Where Does God Come From?

[soccerdad57]

The existence of God ( a perfect being) will never be “proved” by science because science is the wrong tool for proving God - you can’t see Him under a microscope or from a telescope - All the universe is His creation and separately and all together at once point in the direction of Him yet since He is not of the universe you will never be able to “prove” His existence from the universe and science. Science is a construct of man that is helpful in discovering things about the universe but cannot “prove” God. Our far from perfect minds have put together science methodology and now we expect to be able to prove the existence of a perfect and immaterial Being such that God is using such an inferior and flawed tool? We can know God but only through the eyes of faith. What merit would faith have if we could prove God? - it is precisely for our salvation that God gives us faith in Him not proof. When you find yourself desparately trying to prove God remember that ultimately faith is a choice to believe or not and we will be held accountable for that choice

 

[lemondiesel]

The other half is a chocolate factory in Atlanta city where all his angels work the production lines. Do you agree with this inference?

Thats part of existence? Unless its a joke from a movie that I havent seen yet

 

[shadowlily]

If you believe that the existence of God has no cause, then isn’t it just as reasonable to say instead that the existence of the universe has no cause? You’re just placing the ‘first mover’ one step forward…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

If you believe that the existence of God has no cause, then isn’t it just as reasonable to say instead that the existence of the universe has no cause? You’re just placing the ‘first mover’ one step forward…

If one were merely saying that God existed for no reason, then the atheist is certainly justified in claiming that such can also be said of the universe without any need of invoking God; and you would be brutally correct. But that is not the position of metaphysician who claims and understands what they mean by saying that “God has no cause”.

 

[sadiebelle]

If one were merely saying that God existed for no reason, then the atheist is certainly justified in claiming that such can also be said of the universe without any need of invoking God; and you would be brutally correct. But that is not the position of metaphysician who claims and understands what they mean by saying that “God has no cause”.

This whole thread is so helpful for me as this is one of my nagging questions.

MoM2, can you explain your answer again? Break it down for me a bit. When you say that “God has no cause” means something different to the metaphysician, I get a little bit lost.

 

[wanstronian]

Bait.

Not really. It’s the most parsimonious answer, all things considered.

 

[wanstronian]

The OP was asking where did God come from, assuming his existence.

The OP should have stated this assumption then. Although given that theists can’t even agree what God is, I guess the whole question is a bit premature. For instance, according to you:

God is existence.

And according to others, “he” is Love. Neither answer provides any descriptive value whatsoever. Then according to others still, “he” is a deity who made man in “his” own image. And so on.

So which is it? The very fact that you guys can’t even define what God is (let alone agree on a definition) should give you pause for thought, if you were able to think about it objectively.

The fact is, that everybody on this thread who has answered the OP under the dubious assumption that God actually exists, is simply conjecturing. So even if we credulously accept the assumption of his existence, it’s clear that SharpTiger is bang on the money. Nobody knows.

 

[wanstronian]

If you believe that the existence of God has no cause, then isn’t it just as reasonable to say instead that the existence of the universe has no cause? You’re just placing the ‘first mover’ one step forward…

Most theists know this, they just deny it using a combination of special pleading and begging the question.

 

[wanstronian]

We`re not superstitious, either. Our minds are much more liberated than yours is.

You seem to be confusing “open-mindedness” with “credulous gullibility.” I’m as open-minded as anyone, but I see no point in believing in something for which no evidence exists.

It is laughable to claim that the unwarranted belief in unevidenced dogma is somehow more open-minded than a healthy skepticism. It’s a shame that the desirous gullible see skepticism as some sort of negative trait, given that the success of science and therefore the standard of living across the world, owes a huge debt to such thinking.

Yours is severely constrained: see below.

The essence of God is Spirit “only”, with no material substance.
A pure spirit doesnt occupy space. Therefore, God doesnt occupy space.
He`s everywhere only in the sense that His Will keeps everything in existence.

As far as Time goes, He encompasses it.
He IS in one eternal act of “ISSING”!
He IS in the eternal NOW.

Sink your teeth into this:
thesumma.info/reality/index.php

A lesson that atheists and their fellow travellers have to learn is that: to conceive of the Supernatural, the God-given human intellect has to be released from the stifling, stunted misconception that Reality consists only of what we can see, hear, touch, measure.
The mind of a believer is much broader than the mind of the likes of R. Dawkins could ever be: confined as it is in its self-inflicted captivity.

Dawkins has rubbished Saint Thomas Philosophy......because hes incapable of grasping the broad concepts.

If it were not for the contempt and sarcasm directed at us Catholics and fellow Christians by these misguided individuals, i`d be more inclined to feel sorry for them.
They certainly are to be pitied.
Tragically, in their self-inflicted ignorance, they fail to see it.

Sorry, you’ve shown nothing here, just asserted that my mind is constrained by contrasting it to the credulous waffle of other religious affiliates. The age-old argument of atheists being “incapable of grasping the broad concepts” is just total nonsense, I’m afraid, and is refuted by the common-sense realisation that statistically, theists are no more intelligent than atheists. The grasping of concepts, from an objective sense, is reliant on intellect. What you’re conflating here, is the ability to grasp concepts, and the desire to believe in a particular conclusion. I would suggest that your apparent inability to distinguish between the two, is a sign of the limitations of your mind, not of mine.

I’m afraid your smug piety is grossly misplaced.

 

[JackQ]

Hi,

I was talking in another forum and the question came into my mind of Where does God Come From?

Does anyone know?

Joshua

God is Being. Since he is Being, nothing can be prior to him, because all things require Being for their own being. Make sense?

 

[wanstronian]

The existence of God ( a perfect being) will never be “proved” by science because science is the wrong tool for proving God - you can’t see Him under a microscope or from a telescope - All the universe is His creation and separately and all together at once point in the direction of Him yet since He is not of the universe you will never be able to “prove” His existence from the universe and science. Science is a construct of man that is helpful in discovering things about the universe but cannot “prove” God. Our far from perfect minds have put together science methodology and now we expect to be able to prove the existence of a perfect and immaterial Being such that God is using such an inferior and flawed tool? We can know God but only through the eyes of faith. What merit would faith have if we could prove God? - it is precisely for our salvation that God gives us faith in Him not proof. When you find yourself desparately trying to prove God remember that ultimately faith is a choice to believe or not and we will be held accountable for that choice

Firstly, science is not in the business of “proving” things, it’s in the business of providing the best available explanation of the phenomena we see. It’s self-correcting - as we learn more, we can refine or even change our theories. That is science’s strength, although theists see it as a weakness for some reason (see my sig).

That said, science remains the only objective method of gaining reliable answers. It is fair to say that science can’t prove God (although it is also fair to say that science has the ability to test some of the alleged interactions between God and the material world, such as intercessory prayer; and guess what? No evidence at all that it works…), but neither can any other method of analysis.

As you say, belief in God is a product of faith - the definition of this being “belief without evidence” (or, imo, “gullibility.”) Those people who claim they can show that God exists, have been abjectly unable to do so for thousands of years. I don’t expect that to change any time soon. So your final sentence is more or less correct, although obviously I disagree with your ultimate sentiment that we will be held accountable - such a sentiment is a product of subjective faith also.

 

[wanstronian]

God is Being. Since he is Being, nothing can be prior to him, because all things require Being for their own being. Make sense?

Nope.

 

[joshrp]

Just worry about where WE came from

and that we came from God

and will see him face to face in heaven

and be humble in accepting Him being still and knowing that He is God

and that we all will return to Him

hopefully in all loving embrace

That’s a good one. I smiled when I read this.

God bless you,
Joshua

 

[JackQ]

Nope.

Well, I have to go get some sleep. But understanding my point would require the acknowledgement of existence independent of existing things. I’ll come back and discuss this later if you like.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The OP should have stated this assumption then.

Perhaps.

Although given that theists can’t even agree what God is, I guess the whole question is a bit premature. For instance, according to you:

And according to others, “he” is Love. Neither answer provides any descriptive value whatsoever.

You don’t understand the meaning of what is being said. Thats not my fault.

So which is it?

God is all of the things stated, just perceived in different contexts. It is evident that you enjoy creating false dilemmas.

The fact is, that everybody on this thread who has answered the OP under the dubious assumption that God actually exists, is simply conjecturing.

A few have answered without any real depth, but i think they have all correctly understood the context in which the question was being asked and on some level answered correctly. The OP can correct me if he so wishes.

So even if we credulously accept the assumption of his existence, it’s clear that SharpTiger is bang on the money. Nobody knows.

The only thing thats bang on the money is that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

[wanstronian]

Well, I have to go get some sleep. But understanding my point would require the acknowledgement of existence independent of existing things. I’ll come back and discuss this later if you like.

If you can prove it, I’ll acknowledge it.

 

[wanstronian]

You don’t understand the meaning of what is being said. Thats not my fault.

You have not been clear. That is your fault. Clarify, then we can proceed.

God is all of the things stated, just perceived in different contexts. It is evident that you enjoy creating false dilemmas.

Not really - the dilemmas are quite real and are caused by people defining God as various different things. Nail down the definition and then at least you’ve got a starting point for your arguments.

A few have answered without any real depth, but i think they have all correctly understood the context in which the question was being asked and on some level answered correctly. The OP can correct me if he so wishes.

I agree with you actually. I think the problem is that all the bold statements about what God is should actually be prefixed with, “I like to believe that…”

The only thing thats bang on the money is that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

No - I don’t know what you’re talking about, because you’re not being clear. I know exactly what I’m talking about, thanks very much.

 

[Bluegoat]

Usually we would say that God is self-existent (although there are other ways of putting it). This is very similar to the idea some have that the universe is self-existent.

 

[wanstronian]

Usually we would say that God is self-existent (although there are other ways of putting it). This is very similar to the idea some have that the universe is self-existent.

In what way is it similar? And what do you mean by “self-existent?” That it came into being without a cause?

 

[Fink]

That first post that i made was a hint to back off with the offensiveness; but the opposite happened.

You seem to be confusing “open-mindedness” with “credulous gullibility.” I’m as open-minded as anyone, but I see no point in believing in something for which no evidence exists.

It`s good that you used the word “seem”.
Open-minded? How much searching did you do?

It is laughable to claim that the unwarranted belief in unevidenced dogma is somehow more open-minded than a healthy skepticism.

Incorrect assumption:
Those of us with intellects should have a healthy scepticism. That`s natural: but the smart alec attitude of so many of our opponents flows from something other than healthy sceptcism. Is it fear?

It’s a shame that the desirous gullible see skepticism as some sort of negative trait, given that the success of science and therefore the standard of living across the world, owes a huge debt to such thinking.

Same as above.
And just to jolt your memory of a number of great thinkers who helped change the world:
Nicolaus Copernicus… no need to comment.
Gregor Mendel: father of genetics.
Louis Pasteur…no need to comment.
Nicolas de LaCaille: astronomer.
Georges LeMaitre: father of the Big Bang theory.

What they have in common is that they were Catholics; and Copernicus, Mendel and LeMaitre were priests. And to save you the trouble of asking: they were not burnt “at the stake”.

Who founded the universities?

Sorry, you’ve shown nothing here, just asserted that my mind is constrained by contrasting it to the credulous waffle of other religious affiliates.

!!! You`re just making me more determined to be faithful to the Church.

The age-old argument of atheists being “incapable of grasping the broad concepts” is just total nonsense, I’m afraid, and is refuted by the common-sense realisation that statistically,*** theists are no more ***intelligent than atheists.

So? Red herring.

The grasping of concepts, from an objective sense, is reliant on intellect.

Largely true; and Saint Thomas Aquinas, GK Chesterton and the other great minds of the Church would agree.

What you’re conflating here, is the ability to grasp concepts, and the desire to believe in a particular conclusion. I would suggest that your apparent inability to distinguish between the two, is a sign of the limitations of your mind, not of mine.

Regarding your last sentence; i`ll stick with my own conviction.

I’m afraid your smug piety is grossly misplaced.

If youre happy to believe that the measurable is all there is, thats your business.
A liberated intellect, contemplating the infinity of the Blessed Trinity, should be truly thankful.

Youre obviously skilled at baiting; but youll never be able to “convert” us to the “religion” of ultimate nothingness.
Your behaviour here will, in fact, have the opposite effect. Actually, the need to behave like that shows a problem of, at best, immaturity…

Do you think it`d pay you to examine your motives? For your own sake (ie sanity), you probably should.