E
eo_chibears
Guest
Did something make God, or did he/she come from nothing? If people say the universe had to come from something, couldn’t the same thing be said that God had to come from something and didn’t just always exist.
- Status
P
PumpkinSeed
Guest
This question is not possible for the human mind to comprehend. You can accept it as truth, but you cannot ‘imagine’ it. Our brain sees things as having a beginning and an end, so the thought of God always just ‘being there’ really stumps me. I have no idea if God had a beginning, but if he did, I’d want to know what there was before him. How could he just be all there is? Doesn’t make sense to me.
Q
Qoeleth
Guest
There is an interesting thing in the Zohar (a mystical Jewish work), regarding the first words of Genesis, normally translated as: “In the beginning, God created.”
The Zohar proposes the interpretation:
" ‘The beginning’ created God."
I believe Anglelus Silesius says God springs from us as much as we spring from God. The creation mythos is not to be understood diachronically- it points to a relationship, an orientation rather than an action.
It is a mistake to say the universe came from some-‘thing’. All ‘things’ are by definition part of the universe.
God is the uncreated- the -]being/-] not polluted by createdness, not polluted by ‘being’. If you cast aside the notions of time, being, cause and effect, and all other distracting illusions and chimeras, you will have the answer to your question.
God-] is /-]the origin and destination of all. Yet all things are always within God.
E
eo_chibears
Guest
I guess my point is that believers attack non believers by saying the universe had to come from something, it just didn’t magically come into existence. I see the merit there. Under this line of thinking something had to create God too though. How could he/she just come from nothing and magically appear one day. Yes, definitley too much for the human mind to comprehend. I have a hard time seeing now people can so strongly say god does or does not exist. There is no real proof either way. Faith does not cut it for me, faith should be backed up by some form of proof. A book written by and edited by humans over hundreds of years should not qualify either.
E
eo_chibears
Guest
Lots of grasping at straws here. Forgetting notions of time, being, cause and effect doesn’t do much for me.
P
PumpkinSeed
Guest
I understand your confusion. I too have the same confusion. I don’t know how its possible, nor can I prove God in anyway whatsoever.
D
Darran
Guest
Then you will be in an infinite loop of looking for a greater and greater predecessor.
God isn’t a bigger version of us. He is the Alpha and the Omega, He is above time precisely because He is the one who created it. It isn’t something that we are able to comprehend when we picture ourselves in the same spot -ie, we measure God by ourselves- as we have all had a beginning and our experiences, yet it can be understood in faith and philosophy.
Afterall, our understanding of God is a being with all power, if anything greater than that can exist, then that is God. (Isn’t that the ontological argument?)
F
followingtheway
Guest
No because the universe was proven to not always exist. To the contrary God is eternal, no beginning, no end. Law of thermodynamics - energy can not be created or destroyed.
B
beehumble
Guest
Jesus told St. Faustina that all of the creation is not necessary for God. He created out of His great Mercy. God has no needs; He does not need anything - He is All in All.
And paraphrasing what God said to Job, “Where were you when I created the universe?”
God bless you.
J
Jaypeeto4
Guest
One proof of God’s existence, to interject a little humor here,
is His Mercy shown in his “design” of our bodies.
Our male genitalia is not attached to our foreheads,
and, thankfully, are noses are not located directly above our fannies.
I do, literally, thank God for those things.
More tangible proof of God’s existence is the miracles, undeniable and current,
that He works even today, directly AND through the interecession of Mary and his
other angels and Saints.
There are people today, who were born blind, born with NO PUPILS in their eyes.
They went to Lourdes, used the water from Mary’s spring, asked for her intercession with Jesus for their healing and - PRESTO - they now can see. Perfectly.
And they STILL have no pupils in their eyes, so their eyesight is scientifically
impossible. There are also those who went to Lourdes, blind, with withered and permanently useless Optic Nerves. They did the same, used the water, asked for Mother Mary to pray to Jesus to heal them, and they now can see. Their Optic Nerves, however, remain withered, dead and useless. Their sight, too, is scientifically impossible.
The Lourdes Medical Bureau, staffed mainly by ATHEISTS, (on purpose),
has documented thousands of unexplainable healings at Lourdes.
The Church, EXTREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEMELY conservative about these things,
accepts 69 of those thousands as “miraculous.” The truth is there are thousands of miracles at Lourdes alone.
We have many, way too many to enumerate, instances of multiply-witnessed miracles of Catholic Saints.
St. Joseph of Copertino regularly, as if it was nothing, and in the presence of many Witnesses, and not just “religious” witnesses either, literally FLEW.
Not “levitated,” but FLEW. On one occasion, the huge crucifix above the high altar was being replaced and the workmen couldn’t get it up there properly. St. Joseph simply locked his arms under the crossbeam and matter-of-factly flew it up high above the high altar and affixed it into place and flew down. This was a regular occurance with him.
Padre Pio regularly bilocated and could read hearts and read minds.
St. John Neumann, whose body rests in a church in Philadelphia, also visited dying children in their hospital rooms AFTER his death, and they were healed. These stories are not anecdotal he-said, she-said stuff. Even UNSOLVED MYSTERIES documented thoroughly some of St. John Neumann’s after death visits to dying children and their subsequent healings.
For those who believe in God, no explanation is necessary.
For those who do NOT believe in God, no explanation is possible.
Jaypeeto4
is His Mercy shown in his “design” of our bodies.
Our male genitalia is not attached to our foreheads,
and, thankfully, are noses are not located directly above our fannies.
I do, literally, thank God for those things.
More tangible proof of God’s existence is the miracles, undeniable and current,
that He works even today, directly AND through the interecession of Mary and his
other angels and Saints.
There are people today, who were born blind, born with NO PUPILS in their eyes.
They went to Lourdes, used the water from Mary’s spring, asked for her intercession with Jesus for their healing and - PRESTO - they now can see. Perfectly.
And they STILL have no pupils in their eyes, so their eyesight is scientifically
impossible. There are also those who went to Lourdes, blind, with withered and permanently useless Optic Nerves. They did the same, used the water, asked for Mother Mary to pray to Jesus to heal them, and they now can see. Their Optic Nerves, however, remain withered, dead and useless. Their sight, too, is scientifically impossible.
The Lourdes Medical Bureau, staffed mainly by ATHEISTS, (on purpose),
has documented thousands of unexplainable healings at Lourdes.
The Church, EXTREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEMELY conservative about these things,
accepts 69 of those thousands as “miraculous.” The truth is there are thousands of miracles at Lourdes alone.
We have many, way too many to enumerate, instances of multiply-witnessed miracles of Catholic Saints.
St. Joseph of Copertino regularly, as if it was nothing, and in the presence of many Witnesses, and not just “religious” witnesses either, literally FLEW.
Not “levitated,” but FLEW. On one occasion, the huge crucifix above the high altar was being replaced and the workmen couldn’t get it up there properly. St. Joseph simply locked his arms under the crossbeam and matter-of-factly flew it up high above the high altar and affixed it into place and flew down. This was a regular occurance with him.
Padre Pio regularly bilocated and could read hearts and read minds.
St. John Neumann, whose body rests in a church in Philadelphia, also visited dying children in their hospital rooms AFTER his death, and they were healed. These stories are not anecdotal he-said, she-said stuff. Even UNSOLVED MYSTERIES documented thoroughly some of St. John Neumann’s after death visits to dying children and their subsequent healings.
For those who believe in God, no explanation is necessary.
For those who do NOT believe in God, no explanation is possible.
Jaypeeto4
G
grannymh
Guest
Catholicism teaches that God is a transcendent Pure Spirit. He is not made of material so He is not bound by material/physical limits. Thus, God exists as unlimited existence.
S
SweetVerda
Guest
In physics, scientists are understanding that space and time are closely interconnected. The idea is that time didn’t exist before the universe began, or at least not how we understand time. This universe has time and casualty, which is why this universe needed a Primary Mover. However, God is not within this universe, and doesn’t experience time as we do, and therefore he does not necessarily experience causality. Outside of time, God doesn’t need a beginning, because beginnings are constructs of this universe.
It is hard to wrap the mind around, but I hope you can see why the Primary Mover argument isn’t self-contradictory.
It is hard to wrap the mind around, but I hope you can see why the Primary Mover argument isn’t self-contradictory.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Creating, bringing something into existence (even one’s self) implies time, because it implies a before and after it “became real.”
God gave humans space and time, so the universe we experience directly through our traditional five senses was created by the Word, which at one point even became Incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth.
So God is not limited by existence or non-existence as a multiple choice. That is a human invention we created for discussion purposes. How do we know that we are placing limits on God? Any time we claim God can or can’t do this or that we are forming God in the image of our own words.
So since the “origin” is human only, we can think whatever we want. Sometimes I think Big Bangs might be like a reverse black hole. They suck up used bits of reality and explode them out into some other dimensions. This is a simplification of what God actually has to do to make this universe work. Of course, “simple,” being another human word, is irrelevant and even unnoticeable to God – except through his human creature to which He gave dominion over this world.
Alan
God gave humans space and time, so the universe we experience directly through our traditional five senses was created by the Word, which at one point even became Incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth.
So God is not limited by existence or non-existence as a multiple choice. That is a human invention we created for discussion purposes. How do we know that we are placing limits on God? Any time we claim God can or can’t do this or that we are forming God in the image of our own words.
So since the “origin” is human only, we can think whatever we want. Sometimes I think Big Bangs might be like a reverse black hole. They suck up used bits of reality and explode them out into some other dimensions. This is a simplification of what God actually has to do to make this universe work. Of course, “simple,” being another human word, is irrelevant and even unnoticeable to God – except through his human creature to which He gave dominion over this world.
Alan
E
empther
Guest
Either there is something that exists necessarily and could not → not exist
or there is nothing that exists necessarily.
Those are the only two choices.
Now it’s clear that the universe doesn’t exist necessarily, because something that exists necessarily couldn’t change. It always has to be exactly what it is, now, yesterday, tomorrow, always. But this is clearly not the case with the universe which changes all the time. Therefore,*** the universe could not exist independently***
and had to be created by something else.But this something else can’t also be said to*** not*** exist necessarily because then it would simply be an earlier version of the universe. You can’t go back to infinity like this. There had to be a beginning.
Therefore,
there had to be a God who exists necessarily, who had no beginning because he exists in eternity, outside time, who is infinite or he wouldn’t exist at all, who is all-powerful ( omnipotent ) or he wouldn’t have been able to create something ( the universe ) which has nothing in common with himself.
This is a lot to digest, I know. But it comes down to this. We must explain the universe. But clearly the universe could not have created itself. Therefore, there has to be an eternal omnipotent God who started it all.
S
shoe
Guest
I think that the very existence of things logically declares the existence of God’s everlasting nature: God’s nature is existence. To ask “Did something make God” is the same thing as asking “Did something make existence?” Existence has no need to make another existence, since that which exists is already in existence; and non-existence, which has no properties of its own, cannot possibly turn non-existence into anything, since from not anything still comes nothing.
E
empther
Guest
If nothing existed necessarily, we wouldn’t be here to talk about it.There are things we can’t, at this moment answer: why something exists rather than nothing is one of those things. We oughtn’t forge an answer that suits us
That’s the why and a good enough** answer**.
Q
Qoeleth
Guest
The old ‘contingency’ argument. What about circularity-Either there is something that exists necessarily and could not → not exist
or there is nothing that exists necessarily.
Those are the only two choices.
Now it’s clear that the universe doesn’t exist necessarily, because something that exists necessarily couldn’t change. It always has to be exactly what it is, now, yesterday, tomorrow, always. But this is clearly not the case with the universe which changes all the time. Therefore,*** the universe could not exist independently***
But this something else can’t also be said to*** not*** exist necessarily because then it would simply be an earlier version of the universe. You can’t go back to infinity like this. There had to be a beginning.
Therefore,
there had to be a God who exists necessarily, who had no beginning because he exists in eternity, outside time, who is infinite or he wouldn’t exist at all, who is all-powerful ( omnipotent ) or he wouldn’t have been able to create something ( the universe ) which has nothing in common with himself.
This is a lot to digest, I know. But it comes down to this. We must explain the universe. But clearly the universe could not have created itself. Therefore, there has to be an eternal omnipotent God who started it all.
A depends upon B
B depends upon C
C depends upon A
You talk about necessary existence. ‘Necessary’ to whom? There needs to be a dative.
If there has to be a non-contingent being, how do you know it is not a small rock in a space. That would be pretty non-contingent.
Why do you think infinity (as in infinite regression) is impossible? I mean, we believe in infinity with respect to the love of God? Why not then infinite cause and effect?
G
greylorn
Guest
Valid point. However, you may have noted that the current batch of cosmological nits are touting the absurd notion that the universe came from nothing.
People will believe whatever nonsense they want or need and make up all kinds of silly reasons to justify their beliefs, but if you are looking to do better, consider these ideas.
The most sensible and logical primary hypothesis to explain a cause-effect universe (such as ours) requires at least two distinct things, each manifesting different forces and properties, to get it started.
An old principle known as Occam’s Razor suggests that the simplest possible hypothesis, or hypotheses, are preferable to complex ones. By that standard, each of the two things must be as simple and internally unstructured as possible.
Neither the “Almighty God always existed” nor “Big Bang” theory meets either criteria, because each uses a single entity which inherently contained all the laws of physics and is therefore quite complex.
The alternative is to hypothesize the existence of two extremely simple things, or spaces, which collided. The collision kind of got things started. But that’s another story.
M
Micorhizea
Guest
One immense theological obstacle which bears on everything is that few folks have an experiential understanding of IS. Not “is” modified by an adjective or subject to any condition; Once there is an experiential understanding of IS, all these sorts of questions fade away. Then all of experience is seen to be relative to an absolute and circumstances lose their dramatic charge, They are just dealt with from a resourceful position without identification with desire or outcome. Paul called it “the Peace which passeth understanding.”
F
FurtherSuntime
Guest
I might be able to make a thought which is interesting:
Science tells us lay folks that gravity is required for a universe. When Dr Hawking is asked where did gravity come from, how could it just pop out of nowhere?
Dr Hawking replies by saying, asking what is necessary for gravity to exist is like asking what is the requirement of , 2+2=4.
To which I would consider:
In order to have a consequence in any local, the local must concede to order .
And therefore suggest that there is a scientific fact which individually on its own compels a sure concede to order, in origin.
Also, Dr Hawking suggests that we do not need the bible to explain the universe.
I will maintain for now then, that Dr Hawking understands the “beauty and significance of simplicity”… within the origin idea, and findings re gravity.
continuing…Dr Hawking is a very very smart man. He knows, that everything he says will ring around the globe in orbit with great interest for much time to come. The higgs idea may not give much additional help in these science-philosophy related explorations.
Dr Hawking would easily comprehend the significance of his remarks not on just society, but “this” society.
Dr Hawking knows, as we know the society in question is entirely materialistic, there is no question about this. The amount of reading required for a man of this stature to join the dots for meaning ect would be slight, to be most definitely sure. If I can get a bit of a grasp with very little reading, re philosophy, society, individual, effect, meaning, purpose, then this smart man would have no issue understanding quite a bit…including a remarkable perseverance to study in a difficult physical outcome. Thats perseverance for meaning in its highest form.
Dr Hawking would easily understand that handing God over to this society is a huge mistake. This society requires to learn on its own , by a step by step advance, the intended, and not an in-appropriate handing over of dividends not earned.
Einstein would have handled exactly the same. I don’t think the world at large understands the responsibility and truth in outcome, toward order, which these men would be very interested in. Would a father give something not earned which is all about learning ect.
So in opinion we have simple order. A fact which must be, otherwise nothing as we know it, would be.
Simple order , a child…a new fresh plant, seems the simpler it gets , the better it gets.( you could make a list, no doubt about it)
I think gravity is very interesting and will hold much attention for the future.
Were told in church in front of people…St Theresa lifted off the ground, levitating. It would make sense in that the Saints being was in consideration of god and therefore, her being was in gods negotiating understanding. If her being was considered by God who is in dominion of gravity, gravity must stand aside without required attention to her being, so gravity cannot have full access , as her being was as we understand in Gods considerations . Everybody’s got there own idea, it makes it interesting, not trying to prove anything or get into an argumentative.
Science tells us lay folks that gravity is required for a universe. When Dr Hawking is asked where did gravity come from, how could it just pop out of nowhere?
Dr Hawking replies by saying, asking what is necessary for gravity to exist is like asking what is the requirement of , 2+2=4.
To which I would consider:
In order to have a consequence in any local, the local must concede to order .
And therefore suggest that there is a scientific fact which individually on its own compels a sure concede to order, in origin.
Also, Dr Hawking suggests that we do not need the bible to explain the universe.
I will maintain for now then, that Dr Hawking understands the “beauty and significance of simplicity”… within the origin idea, and findings re gravity.
continuing…Dr Hawking is a very very smart man. He knows, that everything he says will ring around the globe in orbit with great interest for much time to come. The higgs idea may not give much additional help in these science-philosophy related explorations.
Dr Hawking would easily comprehend the significance of his remarks not on just society, but “this” society.
Dr Hawking knows, as we know the society in question is entirely materialistic, there is no question about this. The amount of reading required for a man of this stature to join the dots for meaning ect would be slight, to be most definitely sure. If I can get a bit of a grasp with very little reading, re philosophy, society, individual, effect, meaning, purpose, then this smart man would have no issue understanding quite a bit…including a remarkable perseverance to study in a difficult physical outcome. Thats perseverance for meaning in its highest form.
Dr Hawking would easily understand that handing God over to this society is a huge mistake. This society requires to learn on its own , by a step by step advance, the intended, and not an in-appropriate handing over of dividends not earned.
Einstein would have handled exactly the same. I don’t think the world at large understands the responsibility and truth in outcome, toward order, which these men would be very interested in. Would a father give something not earned which is all about learning ect.
So in opinion we have simple order. A fact which must be, otherwise nothing as we know it, would be.
Simple order , a child…a new fresh plant, seems the simpler it gets , the better it gets.( you could make a list, no doubt about it)
I think gravity is very interesting and will hold much attention for the future.
Were told in church in front of people…St Theresa lifted off the ground, levitating. It would make sense in that the Saints being was in consideration of god and therefore, her being was in gods negotiating understanding. If her being was considered by God who is in dominion of gravity, gravity must stand aside without required attention to her being, so gravity cannot have full access , as her being was as we understand in Gods considerations . Everybody’s got there own idea, it makes it interesting, not trying to prove anything or get into an argumentative.
- Status