by the word God. are we talking God of the Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. it is totally ludicrous to argue points without defining the point you are arguing.

[coldcreation]

if God was the Creator, then he was here before creation. if man was made in his image, then he is shaped like a man. if he is omni-present, then he is everywhere. so far, i don't recall that anyone on this site has actually defined

and described what he means by the word God. are we talking God of the Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. it is totally ludicrous to argue points without defining the point you are arguing.

 

It's your thread. If you want to define go ahead. For now, the term is well enough know for those interested to make up their own mind as to what IT may or may not be.

 

Before creation (bb) is too speculative, ludicrous, even in cosmology.

 

Here's my take on image:

 

He was created in mans image, (not the other way around).

 

cc