Where Does God Come From?

[ivebeenshown]

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?

When it is said that “God is existence”, what is meant is that God is the very act of existing.

 

[Fink]

What makes you, or anybody else for that matter, think they are qualified to comment on the “inner life of God?” You can’t even prove it exists, how can you explain its characteristics?

And I’ve said nothing I’m ashamed of!
“It is you who say it.” Mark 15:2]

Hitler was undoubtedly Christian, and to go on denying it makes as much sense as denying evolution. It’s just laughable. [Nazism was Pagan. More ignorance.]

Just because you don’t like what he has to say that doesn’t put you in a position of authority to comment on his intellect or motives.

Actually, the exact opposite. It’s a far more open approach than dogmatically sticking to arbitrary doctrine in the absence of any and all evidence that it contains any truth content.

What you call “the Truth” is nothing of the kind. It’s speculation, pure and simple. If it were the truth, it would be simple to demonstrate. No such demonstration has ever been provided.

More ad hominem! No, I’m not slow…
…Do I find your assertion that God exists offensive? No -so why do you so find my opinion that he doesn’t? [Its the arrogant obnoxious ways you express your opinions, again, for all the world to see. So actually, youre an asset for us theists! If you can`t see that, you must be lacking um… Hence the question. ]

So what!??

So, you’re proud of your closed-minded dogmatism?

Ah - that old chestnut again. Already refuted I’m afraid. Try again.

More desperation. When unable to prove your point, resort to personal attacks. [Good joke! ]

“CLANG! CLANG! CLANG!”

By the way: did you click on that link?
To save your having to go back to it:
thesumma.info/reality/index.php

And thanks for yet another chapter from “The God Delusion”.

 

[PatsBreastplate]

Think of time as a line drawn on a piece of paper. God is the piece of paper. He is outside of time Man! There is no beginning! There is no end! It’s a mystery. Meaning that Human minds cannot comprehend it…
Heck, it blows my mind just typing about it.

God be with you! (Incidently abbreviated today as Good bye)

 

[Fink]

So? why can’t we have a pre-existent quantum sea of energy? Is this merely an aesthetic argument that you’d prefer to have the cause of the universe

Why can’t something physical be immutable?

To repeat from an earlier post:
One characteristic of matter is that, by its very nature, it continuously changes.
***So, by its very nature, its not immutable.*** At the sub-atomic level, theres continuous change…
No matter how ancient a physical object/entity is, it has undergone change, and will continue to change. Time, itself, is the measuring of change.
God - Self-existing (ie uncreated) pure Spirit - is the sole exception. Utterly simple. Eternal. Existing in one eternal act of Being.

A created spirit cant undergo change in being/essence/nature; but can undergo change in operation (That rules out immutability.). God is free of even that, because*** from His perspective***, all of Creation is eternal. Theres just the eternal NOW.

 

[benedictus2]

E=mc^2 so matter is a form of energy, like ice is a form of water

While ice is a form of water, ice is not water and water is not ice. Matter is not energy. When it is energy it is energy when it is matter it is matter

That’s like asking where did God come from? Meaningless, energy could have always existed just like God

.
If energy has always existed then energy is God or an attribute of God. I doubt that it is so although New Agers would probably concur with you.

While the current universe as we know it could have a beginning at the Big Bang, the Big Bang itself could have come into existence from a pre-existing quantum vacuum filled with energy.

So you think the quantum vacuum is Superintelligent enough to design the universe?

The universe’s temporal boundaries begin at the Big Bang, but there could well be pre-existing matter that the Big Bang came from - in any case the temporal boundaries are only applicable to our concept of time which measures events in our universe starting from the Big Bang.

Huh! ? So what other concept of time is there? Is there any other concept of time that we can possibly know? Do you realize that you are just positing one what if after another?

 

[benedictus2]

To repeat from an earlier post:
One characteristic of matter is that, by its very nature, it continuously changes.
***So, by its very nature, its not immutable.*** At the sub-atomic level, theres continuous change…
No matter how ancient a physical object/entity is, it has undergone change, and will continue to change. Time, itself, is the measuring of change.
God - Self-existing (ie uncreated) pure Spirit - is the sole exception. Utterly simple. Eternal. Existing in one eternal act of Being.

A created spirit cant undergo change in being/essence/nature; but can undergo change in operation (That rules out immutability.). God is free of even that, because*** from His perspective***, all of Creation is eternal. Theres just the eternal NOW.

Excellent! Let me highlight that further.

 

[benedictus2]

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 let me get this:

Suppose you are an American who is an accountant, who is a father and and great baseball player.

If someone said, Wanstronian is an Amerian and another said he is an accountant and another said he is a father and still another said he is a great baseball player, so you are saying that by stating these, none of them have provided a descriptive image of you?

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.

Do you think your dog or cat (if you have one) would be able to define you objectively? And if not, would that mean that everything about you that it can’t define mean that these things about you don’t exist?

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.

And every single atheist who has blasted this dubious assumption carry an equally and even more dubious assumption that He does not.

But let’s not get into the fact that they’d be even more hard pressed to prove their position.

 

[benedictus2]

Sorry, but I genuinely, honestly don’t believe I’ve heard a valid argument. Actually, that’s not strictly true. There are plenty of valid theistic arguments, but none which are sound. In other words, the arguments themselves may be valid, but built as they are upon unsafe premises, they are not sound.

How about you name one such argument, state why it is valid and then state why it is not sound.

 

[benedictus2]

This highlights the problem with many theists - they just can’t grasp the fact that atheists don’t believe.

Oh but yes you do! As a matter of fact that is exactly what dawned on another atheist in this forums that he changed from agnostic to metaphysical naturalist which is in itself a self-contradiction.

Now if you had declared yourself agnostic - then that would be a different matter altogether.

As a matter of fact, in these forums, atheists are very passionate about their faith that there is no God.

 

[Fink]

Excellent!. . .

Thank you for responding…twice!

You can thank Frank Sheeds "Theology and Sanity" as the source. Its a hell of a book for anyone who wants a bit more depth on Gods inner Life, and on the lives of angels and Man. That link provided earlier leads to some good Thomistic stuff in the same vein; and its free…

An early version of T&S is available online:
katapi.org.uk/TandS/Contents.html

A CAF poster, whose name i can`t remember, provided it.

Has the non-theist chap disappeared?

 

[Simpleton]

An early version of T&S is available online:
katapi.org.uk/TandS/Contents.html

Thanks for the link; I’m excited to read this.

I always wondered how matter/energy could be eternal if matter is composed of atoms and atoms are composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons.

It would be like seeing a house of cards and thinking the cards have always existed that way. Then your friend says no they clearly show they have been arranged that way. You then respond by saying but there is nothing in the cards nature that shows that they could have formed themselves therefore I must conclude that they have always existed as a house of cards. Then your friend says what if a person (something outside of the cards nature) formed the house of cards? NO, no, that can’t be what happened it must have been a cosmic lottery that formed them not a person.

Seriously who looks more ridiculous in that scenario?

 

[razredge]

While ice is a form of water, ice is not water and water is not ice. Matter is not energy. When it is energy it is energy when it is matter it is matter

What? Matter is made out of energy, there is no matter stuff and energy stuff -they’re both made out of the same particles

matter itself is a form of energy

 

[benedictus2]

What? Matter is made out of energy, there is no matter stuff and energy stuff -they’re both made out of the same particles

When matter is in the form of energy is it matter? When energy is in the form of matter is it energy?

Can we say with equal validity “nuclear matter” when talking about “nuclear energy”? Are they interchangeable and will scientist know that we are talking about nuclear energy when we use the term nuclear matter?

Sure you can call the pre-existing matter/energy ‘God’ if you want

I quote here from Spitzer’s “New Proofs for the Existence of God”. (page 5)

The classical Big Bang model seemed to indicate a beginning of the universe at a Hawking-Penrose singularity, but this was mitigated by the contemporary Big Bang model, which opened up the possibility of an early quantum cosmological era and inflationary dynamic (allowing our universe to be but one amidst a multiplicity of possible universes within a theoretical multiverse). This mitigating view was itself subsequently mitigated by the discovery of Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin that every inflationary model universe (and / or multiverse) must have a beginning. Since this indicates an edge of time (prior to which there is no time), **the conclusions of Borde, Guth and Vilenkin point strongly to a creation of the universe (*****from no previously existing physical matter-energy). *** The cause of such a creation would then have to transcend our universe (and any multiverse in which it may be situated).

In a multiverse, with a large number of actual universes it is possible that a universe suitable for life exists.

That was not my question. My question was is the quantum vacuum Super intelligent enough to design the universe? For that matter, does the quantum vacuum have any intelligence at all?

Otherwise as some atheists say - all questions of where the universe came from are meaningless because it is meaningless to talk of something before time.

If time had a beginning then there is a logical before time.
[qoute] The notion of God as the first cause accepts these metaphysical notions of things/events before the time we observe.
So?

And time is just a measurement of change, if there is no change from one state to the other there is no time, if the universe went from not-existing to existing then it is a temporal change, hence it is meaningful to talk about events before the beginning of the universe.

Huh! Did you really think about that before you wrote it

Since nothing comes from nothing, why is it meaningless to talk about before the beginning of something?

 

[razredge]

When matter is in the form of energy is it matter? When energy is in the form of matter is it energy?

You are arguing semantics and being disingenuous - you know what I mean. Matter and energy are made of the same stuff just like water and ice are made out of the same stuff (water molecules) albeit in a different arrangement.

I agree that we define ‘matter’ and ‘energy’ to be particles in different forms but at a fundamental level they are the same thing. That is my point, not that the term energy as commonly used is interchangeable with the term matter as commonly used, (any more than the term ‘water’ can be interchanged with ‘ice’ in common usage)

That was not my question. My question was is the quantum vacuum Super intelligent enough to design the universe? For that matter, does the quantum vacuum have any intelligence at all?

No of course not, not any more than the process of evolution is intelligent enough to design life.

The multiverse does away with this issue since there are a huge number of universes with randomly varied attributes and so there will be at least one ‘designed’ to support life.

f time had a beginning then there is a logical before time.

Good then you agree with me and are not one of the atheists who say metaphysics is useless because talking of events before time is meaningless.

Huh! Did you really think about that before you wrote it

Since nothing comes from nothing, why is it meaningless to talk about before the beginning of something?

I don’t understand your response to my point.

You seem to agree with me that it is not meaningless to talk about events before the beginning of something.

 

[razredge]

The classical Big Bang model seemed to indicate a beginning of the universe at a Hawking-Penrose singularity, but this was mitigated by the contemporary Big Bang model, which opened up the possibility of an early quantum cosmological era and inflationary dynamic (allowing our universe to be but one amidst a multiplicity of possible universes within a theoretical multiverse). This mitigating view was itself subsequently mitigated by the discovery of Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin that every inflationary model universe (and / or multiverse) must have a beginning. Since this indicates an edge of time (prior to which there is no time), **the conclusions of Borde, Guth and Vilenkin point strongly to a creation of the universe (*****from no previously existing physical matter-energy). *** The cause of such a creation would then have to transcend our universe (and any multiverse in which it may be situated).

That’s only a hypothesis - we don’t know for sure.

Either way, the cause of creation may well transcend the kind of physical matter we’re familiar with, perhaps it’s some kind of exotic, multi-dimensional matter that follows strange laws

 

[Fink]

Thanks for the link; I’m excited to read this.

You can thank exoflare for originally providing it on the 15th of May, in a thread titled “the trinity”.

I always wondered how matter/energy could be eternal if matter is composed of atoms and atoms are composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons.

It would be like seeing a house of cards and thinking the cards have always existed that way…

…NO, no, that can’t be what happened it must have been a cosmic lottery that formed them not a person.

Seriously who looks more ridiculous in that scenario?

i can`t help feeling that a big problem with atheists/anti-theists like Dawkins and Hitchens (and one former poster here) is pride.
Pretty sure this was quoted earlier; but, on page 339 of the 1978 edition of T&S, published by Ignatius Press, in a section titled “Eternal separation from God”, there are a few lines which i reckon are appropriate:

. . . the soul has come to love self exclusively. Even in this life, that state may have its natural consequence of realized hatred of God, for the majesty of God is an intolerable affront to self-love grown so monstrous.
The thought that there may be Someone greater and smarter than themselves is too much.
They claim to reject the possibility of a God; but deep down, i suspect they know…

In case you haven`t noticed this other link, here it is again:
thesumma.info/reality/index.php

It`s free, as well.

The only way we can learn this stuff is by trying to digest a bit at a time, and sleep on it, and re-read, re-read… meditate on it. It`s heavy!

Best of luck!

 

[benedictus2]

You are arguing semantics and being disingenuous - you know what I mean. Matter and energy are made of the same stuff just like water and ice are made out of the same stuff (water molecules) albeit in a different arrangement.

I agree that we define ‘matter’ and ‘energy’ to be particles in different forms but at a fundamental level they are the same thing. That is my point, not that the term energy as commonly used is interchangeable with the term matter as commonly used, (any more than the term ‘water’ can be interchanged with ‘ice’ in common usage)

No I am not being disingenuous and I did not know what you mean. But I think I do now. But I am not agreeing with this until I read up more on it.

No of course not, not any more than the process of evolution is intelligent enough to design life.

So there still is a need for super intelligence to design life.

The multiverse does away with this issue since there are a huge number of universes with randomly varied attributes and so there will be at least one ‘designed’ to support life.

How? How does a multiverse do away with the need for super intelligence to design it?

Good then you agree with me and are not one of the atheists who say metaphysics is useless because talking of events before time is meaningless.

I don’t understand your response to my point.

You seem to agree with me that it is not meaningless to talk about events before the beginning of something.

My apologies, I read that wrongly. I thought you wrote meaningless instead of meaningful.

 

[benedictus2]

That’s only a hypothesis - we don’t know for sure.

As opposed to a multiverse that is a fact?

Either way, the cause of creation may well transcend the kind of physical matter we’re familiar with, perhaps it’s some kind of exotic, multi-dimensional matter that follows strange laws

So what do you base this conjecture on?

And how does this multi-dimensional matter preclude the necessity of an intelligent creator?

 

[razredge]

No I am not being disingenuous and I did not know what you mean. But I think I do now. But I am not agreeing with this until I read up more on it.

So basically, you admit my point that matter and energy are equivalent in a physical sense if not in the semantic or linguistic sense. Thank you

How? How does a multiverse do away with the need for super intelligence to design it?

 

[benedictus2]

So basically, you admit my point that matter and energy are equivalent in a physical sense if not in the semantic or linguistic sense. Thank you

No I don’t admit your point. I can see where you’re coming from but I do not admit that it is correct. For that I need more than just your words so I still have to read up on it when I find the time.

The same way that God does away with the need for something to design him - they both can just necessarily exist.

But even a multiverse has a beginning in time so it is still not eternal.
Furthermore, if the multiverse is eternal then God did not design it. How does a multiverse do away with intelligent design?

Of course not, both are hypotheses

Which one has greater credence in the scientific community?

Pure speculation

So therefore absolutely no basis on fact?

It doesn’t, it might have an intelligent creator it might not.

Can you explain the how of the might not?

Also please not I am not an atheist, nor am I actually trying to argue that God does not exist.
I am playing devil’s advocate and arguing from what an atheist would say on the origin of the universe to show why their position isn’t completely unreasonable

So far I don’t think you have done that.