WHERE DOES GOD COME FROM?

-- PUNKER (GREG_PISAHOV@HOTMAIL.COM), January 09, 2005

Answers

Ever hear of Steady state theory? Its the theory that stated that he Universe came form no where and has always existed eternally, only matter sifs form palce to place...

This was disproven for th Universe, and applies to God alone. He is eternal, thus came form no where...

Before you tell me this makes no sence, I remidn you that the top, leadign sicntists of yesteryear beelived in steady state till the big bang theory came along...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 09, 2005.

God does not come from anywhere. God exists independantly of the universe, outside of time. being outside of time, there is no creation period for God, only eternal existance.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 09, 2005.

God comes from man. He is a creation of man's imagination. He can be whatever you want him to be. So go for it! Create the God of your dreams to comfort you in times of need.

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), January 14, 2005.

On what basis do you make such a claim Bonzo? Do you have a god that is a figment of your imagination? If so, then that is something you're going to have to deal with.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), January 14, 2005.

Well Bonzo, that brings you right back to the question "where did man come from?". The universe? Matter and energy? Surely you cannot believe that physical matter is eternal? That would violate the most essential theorem of science - causality. If you can offer a rational explanation for the existence of the physical universe, without reference to an initial cause, I'll listen. Until then I'll continue to call the initial, uncaused cause "God".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 14, 2005.

Response to Oliver Fischer:

Just look at the posts by ZAROVE and paul h. Where do they get this stuff about God? From some scientific journal? They are just fantasizing.

Response to Paul M.:

If science says that everything must have a cause then your position that God is the uncaused cause is scientifically untenable, correct? But that presents no difficulty for you because as a product of your imagination God can have whatever powers and attributes you choose to give him, unfettered by the rules of logic or science.

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), January 14, 2005.

but what is then the cause of everything we have today bonzo's cousin?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 14, 2005.

> "If science says that everything must have a cause then your position that God is the uncaused cause is scientifically untenable, correct?"

A: Absolutely correct! The only rational, logical, tenable explanation for the existence of all that is scientifically tenable is a primordial uncaused cause which is thereby scientifically untenable. Otherwise you are left with the rationally untenable position of scientifically tenable reality being the cause of itself - or having no cause at all - either of which is a rationally and therefore scientifically untenable position. Simple, no?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 14, 2005.

The scary thing is I actually understood what you said, though I couldn't repeat it to save my life :-)

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), January 14, 2005.

sdqa wrote:

but what is then the cause of everything we have today bonzo's cousin?

My response:

We don't know -- yet. There is a lot more that we need to learn about the workings of time, space, matter, and energy before we can reasonably expect to come close to an answer.

Think of how far we've come in just the last 500 years in understanding our world! Along the way the "word of God" has been pretty much discredited in the process.

One thing we know for sure is that man has a long track record of attributing to God those things that he does not understand. Thunder, rain, lightening, human ailments, natural disasters -- all of these things were once thought to have been directly caused by one god or another.

As we learn how our world works we also learn that God is nowhere to be found in any of it, so we have to push God further and further back -- to the beginning of the universe -- to find any place for him.

All that we can do for now is to be humble enough to admit that we don't know where the matter and energy for the Big Bang came from, but to keep searching for the answer and to avoid the mistakes of our ancestors in using "God" as a cop-out.

Paul M. wrote:

> "If science says that everything must have a cause then your position that God is the uncaused cause is scientifically untenable, correct?"

A: Absolutely correct! The only rational, logical, tenable explanation for the existence of all that is scientifically tenable is a primordial uncaused cause which is thereby scientifically untenable. Otherwise you are left with the rationally untenable position of scientifically tenable reality being the cause of itself - or having no cause at all - either of which is a rationally and therefore scientifically untenable position. Simple, no?

My response:

So to resolve this predicament you choose to create out of thin air a being that transcends the laws of nature? I can do the same thing. I can create a world where pigs fly and donkeys write opera. I can create a world of fairies and leprechauns. The evidence for the existance of such creatures is no less than the evidence for the existance of God.

Furthermore, the basic premise of your argument -- that causality is "the most essential theorem of science" -- is no longer true. Quantum mechanics has observed a spontaneity and arbitrariness in nature that disproves the theory that everything that happens must have a cause.

Mankind is just taking his first baby steps in understanding our universe. But since you already know that God is the answer then perhaps we should replace our science books with Bibles?

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), January 14, 2005.

God has revealed His existence to men in many ways. As far as I know flying pigs have not. It is the height of ignorance to say "I have not personally experienced XYZ, therefore XYZ cannot exist. It must be the product of someone's imagination, based on my own lack of experience". Millions of people have personally experienced God's presence. Therefore He is real by experience, and your personal lack of experience cannot be taken as meaningful. Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. the collective experience of millions of people should serve as sufficient evidence for any thinking person, even thoase who lack such personal experience.

Quantum mechanics, at least at its current primitive stage of development, is a branch of philosphy rather than hard science. In any case, any unproven theories proposed through such philosophical/scientific arguments are still descriptive of events occurring within the context of an already existing universe. Therefore they are irrelevant to the question of original origins.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 14, 2005.

but what is then the cause of everything we have today bonzo's cousin?

My response:

We don't know -- yet.

{tHEN WHY SO SWIFT TO SAY THAT i AND EVERYONE ELSE HERE ARE JUST FANTASISING? yOU CANT DISPROVE gOD CREATED THE uNIVERSE, YO JUST INSTEAD PREFER TO DISMIS THE IDEA AND SYA ITS UNSCENTIFIC, EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE NO SICNEITIFC REASON FOR REJECTING gOD'S EXSTANCE SINCE, AS YOU ADMIT NOW, YOU DONT KNOW...}-Zarove

There is a lot more that we need to learn about the workings of time, space, matter, and energy before we can reasonably expect to come close to an answer.

{what if the answer turns out to be God? Oh thats right, God doesnt eixsta nd is a fantasy, and you knwo this as an absolute fact. even thoguh you cant prove where the Universe came form and cant prove anyhting at all aboutthe Nonexistance of God, you knwo he doesnt eixst, thereofrehe doesnt...}-Zarove

Think of how far we've come in just the last 500 years in understanding our world! Along the way the "word of God" has been pretty much discredited in the process.

{No, it hasnt. Only because of you narrow minded bogotry you even say this.

Many great men of God who BELEIVED the Bibel where out greatest sicnetists. They didnt reject the Bible, or turn a blind eye to it, or disprive it dispite themselves, instead they saw there sicnetific work as contributing to an understandin gof God's creation.

Issac Newton alone wrote over a Million words about Bible Prophecy.

The torubl is, you tend to vewi the Bibel as soemthign its not. its a Book of History, spirituality, mroals, wisdom, and virtue. its not a sicnetific textbook, and the onlys icneces that can direclty beenfit form the Bible are the Archeological sicneces, and then only for hte middle east, the Psycological sicneces, as it reveals mankind, and the Environmental sicneces, and hten limtedly.

peakign abothte "Discreddited" bible, did you know that when the Bibelw as written most cultues tilled the soil every year. God told the Israelites to let it rest on the sevens, the "Jubalee" year.

It turns out the innacitate Bible which is always discredited was right. If yo let the soil rest, your crop yeold for subsequent years is better.

anothe thing, the Bible disadvocated the eatign of Pork. 3500 eyar after Moses delivered this law, modern medical sicnece confirms that Pork is indeed unhealty for you.

Another interestign fac tint he Bible. It says that ones mental state can effect your health, and was right aain.

So, the Bibel beign pretty much discredted over and over again may just be your poor undersaindng of it. after all, other than the creation story, you relaly havent demonstrated how the WOLE Bible is completley discredited, and that asusmes your right baotu the Creaiton acocint.

So far, thats the ONLY hting you have been aboe to even remotley argue agaisnt.

What OTHER parts of the Bible outside of the Book of Genesis are relaly discredited in tour eiw, really?}-Zarove

One thing we know for sure is that man has a long track record of attributing to God those things that he does not understand.

{Not really.}-Zarove

Thunder, rain, lightening, human ailments, natural disasters -- all of these things were once thought to have been directly caused by one god or another.

{But not THE God, that WE beleive in. Though we do beelive God govenrs all naturalprccesses, we accept them as Natural proccesses by and large, and always have, even in the Old testament...}-Zarove

As we learn how our world works we also learn that God is nowhere to be found in any of it, so we have to push God further and further back --

{At leats in your imagination. But hey, if we say God exists we are just diluting outselves because we liek to think we have all the answers. and your open idned.

after all, you reject God's existance, that automaticlaly makes you a freethinke, and we beelive in God, that makes us superstitious boobs, right?

arent you beign a bit simplistic? we havent moved God back any. Heck, I spoke to a PH.D yesterday, she holds a PH.D in Biological sicneces and was enterign molecular Biology at oen tme, tll she shifted interests.

She was trained at ultraliberal Berkely ( Same as my cousnilor oddly).

she beelives iN God.

Maybe, jsyt maybe, we arent all that are theists as narrow midned as you woudl liek to beelive.

Maybe, jst maybe, you arent as open midned as you beleive yourself to be.

and maybe we havent relaly pushed God that far back at all.

Bt then, you arent intereste din learnign what we beelive and why, you just asisme we beelive in God without wueatsiona nd use him as a cop-out, and you knwo the turhthtat "god" doesnt exist and are so smart and knwo that sicnece alway discredits the Bible.

Maye your the oen who just htinks sicnece trumps the Bile and use this as your crutch fr dealign withthe world, eer tink aboutt that?}- Zarove

to the beginning of the universe -- to find any place for him.

{I have a palce for him in my life to-day. I didnt move him tot he Beginnign and leav ehm thre, allong natural explanatiosn only for day- to-day events.

I beleive in Modern iracles , the same as the Bible.

I beelive in Modern revelaitons, same as the Bible.

I beleive he speaks and guides us to this day, same as in the Bible.

I likewise belive he i active it he world, both causign soem natural events, and ailments, and suhc, an curign them, and is ocergin tot his day.

I beelive, because I know. Ive seen too much in sicnce itsself to knwo God is active there.

We know now, for nstance, that on a quantum Level, paticles repsond to thought. The whole Universe reponds to ow we think it shodul be.

But no single Human mind, or cllective Human and animal mnd, coudl posibley encompass the whoel Universe.

soemthin must, for the quantum particles to react properly.

This fact alone lead many hysisists to God. Its sicnetific, and factusl, and imposisble to ognore, if you knwo the facts.

But alas, you dotn undertsand what God is, and wish to make him a man wih a white flowing beard whio lives itn eh sky, a primiteve supersition we havent shaken, and ignore the obviosu qieasiksn of why this superstition arose. why i man innately reliious, as has itsself been prpven time and again?

It doesnt rellay help naturlaistic sirvival, so why evovle it? And exaclty wat mind is holdign the Universe togather\\? We know osoehign must...}-Zarove

All that we can do for now is to be humble enough to admit that we don't know where the matter and energy for the Big Bang came from,

{ Humility also demands that you accept that you dont know for a fact that God doesnt exist, and cannot discount him as a posisble creator. But you do, and claim sicnce has discredite dthe bibel wholly and God doesnt exist. This is arrogance, not humility.}-Zarove

but to keep searching for the answer and to avoid the mistakes of our ancestors in using "God" as a cop-out.

{we dotn use God as a cop-put, we know he crearted everyhting. Ther eis a difference.one you wont see, but it is there noentheless.

whatever createdthe Univere is God by default, by th way. Just read psinoza and Kant soemtimes... By the wya, neither Kant nor psinoza where Christains...Spinoza was a Jew who rejeted supernaturalism, and beelived God wa sidentical to the Universe. a Pantheist. in his veiw, the natural proccesses and frms that direct our existance alone ar what the ancients called God. thius God must exist in the Spinozanworldveiw, but wa nto a personal God.

Kant argued that whatever power came about tat caused us must be uncaused, adthus is God, even if the Bile where whlly mythical.}- Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 15, 2005.

We have a genius on board. He says ''Quantum mechanics has observed a spontaneity and arbitrariness in nature that disproves the theory that everything that happens must have a cause.''

Looks hard to understand, doesn't it? Not.

Bonzo Man says: ''in nature''. But if there's no one to create the nature, spontaneous & arbitrary as it might be, where does nature start? It had to be TRUE, first; not a leaking or imaginary nature. The Creator of it all has to capture every iota, even the invisible gravity attracting and repelling the iota, the moons, the universes. It is faultless except for the quantum mechanics which God gave it. Otherwise, God doesn't hold it in existence.

Name the power, Bonzo; what was it, He, Who? Nothing brings ITSELF into existence. Not even an imaginary one, because without somebody to imagine it, where can it come from?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 15, 2005.

Even if God exists (which ultimately is a leap of faith) and has an origin, we will never be able to prove this with our intellect. When we look at history it seems that the most important things in life are love and solidarity. Therefore, God doesn't seem to want to be proven but experienced. Our intellect, however impressive, is limited and science is too often used for destructive purposes. If God exists and would show Himself, we wouldn't feel free anymore! That's why faith gives the ultimate joy and freedom. And faith seems to work because it gives purpose and direction to countless people. Give God a chance.

-- Jerry van Veldhoven (jerryv@casema.nl), February 19, 2005.

Uhm? God';s existance was known to Satan... he seems to have freedom...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 19, 2005.

Our intellect alone cannot identify the true God. He had to reveal himself. But our intellect can certainly arrive at the logical necessity for someone like Him - a Creator, an intelligent primordial cause. Which is why every human culture that has ever existed recognized this inescapable necessity, and lacking access to knowledge of the true God created a "god" or "gods" of their own to meet that logical necessity.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 19, 2005.

jerry r u dutch or belgium?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), February 19, 2005.