Where Does God Come From?

[Bluegoat]

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

I suppose one *might *say that something came into being without a cause if it was self-existent, but I don’t think I have ever heard anyone actually argue anything like that, and that is not what is usually meant. I think there would be some pretty serious problems with trying to explain something that way.

As for the similarity: if someone thinks the universe has in some sense always existed and is it’s own cause then they may well think that , or if they think that there are absolute forces or laws which cause the universe to come into existence, then they may think those forces or laws are self-existent.

So if you take, for example, that some kind of self-existent, uncaused law brings the universe into existence, that is pretty much like what we mean when we say God is self-existent.

I’m not sure if this addresses what you are really asking, it’s a bit vague and general because I wasn’t sure how to best explain what I meant to you, not knowing you. If it is not what you were asking, maybe you could be more specific, or point out what you found troublesom.

 

[Groucho_Marx]

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 pure existence so if He came from anywhere it would be Himself.

 

[Fink]

Didn`t notice this one until just now.

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.

Answer: All of the above. Simple!
Would you like that answer to be expanded? Yes? No?

If you were to do a bit of research on what the Church teaches, youd find out that God is, in fact (eternal, uncreated) Existence Itself, and He is, in fact, Love; and its also true that Man is created in Gods image and likeness (an immortal soul consisting of intellect and will. Etc.). Its only lack of knowledge on your part that prevents you from seeing that: ie the fault lies with you, rather than with other posters.

Itd pay you to look up orthodox Catholic literature, and find the truth about us. Reading too much stuff like "The God Delusion" seems to have poisoned your mind. If nothing else, youve been left with only a caricature of the Church, maybe even from the lying pen (keyboard?) of Dawkins, himself.

If you want to convince most of us here that youre not motivated by ignorance and mean-spiritedness, go and learn the Truth.. As it is, your behaviour is on full view, and its not a pretty sight! But thats your choice, isnt it!.
(Do you want that answer to be expanded?)

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.

Wrong.

 

[JackQ]

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

Well, I don’t know what you want me to prove, as such, but my point is that whereas it is not wrong to say that God exists, it’s more accurate to say that God is existence.

 

[tonyrey]

Well, I don’t know what you want me to prove, as such, but my point is that whereas it is not wrong to say that God exists, it’s more accurate to say that God is existence.

Which is infinitely more credible than believing that purposeless particles of energy have always existed and have **accidentally **produced all the wonder and beauty of the universe without having the slightest notion of what they were doing!

 

[benedictus2]

Hi,

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

Does anyone know?

Joshua

Are you for real?

What do you mean where does God come from? IF God came from something or somewhere then He is not God.

 

[benedictus2]

That’s only half of what He is.

Huh? If God is existence what other half could there be? Absolute nonsense.

 

[Fink]

Huh? If God is existence what other half could there be? Absolute nonsense.

Go easy on him. At least he`s courteous, unlke someone else here.

To the “uninitiated”, the concept of God would be strange. As for the Blessed Trinity:

 

[fred_conty]

Hi,

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

Does anyone know?

Joshua

Nowhere.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Huh? If God is existence what other half could there be?

A Pie truck in Somalia?

 

[Groucho_Marx]

A Pie truck in Somalia?

Too bad the pirates got Him.

We have the other half of God
**If you want to see his other half again you better bring something of equal value! **
If you call the navy seals we will be very upset

---

xoxo

 

[perro_sarnoso]

Hi,

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

Does anyone know?

Joshua

He comes to us from heaven and reveals Himself in the Son, Jesus Christ who is God in the flesh.
God’s nature is above all other natures. Above the praeternatural and above the natural…God’s realm is the supernatural. The supernatural is only proper to God.

 

[Jkimbo]

We can no more explain God then the Model T can explain Mr Ford.

GOD simply is GOD.

 

[Groucho_Marx]

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQBXqgyX9xHFrV3Ru7cp8_rg6kwHvUOIjY1g81QINNZdUQUnHPajQhttp://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ6GKqQyDGhAa0Ruczp0IWsW08pWkM8BSFBlwiWZWSZqm1HCWsT
:hey_bud: A human asking another human “where did God come from’ is like Mickey Mouse asking Donald Duck “who drew Walt Disney”

 

[wanstronian]

Didn`t notice this one until just now.

Answer: All of the above. Simple!
Would you like that answer to be expanded? Yes? No?

If you were to do a bit of research on what the Church teaches, youd find out that God is, in fact (eternal, uncreated) Existence Itself, and He is, in fact, Love; and its also true that Man is created in Gods image and likeness (an immortal soul consisting of intellect and will. Etc.). Its only lack of knowledge on your part that prevents you from seeing that: ie the fault lies with you, rather than with other posters.

In what way is God = Love? In what way is God = Existence? Please describe, for my benefit, if you would be so kind.

Itd pay you to look up orthodox Catholic literature, and find the truth about us. Reading too much stuff like "The God Delusion" seems to have poisoned your mind. If nothing else, youve been left with only a caricature of the Church, maybe even from the lying pen (keyboard?) of Dawkins, himself.

You’d like to think this, I suppose, as it allows you to just dismiss valid arguments as uneducated fluff.

What do you think Dawkins has lied about, btw?

If you want to convince most of us here that you`re not motivated by ignorance and mean-spiritedness, go and learn the Truth.

What truth? You’ve capitalised it, so am I to assume that the “Truth” you refer to is the subjective doctrine of the Catholic church? As my sig says, that’s not the sort of “Truth” I value, I’m afraid.

. As it is, your behaviour is on full view, and its not a pretty sight! :eek: But thats your choice, isn`t it!.
(Do you want that answer to be expanded?)

You’re right of course. Silly of me to display healthy, rational skepticism of outlandish and baseless claims.

Wrong.

This comment does nothing but demonstrate how unquestioningly ensconced in dogma you are. Quite logically, if there’s zero proof for the existence of God (and this is certainly the situation) then any claim to know anything of his origin, nature or attributes is nothing but conjecture.** Nobody knows.** For your claim that this is “wrong” to stand, you need to demonstrate how you know. Otherwise, you’re just belching hot air.

 

[wanstronian]

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

What was offensive about my post? If you get offended just because someone has a different opinion to you, then you need to sort yourself out.

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

What do you mean?

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?

That’s an ad hominem, but never mind. My attitude flows from healthy skepticism of the truth claims of religion, coupled with a resentment that the religious seem to think they should be moral arbiters of everybody else, and that they have the right to dictate anything about how others should live their lives (remove the beam from thine own eye and all that). Coupled with an innate dislike of miseducation and its implications for society.

The “fear” thing is often trotted out by theists, it’s just a straw man. What do I have to be afraid of? I mean really, what?

Same as above.

Not really, no. Theists can be skeptical - of course they can. However, that skepticism goes on holiday when it comes to the truth claims of religion.

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”.

I’m sorry - do you think that proves something? Did I say that no religious people have contributed to scientific success? No. You seem to be setting up a straw man here.

And your final sentence is puzzling - what makes you think I’d ask that? If you want to hold a conversation with yourself, feel free.

Who founded the universities?

What difference does that make? You’re really missing the point here.

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

Oh don’t worry, I wasn’t expecting to change your mind. You’re clearly too deeply dogmatic for that to happen. But this is a prime example of closed-mindedness - you’re more determined to be faithful because you don’t like what I said. Not because what I said is wrong.

So? Red herring.

No, not at all. It’s a valid response to the common theist bleat that atheists “just can’t understand the concepts.” Far from a red herring - it rebuts your empty claim.

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

Ironically, this is a red herring, and utterly fails to addres the point I made!

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

Of course you will - that’s the nature of dogmatic religious belief.

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.

And is this what you would call “open-minded?” Believing outrageous claims without a jot of evidence? This is where we came in, I think.

Youre obviously skilled at baiting; but youll never be able to “convert” us to the “religion” of ultimate nothingness.

As I said, I realise this. Some religious people are open to re-evaluating their beliefs, the vast majority aren’t. Your demonstration of closed-mindedness is complete with your assessment of atheism as a religion. Ironic, given your exhortation for me to understand you!

Your behaviour here will, in fact, have the opposite effect. Actually, the need to behave like that shows a problem of, at best, immaturity…

Now who’s baiting? Think what you like of me, but my arguments are sound. Sorry.

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

I’ve done so, and they’re summarised above. Not sure what you’re waffling on about regarding my sanity, it sounds like desperation.

 

[wanstronian]

I suppose one *might *say that something came into being without a cause if it was self-existent, but I don’t think I have ever heard anyone actually argue anything like that, and that is not what is usually meant. I think there would be some pretty serious problems with trying to explain something that way.

As for the similarity: if someone thinks the universe has in some sense always existed and is it’s own cause then they may well think that , or if they think that there are absolute forces or laws which cause the universe to come into existence, then they may think those forces or laws are self-existent.

So if you take, for example, that some kind of self-existent, uncaused law brings the universe into existence, that is pretty much like what we mean when we say God is self-existent.

I’m not sure if this addresses what you are really asking, it’s a bit vague and general because I wasn’t sure how to best explain what I meant to you, not knowing you. If it is not what you were asking, maybe you could be more specific, or point out what you found troublesom.

No, you’ve answered perfectly well, thank you.

I don’t think anybody believes that the universe has always existed - the Big Bang theory contradicts this. The fact is that nobody really knows how the Universe came about. I don’t think anybody really think it just popped into existence without cause either, just that the chain of causality is beyond analysis prior to the Big Bang.

If I understand you correctly, you’re not equating a self-existent god with a self-existent Universe, but with a self-existent law that caused the Universe to start. My problem with this comparison is that God is an awfully complex phenomenen, ascribed as it is with sentience, purpose and emotion. By contrast a physical law (or pre-physical, whatever that might look like) has none of this baggage and therefore is objectively a far more parsimonious hypothesis.

Truth is, we’ll almost certainly never know.

 

[tonyrey]

There are two fundamental questions about reality to which any reasonable person seeks answers: “How?” and “Why?” The weakness of science is that it fails to recognise reasons and replaces them with causes. If science is taken to its logical conclusion all reasons have physical causes because science is concerned solely with physical reality.

Anyone who regards science as the sole form of knowledge is therefore unreasonable because he destroys his own reasoning by reducing it to physical causes which don’t have the slightest idea of what they are doing! “Unreasonable reasoning” should be the materialist’s motto.

 

[wanstronian]

Well, I don’t know what you want me to prove, as such, but my point is that whereas it is not wrong to say that God exists, it’s more accurate to say that God is existence.

Well, you said: “understanding my point would require the acknowledgement of existence independent of existing things.”

You’re asking me to acknowledge something that I don’t think is possible. I’m just saying I’ll acknowledge it if you can show it to be true. Otherwise the “understanding” of your point would have to rely on an unsafe premise.

It may be that I just don’t understand your statement that I’ve quoted above, but regardless, I can’t see how saying that “God is existence” explains anything. What context of “existence” are you using? Can you point to a dictionary definition so I can understand the equation you’re making?

 

[wanstronian]

There are two fundamental questions about reality to which any reasonable person seeks answers: “How?” and “Why?” The weakness of science is that it fails to recognise reasons and replaces them with causes. If science is taken to its logical conclusion all reasons have physical causes because science is concerned solely with physical reality.

Anyone who regards science as the sole form of knowledge is therefore unreasonable because he destroys his own reasoning by reducing it to physical causes which don’t have the slightest idea of what they are doing! “Unreasonable reasoning” should be the materialist’s motto.

There is no reason to believe that “why” is a valid question when applied to the workings of the universe. It is irrational to see purpose in humans and assume that it cannot exist without an underlying purpose to the universe. To believe that purpose in humans necessitates a purposeful creator of the universe is a non-sequitur, and when challenged, is usually defended with an example of the Argument from Ignorance. As can be seen in your second paragraph.

This is quite clearly your favourite pseudo-argument - “purpose can’t come from purposeless particles.” I see it from you all the time. It makes no sense, no matter how many times you type it.