'Where did God come from': A legitimate question?

[Undesired Walrus]

This is a question all children ask, at some point or another. I had a thread in which my nephew asked me the same thing- 'Who created God'.

Seperating this quote from another thread on McGrath, this is what the theist has to say about such an argument:

It needs to be pointed out here that the holy grail of the natural sciences is the quest for the grand unified theory- the theory of everything. Why is such a theory regarded as being so important? Because it can explain everything, without itself requiring or demanding an explanation. There is no infinite regress in the quest for explanation there. If Dawkin's brash and simplistic arguments carried weight, this great scientific quest could be dismissed with a seemingly profound, yet in fact trivial question: What explains the explainer. There is no reason to suppose that this quest is a failure from the outset, simply because it terminates the explanatory process.

This is clearly an attempt to use a scientific argument against the accussation that God needs an explanation. If the laws of the universe can, asks McGrath, why not God?

However, I have a feeling he is inadvertantly poking God back into the smallest corner he has yet been placed within.

McGrath seems to be asking why we need to explain where God came from, when we can do not need to explain where the universe came from. If I am reading the situation right, McGrath has elevated God to existence, without giving a reason why he should be, let alone evidence.

He is divorcing God from the reason why we ask the question 'Where did God come from?', which is usually when we are confronted with another question 'Where did the universe come from?'. Not 'Everything that exists need an explanation'. Am I right in thinking this is what McGrath believes Dawkin's argument to be?

And as Sagan says, If God can simply come into existence,

Why not save a step?

**

I seem to remember there was some reason why you couldn't ask the question 'Where did God come from' when you were young. And because the question was never answered, I guess I presumed I was asking one of the dumbest questions around.

[Nogbad]

**

I seem to remember there was some reason why you couldn't ask the question 'Where did God come from' when you were young. And because the question was never answered, I guess I presumed I was asking one of the dumbest questions around.


The whack round the ear always did it for me :D

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Whenever I have asked this question of a believer the response is first an incredible amount of hand waving followed by, when backed into the inevitable corner, saying that they have faith that it is true because they "feel" the presence of God.

Does not work for me. :D

[jimtron]

In my view, any question about the world should be encouraged, whether it's scientific or religious. And both scientific and religious ideas should be challenged. Of course "where did god come from" is a legitimate question, as well as scientific questions about the origins of the universe. These questions may be difficult or impossible to answer, but I don't see why they're not fair questions. But with religion things can quickly get sensitive, and one can be accused of being intolerant or "questioning someone's beliefs" etc.

[hgc]

The author makes patenly absurd claims for the grand unified theory. It's an attempt to understand how various forces of energy (electromagnetic, weak, strong[, gravitational]) are unified into a single field.

I don't think physicists are after a theory to "explain everything." They, of all people, know how unlikely that would be to acheive.

[John_Geeshu]

Begging the question. First establish the existence of a god, then you can postulate what made him and why.

[jimtron]

I don't think physicists are after a theory to "explain everything." They, of all people, know how unlikely that would be to acheive.

That seems to be a very common straw man--"proponents of science say that science can explain everything." Where are these scientists that say everything can be explained scientifically?

[leon_heller]

Since one can't prove or disprove the existence of gods, asking where one of them comes from isn't a legitimate question.

Leon

[jimtron]

Since one can't prove or disprove the existence of gods, asking where one of them comes from isn't a legitimate question.

Leon

I agree that god hasn't been proven to exist, but I don't see why he/she/it couldn't be proven, if god really did exist. And as far as disproving, yes, it's hard or impossible to prove a negative.

Even if god isn't proven to exist, I do think it's a legitimate question to ask a believer where god came from, especially if they just asked you, "if there's no god, where did the universe come from?"

[Silentknight]

Just tell them. Humans created God in their own image, just as humans created every other deity they've ever worshiped. The evidence of this trend is everywhere, and explains why our gods look, think, and act like the people living in the part of the world where they were conceived. It explains why gods do things in accordance with our wants, needs, and personal affairs. It explains why God's sense of justice and morality is so conveniently consistent with our contemporary moral perspectives. It also explains why Earth, and apparently the Middle East, are the center of the universe to God, despite his being credited for creating the entire universe.

[jimtron]

Just tell them. Humans created God in their own image, just as humans created every other deity they've ever worshiped. The evidence of this trend is everywhere, and explains why our gods look, think, and act like the people living in the part of the world where they were conceived. It explains why gods do things in accordance with our wants, needs, and personal affairs. It explains why God's sense of justice and morality is so conveniently consistent with our contemporary moral perspectives. It also explains why Earth, and apparently the Middle East, are the center of the universe to God, despite his being credited for creating the entire universe.

Very good points!

[Roadtoad]

If you're truly asking where God came from, you have to start from where you came from.

Consider it this way: When you read the Bible, it says that God created man in his image. What is your first image of authority, of mercy, of kindness, in your life? Generally, in most people's experience, that come from your parents, and in Western civilization, the figure of ultimate authority is your father. You didn't worry too much about what your mother had to say when you screwed up, and were caught with your sister's friend in your bedroom. But you practically crapped your shorts when your mother intoned those words of ultimate dread: "Just wait until your father gets home."

Oh, hell. Dad!? At that point, you began to wonder if you could get to your best friend's place and hide out for a few years until your father cooled down and wasn't looking to geld you. (Of course, you tried to hide your smirk when all this got mentioned to your grandparents, and your grandfather began to groan about how he caught him and your mother doing the same damned thing...)

We get our initial ideas regarding deity from our parents. If you have parents who tend to be realistic in their expectations, if they tend towards leniency when the screw-up isn't that serious, if they tend towards tolerance, you'll likely as not have an image of God as being kind, generous, reasonable. If you had parents who were very authoritarian, even cruel, you're not going to have as benign a view of God.

It helps to remember that, yeah, if you want to get technical about it, we ARE a grand cosmic accident. While those promoting ID are declaring that such a thing isn't possible, that it required a kind, benificent mind to create us, they forget that in the grand, mathematical scheme of things, with billions upon billions of worlds out there, when you take into account the Laws of Physics, our existence was ultimately going to happen. Remember, it only had to happen once to prove it could happen at all, and in this case, the once is us. If there's another planet with intelligent life on it, it's entirely likely they're dealing with the same argument themselves.

So, why do we need a God? If I had to guess, it was the cheapest, easiest way to maintain social order over the course of centuries. If you only have to worry about the here and now, pretty much anything is going to go. Your short term gain might cause some consequences in the long run, but the loss isn't yours. But, if you have to deal with a deity in the life after, you're probably going to think twice before you attempt something stupid, like getting in to the sack with your sister's friend, (especially stupid if you do it at home and get caught by your mother.)

I'm oversimplifying, but a lengthier discourse probably isn't required here.

[cgallaga]

On a not totally off the point post: if you want to look at the historical eveolution of god(s) I highly recommend both A History of God and The Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions both by Karen Armstrong.

[Radrook]

The question assumes a pre-existing place from which to come.

[Roadtoad]

True, hence, my argument.

[plumjam]

The question itself denies the definition of God.
God is defined as being unconditioned, independent of time, independent of space, unchanging.
So any 'God' that 'came from somewhere' would not be God; it would be something else.

It's just that you're using your narrow, spatially and temporally conditioned way of thinking and assuming that all of reality must be that way.

Applying spatial/temporal questions to God is illogical, captain.
Like asking how tall is a song, or which type of wood is hatred.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The question itself denies the definition of God.
God is defined as being unconditioned, independent of time, independent of space, unchanging.
So any 'God' that 'came from somewhere' would not be God; it would be something else.

It's just that you're using your narrow, spatially and temporally conditioned way of thinking and assuming that all of reality must be that way.

Applying spatial/temporal questions to God is illogical, captain.
Like asking how tall is a song, or which type of wood is hatred.


You beat me to it, and surpassed my meager eloquence.

:gnome:

[plumjam]

You beat me to it, and surpassed my meager eloquence.

:gnome:

Thank you , sir :D

[cgallaga]

Like asking how tall is a song, or which type of wood is hatred.

Exactly, and thus it is demonstrated that all talk of gods - weather by believers or elsewise is nonsensical gibbering.

[Roadtoad]

The question itself denies the definition of God.
God is defined as being unconditioned, independent of time, independent of space, unchanging.
So any 'God' that 'came from somewhere' would not be God; it would be something else.

It's just that you're using your narrow, spatially and temporally conditioned way of thinking and assuming that all of reality must be that way.

Applying spatial/temporal questions to God is illogical, captain.
Like asking how tall is a song, or which type of wood is hatred.

But, it assumes that there is a god in the first place, rather than considering that other means of our creation are possible. The problem is the a priori assumption that a deity exists.

And as to the other questions: If it's Pia Zadora singing, a song is less than a millimeter in height, and getting shorter the longer she sings. Hate is gopher wood.

[Btodd]

The question itself denies the definition of God.
God is defined as being unconditioned, independent of time, independent of space, unchanging.
So any 'God' that 'came from somewhere' would not be God; it would be something else.

This is excusing God from the logical dilemma, simply by defining him outside the boundaries of the dilemma. If we wish to extend that courtesy, then 'whatever preceded the universe' can be defined as having the same properties you just assigned to God, without any personal attributes, such as an intelligence or benevolence. If the problem of 'how can something exist without a beginning?' can be eliminated by saying, 'By a God with no beginning', then it's pointless to continue the discussion.

It's just that you're using your narrow, spatially and temporally conditioned way of thinking and assuming that all of reality must be that way.

Applying spatial/temporal questions to God is illogical, captain.

Again, this is just defining God as outside all understanding to avoid any problems that arise. If all of us are bound by space and time, and it therefore makes no sense to apply said logic to God, then it is irrelevant to speak of God at all. After all, he's outside our understanding.

This is the same type of excuse I've heard in this type of exchange:

Skeptic: If God is love, then why did he order the slaughter of women and children in the Old Testament?

Christian: God's love is not our love.

Skeptic: Then it does no good to speak of God's 'love' at all.

[Roadtoad]

It makes more sense to speak of St. Alphonzo's Pancake Breakfast.

(Everybody do the Funky Alphonzo!)

[gdnp]

I think the question is important and unanswerable.

My brain cannot conceive of a being independent of time. Without any evidence for the existence of such a being, it makes little sense to speculate about where he came from, or if he always existed.

On the other hand, the idea of the universe either having always existed, or having formed spontaneously out of nothing, also defies conventional logic. At least it does for me.

So I have to file these questions away in my brain along with other questions for which I have no answer. How can light be a wave and a particle? Why can't I know the position and the velocity of a particle? What is consciousness? What will happen to it after I die? Will the universe continue after I die, or is it a product of my consciousness? Why is pi 3.14...rather than some other number? Why is e 2.71...rather than some other number? Why are there infinite series that converge to pi and e? What does i, the square root of -1, represent? Why are some mathematical theorems unprovable?

I think it is important to remember that there are some questions for which we not only lack answers, but for which we will always lack answers because they are inherently unanswerable.

[cgallaga]

It makes more sense to speak of St. Alphonzo's Pancake Breakfast.


Where u stole the margarine?

[bruto]

Begging the question. First establish the existence of a god, then you can postulate what made him and why.The problem with that is that by most definitions of "god," (as infinite, timeless, uncreated and sourceless) if you are able to establish his existence, wouldn't you also be accepting that the question is inadmissible?

[fuelair]

In time long forgotten, a great man discovered that there was a second way to have power - you didn't have to be the meanest or strongest and constantly worried about fights and work. You could claim to the others you had found a power that would protect them - but it would only work if they prayed to it and gave it gifts of the best food and women and things they made or gathered. This great man reached into his anus and pulled out all the feces he could get and built of it an idol and told the people and they worshipped it and gave it the best of everything and the great man lived happily on that for many years. And lo, religion came upon the people of the Earth.

The great man is long dead and forgotten but the uber-feces still walks among us - taking all it can in the name of it's current leaders.

[Roadtoad]

In time long forgotten, a great man discovered that there was a second way to have power - you didn't have to be the meanest or strongest and constantly worried about fights and work. You could claim to the others you had found a power that would protect them - but it would only work if they prayed to it and gave it gifts of the best food and women and things they made or gathered. This great man reached into his anus and pulled out all the feces he could get and built of it an idol and told the people and they worshipped it and gave it the best of everything and the great man lived happily on that for many years. And lo, religion came upon the people of the Earth.

The great man is long dead and forgotten but the uber-feces still walks among us - taking all it can in the name of it's current leaders.

True, but an even greater man once pointed out that if you will look at how your actions affect others, then consider how you can behave in a manner that creates an atmosphere of cooperation, you can actually create a better community, a better society, and ultimately, a better world. People then learned that you can observe, postulate, study, and learn the predictable ways the Laws of Physics affect us, and we were able to progress. Some of us learned that you don't advance a society by being polite and playing by the rules. You advance it by being rude and a little crazy.

[Silentknight]

The question itself denies the definition of God.
God is defined as being unconditioned, independent of time, independent of space, unchanging.
So any 'God' that 'came from somewhere' would not be God; it would be something else.
Ah, the "category error" apologetic. The OP question was addressing the definition of God as it relates to the argument from design, therefore the logical boundaries of the dilemma must allow God to be causal, spatial, and temporal. It is not illogical to categorize God along those terms when addressing an ontological question that is already defined using those terms. Your definition is irrelevant, because to introduce it into this logical dilemma would be the fallacy of begging the question.

Even if we assume that God exists outside our universe, then our only concern would be whichever part of him he sticks inside our universe in order to create things or screw around with people's lives. For the purposes of this discussion, you could chop off that part of him with a cleaver and call it "God" while letting the rest of him float away outside the universe. It's the only part of him that's relevant, after all.
It's just that you're using your narrow, spatially and temporally conditioned way of thinking and assuming that all of reality must be that way.

Applying spatial/temporal questions to God is illogical, captain.
Perhaps then you'd be so courteous as to consult the Akashic Records and inform us how to properly apply questions of logic to God. Your clumsy objection overlooks the small little fact that God, when defined as a worshiped being, always interacts with humans in a spatial and temporal fashion. If you're talking about something that hides outside of time and space just to fill in any gaps in one's reasoning whenever it's convenient, and is somehow exempt from human understanding, then you're not talking about a god at all.

For people who are predisposed to use God as a knee-jerk explanation to cover everything they don't understand or can't be bothered to think about, God must seem very vast indeed.

[rocketdodger]

Applying spatial/temporal questions to God is illogical, captain.


And applying God to spatial/temporal questions is not? How does that work?

[plumjam]

And applying God to spatial/temporal questions is not? How does that work?

See maya in Hinduism. The spatio-temporal can only arise out of ignorance (omniscience being "as it were" partialised); it has only illusory existence. Therefore a God interaction with the spatio-temporal is similarly illusory.. though seeming real from the spatio-temporal point of view, due to the operation of maya.
From the God 'point of view' no interaction has taken place.

[gdnp]

The problem with that is that by most definitions of "god," (as infinite, timeless, uncreated and sourceless) if you are able to establish his existence, wouldn't you also be accepting that the question is inadmissible?

I don't see why. If we were able to establish his existence, the question would be answered, as "uncreated" and "timeless" are part of his definition.

Many have argued that we cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. I have never heard anyone argue, however, that a God with the usual powers ascribed to him could not prove his existence to us. So if God wants to pretend he doesn't exist, then I'm willing to play along until he changes his mind.

[six7s]

If Dawkin's brash and simplistic arguments carried weight, this great scientific quest could be dismissed with a seemingly profound, yet in fact trivial question

If Dawkin's brash and simplistic arguments carried weight
Dawkin's arguments do carry weight
'Brash'? Maybe... for those who can't handle having their woo undermined
'Simplistic'? Is that not a good thing? Why would anyone prefer 'complicated'?

this great scientific quest could be dismissed
Huh? How does that follow?

with a seemingly profound, yet in fact trivial question
Oh! It follows with an argument from incredulity :boggled:

Bollocks



So any 'God' that 'came from somewhere' would not be God; it would be something else.

It's just that you're using your narrow, spatially and temporally conditioned way of thinking and assuming that all of reality must be that way.

Serious question PJ:

Why do you assume that not all of reality must be that way?

[rocketdodger]

See maya in Hinduism. The spatio-temporal can only arise out of ignorance (omniscience being "as it were" partialised); it has only illusory existence. Therefore a God interaction with the spatio-temporal is similarly illusory.. though seeming real from the spatio-temporal point of view, due to the operation of maya.
From the God 'point of view' no interaction has taken place.

Ah I see.

So from God's point of view he does not interact with us in the spatio-temoral universe at all. We just think he does because we are ignorant.

Are you sure you want to go with that answer?

[plumjam]

Serious question PJ:

Why do you assume that not all of reality must be that way?

Ponder on this one. The conditioned requires an unconditioned 'substrate' on which to 'play'.

[gdnp]

Ponder on this one. The conditioned requires an unconditioned 'substrate' on which to 'play'.

Why?

[autumn1971]

See maya in Hinduism. The spatio-temporal can only arise out of ignorance (omniscience being "as it were" partialised); it has only illusory existence. Therefore a God interaction with the spatio-temporal is similarly illusory.. though seeming real from the spatio-temporal point of view, due to the operation of maya.
From the God 'point of view' no interaction has taken place.
See "ratiocination" in Kierkegaard. Simply trying to invent levels of conciousness able to inwardly act without being aware of outside actors is old hat. You know this, since the philosophy you cite is a hell of a lot older than mine, but it is no less an example of the mental masturbation that ensues when one has run out of ways to test evidence, and has a philosophy degree.
Defining the problem away does not solve the problem, it simply rapes the language. Your maya is effectively the same as saying there is nothing there, but with room for a sequel.
Invoking the unknowable is not a mature way to argue, as all evidence has been summarily ruled out.
I need to vary my sentence structure, as I see it has become tiresome.

[rocketdodger]

Ponder on this one. The conditioned requires an unconditioned 'substrate' on which to 'play'.

Yes. Even God.

I never grow tired of you making our arguments for us, plumjam.

[plumjam]

Ah I see.

So from God's point of view he does not interact with us in the spatio-temoral universe at all. We just think he does because we are ignorant.

Are you sure you want to go with that answer?

(bolding mine)
The God/We/I distinctions are illusory. From the God 'point of view' there is no 'other'. So we are all God, ignorantly believing ourselves not to be God.. via maya. The saints, mystics and avatars have been telling us this for millenia.. but the naturalists are too proud to listen.
The purpose of spiritual practice is to dispell this ignorance as to our own real nature.

So, Dodger, get yourself off to Church this morning. :p

[plumjam]

Yes. Even God.

I never grow tired of you making our arguments for us, plumjam.

I think you haven't been listening. God is unconditioned.

[six7s]

Ponder on this one. The conditioned requires an unconditioned 'substrate' on which to 'play'.

I have no idea what that means

However, I'm damn sure you know what my question asks...

Why do you assume that not all of reality must be that way?

Don't play games PJ

Unless you answer with your reasoned response, I'll assume that you're blowing it all out of your arse

[plumjam]

Why?

Because the opposites require 'something' on which to 'sit' which is itself unchanging. Changing, projected imagery can only be 'realised' (albeit in an illusory manner) by 'sitting on' an unchanging substrate.. i.e. the cinema screen.

[six7s]

And, please, don't fob me off with the sort of waffle you wrote in posts 38 and 39... they simply describe what you assume... not why

And post 41 is just plain irrelevant

Why do you assume that not all of reality must be that way?

[autumn1971]

Philosophy gives us very bad metaphors for reality.
Science gives us an explanation for the reality which, when improperly investigated, gives us philosophy.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Last night I forced myself to listen to Ben Stein on American Family Radio talking about Ben Stein and he was bragging about how he'd ask "Darwinists" "if you believe in evolution, where does gravity come from" and how they could never answer the question. I feel the same way whenever I see my fellow atheists asking "who created God" or "where did God come from".

The problem with almost all gotcha questions is that they're not as clever or intractible as people think nor is the issue as simplistic as the asker making it out to be. Obviously there are easy answers (God always existed/gravity is a fundamental force of the Universe), but issues that require deeper philisophical or scientific investigation (the Cosmological argument/the Theory of Gravity) deserve better than a quip when formulating either the question or the answer.

[Miss_Kitt]

Dr. Leonard Peikoff (sp?), a philosophy professor, said, "People say, 'Existance can't be eternal, it had to come from somewhere.' So they postulate a Creator God. When asked, 'Where did God come from?' they say, 'God is eternal'. This is because they believe in Primacy of Consciousness. As long as it's a big consciousness, they're okay with it." (Editor's note: This is probably not an exact quote, since it has been easily 20 years since I heard that lecture --but it's pretty close, because it's always been a favorite of mine.)

Conciousness perceives existance -- that is, It is what it is, regardless of what you think. Wishes aren't horses: that's why beggars don't ride.

[six7s]

Philosophy gives us very bad metaphors for reality'Bad' is a relative term, yes?

If so, please provide two good metaphors for reality

Thanks



Science gives us an explanation for the reality which, when improperly investigated, gives us philosophy.So? Are you suggesting that science is responsible for bad philosophy? :confused:

[autumn1971]

Last night I forced myself to listen to Ben Stein on American Family Radio talking about Ben Stein and he was bragging about how he'd ask "Darwinists" "if you believe in evolution, where does gravity come from" and how they could never answer the question. I feel the same way whenever I see my fellow atheists asking "who created God" or "where did God come from".

The problem with almost all gotcha questions is that they're not as clever or intractible as people think nor is the issue as simplistic as the asker making it out to be. Obviously there are easy answers (God always existed/gravity is a fundamental force of the Universe), but issues that require deeper philisophical or scientific investigation (the Cosmological argument/the Theory of Gravity) deserve better than a quip when formulating either the question or the answer.

I agree completely, but in the context of the OP, as I understand it, the question relates to that which is commonly called reality: that which is experienced by us to the point of forcing, rather than merely influencing, actions. I may believe that I am above gravity, but reality disagrees. I may also believe in God, but reality is impotent to make a comment. If reality ever has made a comment on the existence of God, it has been silent about it (in terms of my definition of reality, and yes, I now have eaten of the irony fungi re my dismissal of philosophy).
The only way that the existence of god can be questioned is in the bounds of "reality", or, that which is experienced objectively. The existence of a god outside of objective experience is a question of philosophy, not of reality.
Therefore, I conclude that the question of where god comes from, as it is commonly understood to be a question about a hypothetical god possibly needing to justify itself on some causal level, is actually irrelevant to both sides of the debate: if god exists as some being outside of human experience, the question is silly; if god is assumed to interact with the material universe, it is able to be rationally investigated, and thus is not a god.
So the answer to the OP is "yes, but no".

[autumn1971]

@ six7s,
1. Quantum theory
2. General Relativity

As to the second question, reality is responsible for philosophy, but has been assiduously avoiding the blame.

Also, reality (and ale) is responsible for much of my grammer.

[Undesired Walrus]

So any 'God' that 'came from somewhere' would not be God; it would be something else.

It's just that you're using your narrow, spatially and temporally conditioned way of thinking and assuming that all of reality must be that way.


Certainly not. There is no cause for the decay of a radioactive nucleus. I have stated that something does not always require a cause.

What I have said about the question 'Where does God come from?' is when he is used by people who cannot comprehend that 'something came from nothing', so by some extraordinary leap of logic, they use God to solve this problem.

If God can come from nothing, why not save a step, and deem the universe came from nothing?

[Calben]

God came from the minds of many humans.
I also believe any question has legitimacy.

[six7s]

I also believe any question has legitimacy.
When did you stop beating your wife/husband/etc?

[Undesired Walrus]

Last night I forced myself to listen to Ben Stein on American Family Radio talking about Ben Stein and he was bragging about how he'd ask "Darwinists" "if you believe in evolution, where does gravity come from" and how they could never answer the question. I feel the same way whenever I see my fellow atheists asking "who created God" or "where did God come from".

The problem with almost all gotcha questions is that they're not as clever or intractible as people think nor is the issue as simplistic as the asker making it out to be. Obviously there are easy answers (God always existed/gravity is a fundamental force of the Universe), but issues that require deeper philisophical or scientific investigation (the Cosmological argument/the Theory of Gravity) deserve better than a quip when formulating either the question or the answer.

Yet when Mr Stein asks the question 'Where does gravity come from?', he is playing gotcha by presuming that everything needs to come from somewhere. In his book, this is God. Therefore, playing by his logic, 'Where did God come from?' is a legitimate question. If he deems that God does not need to come from anywhere, then we may ask 'Why thus, does Gravity need to come from somewhere?'. Therefore, there is no need for a creator.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Autumn, I liked your comments and you sound pretty close what I think except I'd add that it's possible that there's some deistic clockwinder diety not interested in the affairs of human beings I could become aware of and still be an atheist.

Yet when Mr Stein asks the question 'Where does gravity come from?', he is playing gotcha by presuming that everything needs to come from somewhere. In his book, this is God. Therefore, playing by his logic, 'Where did God come from?' is a legitimate question. If he deems that God does not need to come from anywhere, then we may ask 'Why thus, does Gravity need to come from somewhere?'. Therefore, there is no need for a creator.

Gravity, by definition, comes from somewhere (whether it's gravitons, a force, exotic energy, something causes it) and the source of that somewhere is the Universe. God*, by definition, would be the creator of Universe so we're already two steps removed from equating gravity having a source and god having a source. I think your deduction doesn't cut it.

Just to be clear, you did note the main gist of my objection was not the question itself though, but the simplistic phrasing of complex issues right?

*Capital g only because I'm starting a sentence.

[Undesired Walrus]

Gravity, by definition, comes from somewhere

Does it have to?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Certainly not. There is no cause for the decay of a radioactive nucleus. I have stated that something does not always require a cause.

What I have said about the question 'Where does God come from?' is when he is used by people who cannot comprehend that 'something came from nothing', so by some extraordinary leap of logic, they use God to solve this problem.

If God can come from nothing, why not save a step, and deem the universe came from nothing?


Something can not scientifically come from nothing.

Simple somethings that were derived from nothing can not scientifically spontaneously become complex somethings.

The naturalistic view of the universe is in violation of the basic laws of science.

:gnome:

[leon_heller]

I agree that god hasn't been proven to exist, but I don't see why he/she/it couldn't be proven, if god really did exist. And as far as disproving, yes, it's hard or impossible to prove a negative.

Even if god isn't proven to exist, I do think it's a legitimate question to ask a believer where god came from, especially if they just asked you, "if there's no god, where did the universe come from?"

"A statement makes a genuine truth claim (is true or false) if and only if it's either empirical (testable by sense experience) or analytic (true by definition)."

Any answer to "Where did God come from?" isn't testable and can't be true by definition.

Leon

[leon_heller]

Asking where god comes from is assuming he, she or it exists in the first place. I think a better more valid question is does god exist.

As I have said, that is not a valid question as it cannot be answered.

Leon

[~enigma~]

As I have said, that is not a valid question as it cannot be answered.

Leon
Where does god come from is a valid question? Explain that WITHOUT the presupposition that god exists?

[leon_heller]

Where does god come from is a valid question? Explain that WITHOUT the presupposition that god exists?

For the second time:

"A statement makes a genuine truth claim (is true or false) if and only if it's either empirical (testable by sense experience) or analytic (true by definition)."

Any answer to "Where did God come from?" isn't testable and can't be true by definition.

Leon

[~enigma~]

For the second time:

"A statement makes a genuine truth claim (is true or false) if and only if it's either empirical (testable by sense experience) or analytic (true by definition)."

Any answer to "Where did God come from?" isn't testable and can't be true by definition.

Leon
Ah...I see. You quoted Asking where god comes from is assuming he, she or it exists in the first place. I think a better more valid question is does god exist. which says one question is bad and another should be asked. Your statement following the quote wasn't clear about what question it was referring to.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Asking where god comes from is assuming he, she or it exists in the first place. I think a better more valid question is does god exist.

Asking where God comes from is like asking to whom is the bachelor married.

:gnome:

[Darat]

Posts from the "Big Bang" derail moved to AAH. Keep to the topic of the thread please.

[gdnp]

Asking where God comes from is like asking to whom is the bachelor married.

:gnome:

In that they are both unanswerable, yes.

A bachelor is not married so asking who he is married to is nonsense.

God does not exist so asking where he came from is similarly nonsense.

Good job, Jerome. You seem to be learning.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

God does not exist so asking where he came from is similarly nonsense.

Do you have evidence of such or is this just your FAITH?

:gnome:

[DOC]

Where did God come from?

Well this question presupposes that there was a time when God wasn't in a certain place, and had to come from somewhere in order to get there. That presupposition doesn't fit the standard Christian definition of God that God is eternal and omnipresent (exists everywhere).

Therefore because of this presupposition the the question can't be applied to The Christian/Jewish God. The question can be applied to the Mormon god however since the Mormon faith believes there was a time when God was not God but was an actual human being like you and me and then became God after a period of time.

[leon_heller]

Do you have evidence of such or is this just your FAITH?

:gnome:

How could it be proved that he exists?

Leon

[DOC]

How could it be proved that he {God} exists?

Well in the Christian faith it is believed that Jesus is part of the Godhead. And that He is God in the flesh. And we have substantial historical evidence that Jesus was an actual historical figure. So if we have historical evidence Jesus existed, then according to the Christian definition of God, we have evidence that God exists.

[~enigma~]

Where did God come from?

Well this question presupposes that there was a time when God wasn't in a certain place, and had to come from somewhere in order to get there. That presupposition doesn't fit the standard Christian definition of God that God is eternal and omnipresent (exists everywhere).

Therefore because of this presupposition the the question can't be applied to The Christian/Jewish God. The question can be applied to the Mormon god however since the Mormon faith believes there was a time when God was not God but was an actual human being like you and me and then became God after a period of time.
Wow....nice try to save your godman from a question. Question for you, if god is all powerful why does he, she or it need or want your puny mortal defense?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

How could it be proved that he exists?

Leon

I am not certain it can. This is why a belief in God is necessarily an assured expectation based upon evidence.

:gnome:

[~enigma~]

I am not certain it can. This is why a belief in God is necessarily an assured expectation based upon evidence.

:gnome:
There is evidence? What a load of malarkey. Care to list the evidence...

[leon_heller]

Well in the Christian faith it is believed that Jesus is part of the Godhead. And that He is God in the flesh. And we have substantial historical evidence that Jesus was an actual historical figure. So if we have historical evidence Jesus existed, then according to the Christian definition of God, we have evidence that God exists.

That's not evidence, it's based on the belief that Jesus was God.

Leon

[leon_heller]

I am not certain it can. This is why a belief in God is necessarily an assured expectation based upon evidence.

:gnome:

What exactly does that mean?

Leon

[bruto]

Well in the Christian faith it is believed that Jesus is part of the Godhead. And that He is God in the flesh. And we have substantial historical evidence that Jesus was an actual historical figure. So if we have historical evidence Jesus existed, then according to the Christian definition of God, we have evidence that God exists.You've missed a step there, haven't you? I'm quite willing to concede that Jesus existed, but at what point does historical evidence that Jesus existed constitute historical evidence that he was God in the flesh?

In the faith of the ancient Egyptians, the Pharaohs were gods. We have plenty of historical evidence that the Pharaohs existed. By your argument, their divinity is thus proven.

[Silentknight]

(bolding mine)
The God/We/I distinctions are illusory. From the God 'point of view' there is no 'other'. So we are all God, ignorantly believing ourselves not to be God.. via maya. The saints, mystics and avatars have been telling us this for millenia.. but the naturalists are too proud to listen.
The purpose of spiritual practice is to dispell this ignorance as to our own real nature.
So God is simultaneously outside the temporal/spatial universe as an unconditioned being sitting beyond our understanding, and dwelling within us all as a realization of our true nature based on conditioned understanding? You could have just saved the trouble by admitting to arguing in contradictions. Just because a belief is really old doesn't mean it's right, and just because you dictate the opinions of people you disagree with doesn't mean your strawmen are right either.

I hope you realize you proved my point, that God is an invention of and thus a subset of human imagination.

One more thing, which I forgot to get to.
Like asking how tall is a song, or which type of wood is hatred.
If you were asking about the amplitude of sound waves that a song generates, then it would be perfectly legitimate to apply units of length measure to it. Likewise, if you were asking what material was used to make a baseball bat that served as a murder weapon, then it it would be perfectly legitimate to ask a question along those lines. So if God is like a really annoying song playing from outside the universe (or maybe just inside one's head) then the only part of God that concerns us would be the vibrations generated in our universe and/or skull, being the only part that affects us in any meaningful way. Likewise if God is like a baseball bat that's been used to club someone to death (which isn't too far from the truth, mind you) then the material and manufacturer of the bat would certainly be relevant questions to bring up.

[Roadtoad]

You've missed a step there, haven't you? I'm quite willing to concede that Jesus existed, but at what point does historical evidence that Jesus existed constitute historical evidence that he was God in the flesh?

In the faith of the ancient Egyptians, the Pharaohs were gods. We have plenty of historical evidence that the Pharaohs existed. By your argument, their divinity is thus proven.

You're either ignoring or are unaware (I suspect the latter) of one thing Christians point to: Fulfilled Prophecy.

Dr. David Hocking, who used to be the voice of The Biola Hour, (which was only 30 minutes in length; go fig), used this quite frequently. He used to point out that there were over 200 prophecies in the Old Testament which declared the coming Christ. These included Christophanies, (appearances by the pre-incarnate Christ), actual prophecies, and other indicies that God would appear on this Earth in flesh, that he would suffer and die for the sins of man, and that he would do great miracles while here which people would ignore.

The trick to this is that in order for any of this to work, you have to presuppose the existence of Jesus, and his role on Earth as Savior. Ask a Jew what he thinks of Jesus, and the kindest thing you'll hear is that Jesus was a good teacher. Most Jews I've spent time with are convinced that the man called "Christ" was simply a psychotic. Jesus himself said as much, if you read the New Testament and do your research, that either he was who he said he was, or he was a madman.

Further, when you read the OT, you also have to read it just so, so that you can provide yourself the justification that, yes, Jesus' presence was foretold, that there was more meant in the Scripture than met the eye. If this sounds cultic to you, well, if the shoe fits...

The problem is that this is part and parcel with the a priori arguments that are presented regarding the existence of God. My wife and I have gone around and around about this, though with greater compassion for one another. Most Christians are convinced that you ought to believe first, then the evidence will be made manifest. The problem with that is that it denies the first rule of logic: Evidence, then Belief. Don't tell me the sky's blue and expect me to believe it before I see it for myself. It's one of the reasons why school teachers use visual aids to help kids get the central idea regarding multiplication. You can't expect people to believe otherwise.

It's one of the reasons that Dr. Chuck Swindoll said time and again that the strongest evidence for the existence of God is a changed life. (Swindoll later went on to Dallas Theological Seminary.) It's one of the reasons that Mike Warnke was so prized as a speaker: Warnke came out as having been a Satanist and Witch, having conducted numerous arcane and demonic rituals. But, he encountered Jesus, was Saved, and was a changed man.

Except:

If you read about Warnke and his "ministry," you learn that what he told us in The Satan Seller was nothing more than a load of crap. He'd made it all up. Read further, and you learn just how abusive he was towards his wives, (yes, he's been married multiple times, divorced multiple times, a big no-no within Evangelical circles), and you realize that not only was Warnke not changed, but his "faith" in God is pretty much a lie. If he was such a strong "believer," why would he have been having affairs with other women?

Ditto Hocking, who lost his ministry because he was boffing the women in his church. If you truly believed that Jesus was God, why would you denigrate his words with actions that declare you have no such belief, especially if you're a pastor? Bear in mind that Jimmy Swaggart was so "devout," he flouted the request by the Assemblies of God that he step down from his ministry, before he destroyed the Church as a whole with his actions. (And keep in mind, Hocking was one of Swaggart's more vocal critics.)

But, keep in mind, if you can bring in the green, you can still make the scene. For example, in spite of destroying her marriage with an affair with a back-up singer, Sandi Patti is still in good standing with many within the Evangelical community. She's still a heroine to many, with her claims of "abuse" from her husband, John Helvering, in spite of the established fact that not only was there no abuse, but the consistent declarations by Helvering that he would seek both joint and individual counseling to try and save their marriage.

I'm a divorced man. In the Church, I was all but forbidden to serve, (though at one church, Grace Baptist Church in Fair Oaks, CA, the pastor, a man named Alan Otten, told me that while I couldn't even clean the toilets, I was allowed to tithe. Ah, yes, gotta get that mammon rolling in.) But, if I were able to make my full tithe and offering, I would have been welcomed with open arms. I saw that time and again, and it was something emphasized to me by Pastor Michael Arnold of Roseville 1st Church of the Nazarene, who declared from the pulpit, "If you aren't tithing, don't bother praying, because God will not listen to a disobedient servant." Never mind I was paid so badly at my job I could barely afford to keep my wife and kids fed, I had to pony up that 10%. (Funny: when I did, we were in WORSE shape than when I didn't pay it. So much for God's blessings.)

James Dobson once said that God does not need our money, but we need the discipline of giving it. Perhaps that's true, but why does it need to be such a millstone around people's necks? The the OT, there's a test proposed for the believer: Faithfully give your full tithe to God, and see if he doesn't fill the storehouses to overflowing. But where do you place that tithe? When you watch churches and pastors declaring they are accountable to none but God, and see pastors living better than some CEOs, you have to wonder what's going on with that money, and how your tithe benefits the average person.

In fact, if anything, it presents evidence AGAINST God's existence. It's practical. It's observeable. It's real. And, yes, Judas did criticize the woman at the banquet for dumping nard on Jesus feet, but Jesus pointed out that he would be among the disciples for only a short time, but we would always have the poor among us. Judas wasn't shut down for his statement of fact, but for his priorities.

In other words, why are there still poor people among us? Why isn't the Church as a whole building shelters, feeding the hungry, clothing them, serving in communities? What's wrong with this picture?

For that matter, why did we have, (and still have), pedophiles in ministry? Why do we allow such people to continue to serve, failing to pursue them, allowing them to molest children in the name of Jesus? Why is this right? Why didn't Pope John Paul II tell Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston, "I would strongly suggest to you, sir, that you get yourself a job, even if it's just selling Slurpees at 7-11, and do something personally about paying for the millions of dollars worth of therapy required by the children who were molested under your leadership"? Why, of all things, was this son of a bitch PROMOTED to the Vatican? Was the papacy stupid? Or merely corrupt?

Or is there no fear of God, because there is no God?

Sorry, I don't believe there's a God because most Christians say with their actions there is no God.

Trust me. I have tales to tell. I know this crowd well.

[leon_heller]

Well in the Christian faith it is believed that Jesus is part of the Godhead. And that He is God in the flesh. And we have substantial historical evidence that Jesus was an actual historical figure. So if we have historical evidence Jesus existed, then according to the Christian definition of God, we have evidence that God exists.

There is no evidence that Jesus himself (if the biblical Jesus ever existed) thought he was the son of God or even said as much to anyone. If he didn't believe it, why should anyone else?

Leon

[Gate2501]

Well in the Christian faith it is believed that Jesus is part of the Godhead. And that He is God in the flesh. And we have substantial historical evidence that Jesus was an actual historical figure. So if we have historical evidence Jesus existed, then according to the Christian definition of God, we have evidence that God exists.

My edit might help you figure out why that isn't evidence.

[DOC]

Well in the Christian faith it is believed that Jesus is part of the Godhead. And that He is God in the flesh. And we have substantial historical evidence that Jesus was an actual historical figure. So if we have historical evidence Jesus existed, then according to the Christian definition of God, we have evidence that God exists.

You've missed a step there, haven't you? I'm quite willing to concede that Jesus existed, but at what point does historical evidence that Jesus existed constitute historical evidence that he was God in the flesh?

Well this historical evidence gives evidence that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead:

From the site "Evidence for the Resurrection" by Josh McDowell:

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

[DOC]

There is no evidence that Jesus himself (if the biblical Jesus ever existed) thought he was the son of God or even said as much to anyone. If he didn't believe it, why should anyone else?

This is a false statement. I'll bring in the verses later.

[Roadtoad]

DOC: Sorry, but it's the same old-same old.

Facts, please?

[Gate2501]

Well this historical evidence gives evidence that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead:

From the site "Evidence for the Resurrection" by Josh McDowell:

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

Riiiiiiight...

That site is basically a collection of historical anecdotes positively reinforcing the divine reanimation of a dead body.

There are also many historical anecdotes from say... Ancient Egypt, that will lead us to believe in their mythos if taken seriously.

If you count theses anecdotes as *proof* of this event, then you MUST also logically find all of the other religions of the world to be proven true.

That puts you in quite a bad position as a Christian.

[DOC]

There is no evidence that Jesus himself (if the biblical Jesus ever existed) thought he was the son of God or even said as much to anyone. If he didn't believe it, why should anyone else?

This is not correct. Here are two of several verses listed where Jesus said or implied He was the Son of God.

Then Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, cried out, 'Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from. I am not here on my own, but he who sent me is true. You do not know him, but I know him because I am from him and he sent me'" (John 7:28-29).

"Then they asked him, 'Where is your father?' 'You do not know me or my Father,' Jesus replied. 'If you knew me, you would know my Father also'" (John 8:19) "'I tell you the truth,' Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I am!'" (John 8:58). "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).

In the bold lettering Jesus is clearly claiming to be the "preexistent" Son of God.

From the article did Jesus say He was God?

http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/did-jesus-say-he-was-god-faq.htm

[leon_heller]

This is not correct. Here are two of several verses listed where Jesus said or implied He was the Son of God.

Then Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, cried out, 'Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from. I am not here on my own, but he who sent me is true. You do not know him, but I know him because I am from him and he sent me'" (John 7:28-29).

"Then they asked him, 'Where is your father?' 'You do not know me or my Father,' Jesus replied. 'If you knew me, you would know my Father also'" (John 8:19) "'I tell you the truth,' Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I am!'" (John 8:58). "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).

In the bold lettering Jesus is clearly claiming to be the "preexistent" Son of God.

From the article did Jesus say He was God?

http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/did-jesus-say-he-was-god-faq.htm

That was written several years after his death. There are no contemporaneous accounts.

Leon

[DOC]

There are also many historical anecdotes from say... Ancient Egypt, that will lead us to believe in their mythos if taken seriously.

If you count theses anecdotes as *proof* of this event, then you MUST also logically find all of the other religions of the world to be proven true.

Well the religion of Ancient Egypt is long gone, so where is the power in it. The Pope is even in the news this very weekend being seen by an estimated 500,000,000 people by television. All this is 2000 years after the fact. There is a reason for that. The reason is there is power in the message.

And other religions do have "some" truth to them, but not the total truth.

[~enigma~]

Well the religion of Ancient Egypt is long gone, so where is the power in it. The Pope is even in the news this very weekend being seen by an estimated 500,000,000 people by television. All this is 2000 years after the fact. There is a reason for that. The reason is there is power in the message.

And other religions do have "some" truth to them, but not the total truth.
Don't you ever get tired of using circular logic? If I were in your shoes I would wonder why I have to resort to illogic and defending an omnipotent god from questions...

[Gate2501]

Well the religion of Ancient Egypt is long gone, so where is the power in it. The Pope is even in the news this very weekend being seen by an estimated 500,000,000 people by television. All this is 2000 years after the fact. There is a reason for that. The reason is there is power in the message.

And other religions do have "some" truth to them, but not the total truth.

So the anecdotal accounts of the most popular religions today are the *true* ones? Wouldn't this make Islam's historical anecdotes regarding miraculous events correct above Christianity???

The bottom line here is that 2000 year old stories and anecdotes are not *proof* of the divine reanimation of a prophets corpse.

[gdnp]

You're either ignoring or are unaware (I suspect the latter) of one thing Christians point to: Fulfilled Prophecy.

Dr. David Hocking, who used to be the voice of The Biola Hour, (which was only 30 minutes in length; go fig), used this quite frequently. He used to point out that there were over 200 prophecies in the Old Testament which declared the coming Christ. These included Christophanies, (appearances by the pre-incarnate Christ), actual prophecies, and other indicies that God would appear on this Earth in flesh, that he would suffer and die for the sins of man, and that he would do great miracles while here which people would ignore.

Of course, the Jews argue that Jesus could not be the messiah because he did not fulfill these same 200 prophesies. Go figure.

[six7s]

And other religions do have "some" truth to them, but not the total truth.Winnie The Pooh has elements of truth.

Despite almost 2000 of posts, the reason why you feel (not think) that you have to align yourself with one (as in not none) of the myths remains a mystery

[Undesired Walrus]

To bring the argument away from Jesus and his folks, is it true Gravity needs to come from somewhere? I was told earlier in this thread that -by definition- it needs to come from somewhere. Why?

[Silentknight]

What are you skeptics talking about? Of course there's documented evidence that Jesus rose from the dead-- and came back as a zombie. Haven't you seen the trailers for George Romero's upcoming movie "Autobiography of the Dead"? In it, he interviews many famous zombies from cinematic history, such as Bub, The Crow, and Jesus of Nazareth himself. Here, I'll post an excerpt.


George: So Jesus, what in your opinion would be the most significant change that will take place in the White House following the 2008 election?

Jesus: Braaaaaaains...

George: Couldn't have put it better myself. Speaking of which, I understand you do a great impression of President Bush. Would you like to share that with us?

Jesus: Uuggghhhh...

George: (laughs) Now Jesus, there are sure to be a lot of your followers out there watching this interview. What, in your opinion, should mainstream Christianity be telling people about how to live their lives?

Jesus: ...

George: I see. Well, thanks for your time, that about wraps it up.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Well this historical evidence gives evidence that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead:

From the site "Evidence for the Resurrection" by Josh McDowell:

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

For ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT EVENTS IN HISTORY (purportedly) the four gospels all give a different story. Howcum? :confused:

[Calben]

When did you stop beating your wife/husband/etc?


You could not of known I don't or do beat my spouse so the question has the possibilty to be ligitimate.

[six7s]

You could not of known I don't or do beat my spouse so the question has the possibilty to be ligitimate.
Do you know what Eris said to the Flying Spaghetti Monster after she read your response?

[gdnp]

For ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT EVENTS IN HISTORY (purportedly) the four gospels all give a different story. Howcum? :confused:

Oh, come on. There's much more evidence than the gospels. What about the narratives the 3 wise men wrote, once they returned to their native lands, about seeing the birth of a living God? Not to mention the astronomical records that record the star that the wise men followed.

What about the records of King Herod and Pontius Pilate? It's not like crucified men came back to life every day, so obviously they recorded the events in great detail.

Didn't they?

[bruto]

Well this historical evidence gives evidence that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead:

From the site "Evidence for the Resurrection" by Josh McDowell:

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

I must say I don't see much on that site that would count as evidence except to someone who has a very scanty idea of what evidence is. Of course this has never stopped the DOCs of this world from citing it and never will. But it's beside the point anyway.

IBecause even if you had real evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, this would not be evidence that he was God in the flesh. Some Christians believe in the bodily assumption of the virgin Mary, but she is not God in the flesh - at least not according to the relevant dogma.

[bruto]

Well the religion of Ancient Egypt is long gone, so where is the power in it. The Pope is even in the news this very weekend being seen by an estimated 500,000,000 people by television. All this is 2000 years after the fact. There is a reason for that. The reason is there is power in the message.

And other religions do have "some" truth to them, but not the total truth.And if the Muslims gain the upper hand, will you convert using that same logic?

[bruto]

Don't you ever get tired of using circular logic? If I were in your shoes I would wonder why I have to resort to illogic and defending an omnipotent god from questions...Ah, but if you were in his shoes, then there's a likelihood that their wearer would have brains enough to know the difference between logic and illogic. I have yet to see evidence that the occupant of DOC's shoes is so favored.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Oh, come on. There's much more evidence than the gospels. What about the narratives the 3 wise men wrote, once they returned to their native lands, about seeing the birth of a living God? Not to mention the astronomical records that record the star that the wise men followed.

What about the records of King Herod and Pontius Pilate? It's not like crucified men came back to life every day, so obviously they recorded the events in great detail.

Didn't they?

Of course. What was I thinking? All those people that saw him at that time were so convinced of his Godhood that they converted on the spot and the whole country was Christian in a decade of his flying off to Heaven. :boggled: Good thing they could recognize Him as the Real One and not confuse him with the hundreds of other lunatic god men roving the country preaching the Apocalypse. :crowded:

[DOC]

Wow....nice try to save your godman from a question. Question for you, if god is all powerful why does he, she or it need or want your puny mortal defense?

God's going to find a way to give everyone "enough" information to make the right decision, whether its me, someone else, a family, a book, a church, a personal experience, or whatever. But then it's up to each person to make a "totally free will decision" whether to believe or
to not believe.

[RandFan]

God's going to find a way to give everyone "enough" information to make the right decision, whether its me, someone else, a family, a book, a church, a personal experience, or whatever. But then it's up to each person to make a "totally free will decision" whether to believe or to not believe.Hmmmm.....

So, the people who live in India, coincidentally, overwhelmingly make the wrong decision?

Oh, and the people in Muslim countries, coincidently, overwhelmingly make the wrong decision?

That god is so sly to make free will look like cultural indoctrination.

Modern Distribution of World Religions.
(http://www.wadsworth.com/religion_d/special_features/popups/maps/matthews_world/content/map_01.html)

[~enigma~]

God's going to find a way to give everyone "enough" information to make the right decision, whether its me, someone else, a family, a book, a church, a personal experience, or whatever. But then it's up to each person to make a "totally free will decision" whether to believe or
to not believe.
Nice sidestep and avoidance of the question. Do you realize that you do more to hurt christianity than anybody? If anybody actually reads your posts your smug attitude will definitely drive them away from your god/man/myth....why do you keep chasing people away from your god/man/myth?

[Ryan O'Dine]

In the OT, there are some very specific things the messiah must accomplish in order to be considered the messiah.

The moshiach will bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by bringing us back to Israel and restoring Jerusalem (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). He will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government, both for Jews and gentiles (Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1). He will rebuild the Temple and re-establish its worship (Jeremiah 33:18). He will restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land (Jeremiah 33:15).
...snip...
Olam Ha-Ba [the post-messianic era --ed.] will be characterized by the peaceful co-existence of all people (Isaiah 2:4). Hatred, intolerance and war will cease to exist.
...snip...
All of the Jewish people will return from their exile among the nations to their home in Israel (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). The law of the Jubilee will be reinstated.
...snip...
There will be no murder, robbery, competition or jealousy. There will be no sin (Zephaniah 3:13). Sacrifices will continue to be brought in the Temple, but these will be limited to thanksgiving offerings, because there will be no further need for expiatory offerings.

Source ( http://www.jewfaq.org/moshiach.htm)

Above all, the messiah will be responsible for rebuilding the temple -- the physical brick-and-mortar building, that is.

So the OT prophecies themselves, coupled with empirical evidence, shows that Jesus could not have been the messiah.

[gdnp]

God's going to find a way to give everyone "enough" information to make the right decision, whether its me, someone else, a family, a book, a church, a personal experience, or whatever. But then it's up to each person to make a "totally free will decision" whether to believe or
to not believe.

So my error in not believing in your God is caused by and error made by my "totally free will decision". Your God is omnipotent, he created me, he made me a logical being, and with good faith and a desire to be a good person I have analyzed the evidence supplied by him and come to the wrong conclusion.

Well, it sounds to me like either I was poorly designed to perceive and analyze the evidence, I was poorly designed to distinguish good from evil, or was given insufficient evidence to make the correct choice. Which of these is my fault rather than your omnipotent God's fault?

[Gate2501]

Well, it sounds to me like either I was poorly designed to perceive and analyze the evidence, I was poorly designed to distinguish good from evil, or was given insufficient evidence to make the correct choice. Which of these is my fault rather than your omnipotent God's fault?

Or you have chosen to be EVIL AND WRONG!

SATAN SATAN SATAN!!!

[six7s]

God's going to find a way to give everyone "enough" information to make the right decision, whether its me, someone else, a family, a book, a church, a personal experience, or whatever. But then it's up to each person to make a "totally free will decision" whether to believe or
to not believe.Huh? A mythical god is going to make everyone understand that all gods are mythical? How does that work? :confused:

[six7s]

There is no evidence that Jesus himself (if the biblical Jesus ever existed) thought he was the son of God or even said as much to anyone. If he didn't believe it, why should anyone else?
This is not correct. Here are two of several verses listed where<insert> gazillions of non sequiturs that I have cherry picked from a work of fiction to PROVE that</insert>Jesus said or implied He was the Son of God.<snip/>
Fixed that for you :)

[leon_heller]

God's going to find a way to give everyone "enough" information to make the right decision, whether its me, someone else, a family, a book, a church, a personal experience, or whatever. But then it's up to each person to make a "totally free will decision" whether to believe or
to not believe.

When is he going to start?

Leon

[gdnp]

Or you have chosen to be EVIL AND WRONG!

SATAN SATAN SATAN!!!

Curses! They caught me again!

(disappears in puff of smoke, leaving faint smell of brimstone)

:demad:

[Calben]

Do you know what Eris said to the Flying Spaghetti Monster after she read your response?

It's incredibly unlikely that anyone would know what you are asking, however it is possible for someone to know and interact with those two people about my forum response. It could also make the question legitimate if someone was to take your question literally and respond "No, what did she say?"

[~enigma~]

This is not correct. Here are two of several verses listed where Jesus said or implied He was the Son of God.

Then Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, cried out, 'Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from. I am not here on my own, but he who sent me is true. You do not know him, but I know him because I am from him and he sent me'" (John 7:28-29).

"Then they asked him, 'Where is your father?' 'You do not know me or my Father,' Jesus replied. 'If you knew me, you would know my Father also'" (John 8:19) "'I tell you the truth,' Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I am!'" (John 8:58). "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).

In the bold lettering Jesus is clearly claiming to be the "preexistent" Son of God.

From the article did Jesus say He was God?

http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/did-jesus-say-he-was-god-faq.htm
So your telling us that your man/god jesus suffered from MPD but wasn't as good at it as Sybil?

[Agno]

Hope you don't mind a newbie jumping in....

Here's how I see it.

The Christian god, wants to be worshipped and praised and glorified and prayed to...hmmm..is he insecure?

The Christian god plainly states that slavery is ok....nice guy.
The Christian god orders the murder and enslavement of thousands of children...(Numbers: 31) again...nice guy.
The Christian god will burn people forever, simply for being raised in another faith and not questioning their parents and society. What a man.

Hmmm...the supreme being of the Universe...the all-knowing, all-seeing, creator of everything from quarks to galaxy clusters and everthing in between; all the natural laws, planets, atoms, energy, etc. etc. is so vain and petty as to require worship, belief, praise and glorification.

Oh...heh heh...yeah, of course...that makes sense....

And we should all blindly accept 4 - 5 thousand year old myths and superstitions, written by members of a primitive culture, but reject modern sceintific knowledge....hah ha ha, oh yeah....that makes a lot of sense too. How stupid of me not to see that.

While some aspects of the bible, both the old and new testaments, may be fairly accurate historically, it's all clothed in the mythology of the times. The same as other religious texts. People recorded history, but gave it a slant based on the mythology of the time. Ancient cultures did that more often than not.

Religion was invented to explain the unexplainable, science does a much better job of that now. And yes, of course, not everything has been explained by science, but given enough time, I don't see why it can't be.

So to me the choice is clear, 4 - 5 thousand year old myths and superstions from a primitive culture? Or modern science? Wow! What a hard choice....

Life evolved naturally from lower forms by the process of evolution?
Or...it was "poofed" into existance by an invisible, supernatural man in the sky. Or maybe you subscribe to the dirt and rib theory...

[Robin]

This entire thread appears to be based on a misapprehension.

As far as I know Dawkins never advanced the argument "who created God?".

Someone care to show where he did?

As far as I know it is Theists who stridently insist that no complexity can exist without a creator, so it is Theists who are insisting that God had a creator.

[bruto]

As far as I know it is Theists who stridently insist that no complexity can exist without a creator, so it is Theists who are insisting that God had a creator.Well, yes and no. I think theists make the argument that no complexity can exist without a creator, but then simply exempt God from the requirement, as they do for all other requirements of logic and consistency. As Ockham pointed out in his repudiation of the ontological argument, to make God subject even to proof would deny his omnipotence. Once you have defined God as omnimpotent, you have defined him as above and beyond all logical contradiction. This is a great convenience for theists, because that kind of faith is impervious to argument. Wise theists realize that it is silly and dangerous to dabble in scientific argument when the very root of their faith is the denial of its applicability. Doc and Jerome and their ilk would never have to make up such stupid stories or tell such howling lies, if they were wise enough to stay in their briar patch.

[Radrook]

Yet everyone is quite comfy with the ultimate location paradox of existence which should be just as unnacceptable as an eternal God from a skeptical viewpoint but which is conveniently ignored for the sake of sanity. In short, it's really not the blind acceptance of the unimaginable that is taken umbrage with. It's the God concept itself that is intolerable.

[joobz]

Yet everyone is quite comfy with the ultimate location paradox of existence which should be just as unnacceptable as an eternal God from a skeptical viewpoint but which is conveniently ignored for the sake of sanity. In short, it's really not the blind acceptance of the unimaginable that is taken umbrage with. It's the God concept itself that is intolerable.if I assume by "ultimate location paradox" you mean the OP's conjecture, than I'd say close, but not quite.

It isn't a limitation of the skeptic's view but rather a practical assumption.

If we must assume something has always been, then why not attribute that to the universe? Attibuting it to something that has no proof of being is simply a needless assumption.

This view does not, in any way, speak to which one is the right view. Indeed, it could be that my ham sandwhich has always been and is the cause of the universe. But to assume that it was my ham sandwhich before even knowing the truth of it would be a completely crazy needless thing to do.

[joobz]

God's going to find a way to give everyone "enough" information to make the right decision, whether its me, someone else, a family, a book, a church, a personal experience, or whatever. But then it's up to each person to make a "totally free will decision" whether to believe or
to not believe.
God just told me you're wrong.

[bruto]

Yet everyone is quite comfy with the ultimate location paradox of existence which should be just as unnacceptable as an eternal God from a skeptical viewpoint but which is conveniently ignored for the sake of sanity. In short, it's really not the blind acceptance of the unimaginable that is taken umbrage with. It's the God concept itself that is intolerable.

That may be true for some but not for all. I do not take umbrage with acceptance of the unimaginable, even if it's blind (though I am not convinced that it must be). What I find intolerable is the attempts of those who have achieved that acceptance through faith to lie about it and pretend that it is science. They do it badly, and persuade no one. When people like DOC and Jerome argue their point with such laughably foolish error and lies, they represent their faith itself as the lies and errors of fools, which to a great many persons of faith, intelligence and integrity it certainly is not.

[Hokulele]

Yet everyone is quite comfy with the ultimate location paradox of existence which should be just as unnacceptable as an eternal God from a skeptical viewpoint but which is conveniently ignored for the sake of sanity. In short, it's really not the blind acceptance of the unimaginable that is taken umbrage with. It's the God concept itself that is intolerable.


Thesaurus clean up on aisle 4.

[Radrook]

if I assume by "ultimate location paradox" you mean the OP's conjecture, than I'd say close, but not quite.

It isn't a limitation of the skeptic's view but rather a practical assumption.

If we must assume something has always been, then why not attribute that to the universe? Attibuting it to something that has no proof of being is simply a needless assumption.

This view does not, in any way, speak to which one is the right view. Indeed, it could be that my ham sandwhich has always been and is the cause of the universe. But to assume that it was my ham sandwhich before even knowing the truth of it would be a completely crazy needless thing to do.

What is the OP's conjecture?

[joobz]

What is the OP's conjecture?
And as Sagan says, If God can simply come into existence,

Why not save a step?


or you could simply explain what you mean by ultimate location paradox

[bokonon]

or you could simply explain what you mean by ultimate location paradox
Probably "omnipresent" and "omniundetectable".

[randomprophet]

I didnt read the whole thread, but I guess it comes down to what is your definition and everyone else's definition and the common definitions of god. And how relevant it is to the proposed higher truth.

[Radrook]

And as Sagan says, If God can simply come into existence,

Why not save a step?

Believers in the biblical God don't believe he came into existence.


or you could simply explain what you mean by ultimate location paradox

In order to exist, things must have location. Take for example the electrons. When they disappear temporarily they are hypothesized as entering other dimensions and perhaps doing double duty there and returning to do their brief work here. They are never thought of as drifting in and out of existence. Instead, they are thought of as always being somewhere else momentarily beyond our perception.

Our galaxy has its location within the local cluster, the local galactic cluster is located within the supercluster and the supercluster is located within our universe. Our universe itself has been hypothesized by Carl Sagan to be located within a sea where universes exist by the billions.

Recent theory hypothesizes that there are a given number of dimensions. Twelve I think. And that collisions between such dimensions resulted in our in big bang and possibly other big bangs as well. These dimensions in turn are said to be located within a greater other dimensional location. The thirteenth? But this is where the problem arises. If indeed all things need location then the vast area containing the universes and the dimension containing all other dimensions need a location as well. Where indeed do we place them?
And if we do place them-them where do we place the place where we placed them?

In short, there is always a location where things are said to be. So the logical question is this-if indeed everything requires a location-where is everything itself located. And if indeed there is a place where everything is located, then that place too would require a location, which would require a location, which would require a location ad infinitum which leads to an impossibility from which the only escape is to hypothesize non-dimensionality as reality and the perceived dimensionality with its location requirement as an illusion.

That's what I was referring to by ultimate location.

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you follow the evidence rather than trying to fit the evidence to the conclusion, the evidence supports god beliefs as coming from the human imagination for various reasons such as attempting to explain and influence natural events. The evidence does not support the hypothesis that human encounters with actual gods are the source of god beliefs.

[Ryan O'Dine]

Radrook,

You seem like a person who’s very interested in science, but hasn’t studied it in great depth. I say that because you appear to have a vague idea about M theory -- which is admirable, -- but you’re completely wrong about such things as the part I bolded below...


Recent theory hypothesizes that there are a given number of dimensions. Twelve I think. And that collisions between such dimensions resulted in our in big bang and possibly other big bangs as well. These dimensions in turn are said to be located within a greater other dimensional location. The thirteenth? But this is where the problem arises. If indeed all things need location then the vast area containing the universes and the dimension containing all other dimensions need a location as well. Where indeed do we place them?
And if we do place them-them where do we place the place where we placed them?


First of all, M theory -- the part about colliding “branes” -- is highly speculative at this point. The standard model, which is accepted by consensus, is General Relativity. In that theory, the universe is not contained in any higher dimension. There’s no “place” that exists “outside” it. All of space, all dimensions, are in the universe. Are the universe.

As a consequence, there’s no infinite regress of “place” as you’ve described it.

[Ryan O'Dine]

I should add that as far as I’m aware, there’s nothing logically or scientifically forbidden about infinite regresses in general. Even if science concluded that one existed, I don’t see why God would have to come along and put a stop to it.

[six7s]

In order to exist, things must have location.
<snip/>
That's what I was referring to by ultimate location.
A fascinating post

Thanks :)

In all sincerity, I find it amazing that mature theists so steadfastly assert (what I perceive as) nothing more than 'arguments from incredulity' in order to prop up their worldview.

However...

Although your post does describe some of the hoops you have to jump through in order to accept a deity, it does not explain why deists jump through the first hoop. Nor does it address the question in the OP

The why and the question in the OP are, I think, one and the same

[Radrook]

Radrook,

You seem like a person who’s very interested in science, but hasn’t studied it in great depth. I say that because you appear to have a vague idea about M theory -- which is admirable, -- but you’re completely wrong about such things as the part I bolded below...



First of all, M theory -- the part about colliding “branes” -- is highly speculative at this point. The standard model, which is accepted by consensus, is General Relativity. In that theory, the universe is not contained in any higher dimension. There’s no “place” that exists “outside” it. All of space, all dimensions, are in the universe. Are the universe.

As a consequence, there’s no infinite regress of “place” as you’ve described it.


The latest and most promising theory is that of the branes or dimensions. Why? Because it permits delving scietnifically via mathematics beyond the Big Bang. It DOESN'T REPLACE the Big Bang theory nor does it invalidate it. It merely allows a pre Big Bang explanation for its commencement.



Of course the term universe itself would by definition include all reality. So the proposition of multiple universes is taking a liberty with the word itself. However, this same theory proposes an open, closed, or saddle shaped universe. Speaks of universal expansion. Speaks of a beginning from nowhere to somewhere. Strives to find pre BB explanations for the BB itself via postulating vacuum energies tunneling out and virtual particles coming into existence from nowhere to somewhere and back to nowhere. On of these was our universe according to this scenario. Which again postulates a previous location for the Big Bang
and other possible BBs within that pre BB place into which such virtual particles appear and threaten to tunnel out. According to this idea, there is location apart fro the BB.

Furthermore universal expansion along with descriptions of the universe as having saddle shape, spherical shape or open, indicates boundaries and need for location. Actually, To say that the universe has no boundaries is to say it simply doesn't exist because nothing can exist without shape. If it has boundaries, then it needs to be located somewhere. To say that everywhere is located nowhere is meaningless.

So I guess we disagree on that point.

BTW
The Bible speaks a of the Intelligent Designer as being in a spirit realm outside our material universe. So from a biblical standpoint the universe we might assume to be boundless is of necessity bounded since it isn't everywhere, and came from somewhere apart from itself. Which harmonizes well with the brane collission idea of an external location. But that brings us back to the question of where heaven is located and prior to heaven itselkf where was the Intelligent Designer located prior to his creation of everything. Which leaves us again with the only solution of rejecting dimensionality.

[Radrook]

I should add that as far as I’m aware, there’s nothing logically or scientifically forbidden about infinite regresses in general. Even if science concluded that one existed, I don’t see why God would have to come along and put a stop to it.

There is nothing illogical about something existing without a shape?

[bruto]

BTW
The Bible speaks a of the Intelligent Designer as being in a spirit realm outside our material universe. Does it? Does it ever actually characterize that realm as outside the universe, or can it not be as easily interpreted as outside the part we're allowed to enter? A sort of executive suite. Certainly in parts of the Bible God steps out of that realm; he walks in the garden and interacts with the world in a very physical way. How separate a spiritual realm is imagined by people who expect God to smell the smoke of a sacrifice?

[drkitten]

There is nothing illogical about something existing without a shape?

Well, what's the shape of "love"? Are you suggesting that love doesn't exist? For that matter, what's the shape of "steam" or "clay"?

[Foster Zygote]

Believers in the biblical God don't believe he came into existence.

Yes, we know, they believe that God had no beginning. But they often assert that the universe must have had a beginning, claiming this as evidence of the existence of God. Modern cosmology suggests that the idea of a beginning of the universe, that is, a "before the Big Bing" isn't really valid. No more so than asking what's north of the North Pole.

[Radrook]

Does it? Does it ever actually characterize that realm as outside the universe, or can it not be as easily interpreted as outside the part we're allowed to enter? A sort of executive suite. Certainly in parts of the Bible God steps out of that realm; he walks in the garden and interacts with the world in a very physical way. How separate a spiritual realm is imagined by people who expect God to smell the smoke of a sacrifice?

If we continue the subject along biblical lines, which is usually anathema in this forum- then we would have to conclude that the realm referred to as heaven is the original realm by default since before it there was no other.

Its exact location in relation to our dimensional universe, which came later, is unknown. The singularity which became our universe could very well have proceeded from there. Wether it became totally separated from it is also unknown although most people imagine a vast distance between our realm and the heaven which is described as inhabited by the Intelligent Designer.

However, since it existed prior to all other realms, then one can visualize it perhaps as a type of ultimate location within which our universe might indeed occupy perhaps a microscopic corner separated and governed by its own laws as you seem to suggest.

But as I said, then that leaves the question of just where that location is located.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Where did God come from? I'm glad you asked. I'll tell you.

God came from a place.


Good. Class is over. We'll cover the rest of the details next week.
Don't mention it. Anytime.

[gdnp]

Where did God come from? I'm glad you asked. I'll tell you.

God came from a place.


Good. Class is over. We'll cover the rest of the details next week.
Don't mention it. Anytime.

A man who lives up to his title: Illuminator

It all seems so clear now...

[Radrook]

That's his idea not mine.

[bruto]

If we continue the subject along biblical lines, which is usually anathema in this forum- then we would have to conclude that the realm referred to as heaven is the original realm by default since before it there was no other.

Its exact location in relation to our dimensional universe, which came later, is unknown. The singularity which became our universe could very well have proceeded from there. Wether it became totally separated from it is also unknown although most people imagine a vast distance between our realm and the heaven which is described as inhabited by the Intelligent Designer.

However, since it existed prior to all other realms, then one can visualize it perhaps as a type of ultimate location within which our universe might indeed occupy perhaps a microscopic corner separated and governed by its own laws as you seem to suggest.

But as I said, then that leaves the question of just where that location is located.

I think it would be difficult, first of all, to find a consistent and unambiguous notion of what the bible says heaven is and is not, and who and what actually inhabits heaven. Like most attempts to bring the Bible into scientifc discussion, it's fraught with difficulty. Heaven and the heavens are not always distinguished. God speaks to Job from the whirlwind. He finds the tower of Babel uncomfortably close and presumptuous. He is pleased with the aroma of roast meat from the altar. I see little in the biblical descriptions to suggest that the writers of the bible envisioned anything more physically abstruse than a far off corner of the sky. Any attempt to work the biblical heaven into anything resembling modern physics requires a lot of contortion, or a prior assumption that the Bible must be authoritative and contain knowledge unknown to those who wrote it, and these are conclusions based on faith, not on evidence.

[Radrook]

I think it would be difficult, first of all, to find a consistent and unambiguous notion of what the bible says heaven is and is not, and who and what actually inhabits heaven. Like most attempts to bring the Bible into scientifc discussion, it's fraught with difficulty. Heaven and the heavens are not always distinguished. God speaks to Job from the whirlwind. He finds the tower of Babel uncomfortably close and presumptuous. He is pleased with the aroma of roast meat from the altar. I see little in the biblical descriptions to suggest that the writers of the bible envisioned anything more physically abstruse than a far off corner of the sky. Any attempt to work the biblical heaven into anything resembling modern physics requires a lot of contortion, or a prior assumption that the Bible must be authoritative and contain knowledge unknown to those who wrote it, and these are conclusions based on faith, not on evidence.

I have absolutely no difficulties, see no difficulties, understand completely what the Bible is really saying with the verses you quote and claim not to understand. So if YOU are experiencing grave difficulties and are suffering from serious lack of comprehension for whatever reason, then I respectfully suggest that you simply don't mention the Bible in YOUR posts. Make sense?


Here they go again folks! maybe it's my gay subject commentaries that are causing the sudden animosity? Luckily there are ways around this.

[six7s]

I have absolutely no difficulties, see no difficulties, understand completely what the Bible is really saying with the verses you quote and claim not to understand. So if YOU are experiencing grave difficulties and are suffering from serious lack of comprehension for whatever reason, then I respectfully suggest that you simply don't mention the Bible in YOUR posts. Make sense?

Consider this:

Your posts, using a semi/pseudo scientific vocabulary, are - although exceedingly vague - seemingly in support of your sky daddy myth
Many here are very, very familiar with the (all too often contradictory) words attributed to your sky daddy and/or his scribes
Your suggestion that your debunkers ought to refrain from quoting your book of woo is a complete and utter non-sequitur to the waffle about "serious lack of comprehension"

Make sense?

[Ryan O'Dine]

Sorry for the delay in responding. The JREF wouldn’t let me on yesterday. :mad:

The latest and most promising theory is that of the branes or dimensions. Why? Because it permits delving scietnifically via mathematics beyond the Big Bang. It DOESN'T REPLACE the Big Bang theory nor does it invalidate it. It merely allows a pre Big Bang explanation for its commencement.

Again, I find your understanding of the science to be laudable, but incomplete. String theory and it’s progeny are ultimately attempts to unify General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. They are somewhat tentative, speculative, and ongoing. The standard Big Bang model is the theory generally accepted at present. It’s an incomplete theory, but it does address your objections about geometry...

Of course the term universe itself would by definition include all reality. So the proposition of multiple universes is taking a liberty with the word itself. However, this same theory proposes an open, closed, or saddle shaped universe. Speaks of universal expansion. Speaks of a beginning from nowhere to somewhere. Strives to find pre BB explanations for the BB itself via postulating vacuum energies tunneling out and virtual particles coming into existence from nowhere to somewhere and back to nowhere. On of these was our universe according to this scenario. Which again postulates a previous location for the Big Bang
and other possible BBs within that pre BB place into which such virtual particles appear and threaten to tunnel out. According to this idea, there is location apart fro the BB.

To say that cosmology demands the universe came from some preexisting place is premature. The issues here are largely unresolved. I will say that a “previous location for the Big Bang” (“parent universes,” "branes," what have you) is not a requirement in many incarnations of the various theories. To say that all theories invoke some form of quantum tunneling is to neglect whole families of theories that don’t. (Richard Gott’s ( http://www.amazon.com/Time-Travel-Einsteins-Universe-Possibilities/dp/0618257357/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217076135&sr=8-2) intriguing time loop idea merits a mention.)

Furthermore universal expansion along with descriptions of the universe as having saddle shape, spherical shape or open, indicates boundaries and need for location.
Again, you’re missing great swaths of physics. A universe can be flat and bounded in only one direction, unbounded in others. Just for instance.

It can be completely bounded or completely unbounded. We’re only just getting to the point where observational evidence might narrow the field of possible geometries.

I'll add -- you may not personally be able to envision certain geometries, but I hope you'll agree that limits on the human imagination do not imply limits on reality.

Actually, To say that the universe has no boundaries is to say it simply doesn't exist because nothing can exist without shape. If it has boundaries, then it needs to be located somewhere. To say that everywhere is located nowhere is meaningless.
The universe can have a shape (in the physics sense) but no boundaries (in the physics sense). An unbounded spherical universe would be one in which you could start from point A, travel in one direction only, and eventually reach point A again.

No boundaries. Spherical shape. No problem.

So I guess we disagree on that point. You’re disagreeing with the physics. I’m just pointing it out. ;)

BTW
The Bible speaks a of the Intelligent Designer as being in a spirit realm outside our material universe. So from a biblical standpoint the universe we might assume to be boundless is of necessity bounded since it isn't everywhere, and came from somewhere apart from itself. Which harmonizes well with the brane collission idea of an external location. But that brings us back to the question of where heaven is located and prior to heaven itselkf where was the Intelligent Designer located prior to his creation of everything. Which leaves us again with the only solution of rejecting dimensionality.

By positing an intelligent Creator, you’re essentially saying the universe began through a process, and for a reason, which we will necessarily never understand. God is ineffable.

In science, at least there’s a possibility of understanding. It may not give you that warm religious feeling that there’s an intelligence behind it all. But I’d rather have a cold but enlightened truth, than a warm but empty theology.

[bruto]

I have absolutely no difficulties, see no difficulties, understand completely what the Bible is really saying with the verses you quote and claim not to understand. So if YOU are experiencing grave difficulties and are suffering from serious lack of comprehension for whatever reason, then I respectfully suggest that you simply don't mention the Bible in YOUR posts. Make sense?


Here they go again folks! maybe it's my gay subject commentaries that are causing the sudden animosity? Luckily there are ways around this.

If you have such a perfect understanding, feel free to explain it and prove it, but this is a forum for arguing about things. If you don't want a subject discussed, don't discuss it.

[bruto]

I have absolutely no difficulties, see no difficulties, understand completely what the Bible is really saying with the verses you quote and claim not to understand. So if YOU are experiencing grave difficulties and are suffering from serious lack of comprehension for whatever reason, then I respectfully suggest that you simply don't mention the Bible in YOUR posts. Make sense?


Here they go again folks! maybe it's my gay subject commentaries that are causing the sudden animosity? Luckily there are ways around this.

I should add to my above that that statement of yours shows a level of chest-thumping arrogance so astonishing that it's hard to respond. It's too bad Canon law allows only one Pope at a time, eh?

In the meantime, though, I will just point out that any notion that the Bible contains the word of God is based on faith. An idea that is based on faith cannot be used as an argument to corroborate that faith. If you do not understand that, then you do not understand much of anything, and your statements will be assailed at every opportunity by those who do. You're out of the briar patch.

[Silentknight]

I have absolutely no difficulties, see no difficulties, understand completely what the Bible is really saying with the verses you quote and claim not to understand. So if YOU are experiencing grave difficulties and are suffering from serious lack of comprehension for whatever reason, then I respectfully suggest that you simply don't mention the Bible in YOUR posts. Make sense?


Here they go again folks! maybe it's my gay subject commentaries that are causing the sudden animosity? Luckily there are ways around this.

It doesn't work that way. You don't have a right not to be offended, and you don't have a right to dictate which subjects other people are not allowed to discuss. If you don't want to hear questioning, opposing viewpoints, or disagreement on the subject of the bible, too bad; that's what a debate involves. Freedom of expression works both ways. If you don't want to be in a debate on the subject, then all you have to do is walk the other way.

[moon1969]

Did god create human or humans created god? god is just away that humans trie trie explain something that they don"t understand. There is no need for a god or gods or a creator.

[Ron_Tomkins]

A man who lives up to his title: Illuminator

It all seems so clear now...

Ah, but is it really clear or does it actually seem clear? That is the question, Keemosabe. :)

[gdnp]

Ah, but is it really clear or does it actually seem clear? That is the question, Keemosabe. :)

Kemosabe...that would be the Apache expression meaning "a horse's rear end", according to Gary Larsen?

[six7s]

Kemosabe...that would be the Apache expression meaning "a horse's rear end", according to Gary Larsen?

Here's a handy Apache expression:

#
# The following lines prevent .htpost and .htreply threads from being
# viewed by wooists
#

<TrollsMatch "^\.woo">
Order allow,deny
Deny from all
</TrollsMatch>

:)

[fuelair]

I was under the impression (from a very massive fallen object) that God came from Boise, Idaho some time in the late thirties.

[Radrook]

Sorry for the delay in responding. The JREF wouldn’t let me on yesterday. :mad:

NO problem.



Again, I find your understanding of the science to be laudable, but incomplete. String theory and it’s progeny are ultimately attempts to unify General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. They are somewhat tentative, speculative, and ongoing. The standard Big Bang model is the theory generally accepted at present. It’s an incomplete theory, but it does address your objections about geometry...

Since I agree with everything you just said and never denied it in any of my previous posts, how do you reach the conclusion that I am ignorant of these well-known basic facts?

To say that cosmology demands the universe came from some preexisting place is premature. The issues here are largely unresolved.

I did not say otherwise.

I will say that a “previous location for the Big Bang” (“parent universes,” "branes," what have you) is not a requirement in many incarnations of the various theories.

Of course not!

To say that all theories invoke some form of quantum tunneling is to neglect whole families of theories that don’t. (Richard Gott’s ( http://www.amazon.com/Time-Travel-Einsteins-Universe-Possibilities/dp/0618257357/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217076135&sr=8-2) intriguing time loop idea merits a mention.)

Again, I didn't say that all theories accept quantum tunnelling.
You seem to have difficulty in undersatanding plain English.

Again, you’re missing great swaths of physics. A universe can be flat and bounded in only one direction, unbounded in others. Just for instance.

You are suffering from delusions of ignorance. I am familiar with the idea you just mentioned. I simply find it unacceptable because it's meaningless.

[/quote]It can be completely bounded or completely unbounded. We’re only just getting to the point where observational evidence might narrow the field of possible geometries.

I'll add -- you may not personally be able to envision certain geometries, but I hope you'll agree that limits on the human imagination do not imply limits on reality.[/quote]

You seem to be projecting your own inabilities on others. Rest assured I don't share your limitations. Of course we are bound by our fallible limited senses. That's so elementary it's laughable.

[The universe can have a shape (in the physics sense) but no boundaries (in the physics sense).

But I am referring to the physical sense. Furthermore, your statement is self-contradictory or better yet, illogical. Some persons have a knack for concocting such statements in an attempt at conveying intellectual prowess but only manage to be nonsensical.

An unbounded spherical universe would be one in which you could start from point A, travel in one direction only, and eventually reach point A again.

Oh, that old unconvincing simplistic explanation of being unbounded in a spherical sense. However, once a sphere is mentioned then you have a geometric shape requiring boundaries to delineate it. Otherwise it would have no shape at all. Which leaves you with the option of discarding the terms "shape" and "sphere" or else giving them up totally and perhaps attempting to replace them with less controversial ones or changing their definitions. Sort of like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

No boundaries. Spherical shape. No problem.

You’re disagreeing with the physics. I’m just pointing it out. ;)

You are disagreeing with logic-just pointing that out. That's why you see no problem.


By positing an intelligent Creator, you’re essentially saying the universe began through a process, and for a reason, which we will necessarily never understand. God is ineffable. In science, at least there’s a possibility of understanding. It may not give you that warm religious feeling that there’s an intelligence behind it all. But I’d rather have a cold but enlightened truth, than a warm but empty theology.

Again! Perhaps the warm feeling you mention is one YOU experience via your assumptions of ignorance and presumptions of knowing for sure what all the realms beyond your perception contain=no God. Me? I'd rather reasonably not presume that I know for sure what reality contains since I simply am not in a position to know. However, I do have a right to posit an ID just as you have a right not to. The difference between us is that I am not hell-bent on depriving you of your right to express your idea as you are in depriving me of mine.

BTW
I didn't say that an ID creates and we can never know the reason why. That AGAIN is your idea not mine. Also, I have a low tolerance for insults regardles of how they might be phrased. But there is a solution for that.

[fishkr]

In my view, any question about the world should be encouraged, whether it's scientific or religious. And both scientific and religious ideas should be challenged..

Questions should be encouraged, answers should be challenged. Science does both, Religion does not.

[Radrook]

Originally Posted by jimtron
In my view, any question about the world should be encouraged, whether it's scientific or religious. And both scientific and religious ideas should be challenged..

Certainlly and they are in both religious and scientific areas. That they aren't in the religious area is a common misconception based on ignorance due to being uninformed or insufficiently educated and very often fostered by irrational anti-religious bigotry.

[fishkr]

Certainlly and they are in both religious and scientific areas. That they aren't in the religious area is a common misconception based on ignorance due to being uninformed or insufficiently educated and very often fostered by irrational anti-religious bigotry.

Or by observation, anecdote, statistical data, common sense, etc.

Really . . . you think it was the Scientific Community that was lobbying for Intelligent Design? How many examples would it take? Scopes? Stem Cells?

You are pissing up a rope.

[Oroborus]

..Snip.. Freedom of expression works both ways. If you don't want to be in a debate on the subject, then all you have to do is walk the other way.

Or not say anything in the first place.

[gdnp]

In a simplistic sense, science should stick to questions of what, why, and how and religion should stick to questions of should. Science looks at how the universe works, but really nothing to say about good or bad. The universe doesn't care. Religion, or more generally morals and ethics, is the proper place for discussing what we should do, or how we should behave.

Regarding the soul, science can tell us that there is no evidence of a metaphysical self that exists independent of the body. So somewhat paradoxically, questions of the existence of the soul are scientific, not religious questions.

[Ryan O'Dine]

Since I agree with everything you just said and never denied it in any of my previous posts, how do you reach the conclusion that I am ignorant of these well-known basic facts?
...snip...
Again, I didn't say that all theories accept quantum tunnelling.
You seem to have difficulty in undersatanding plain English.

I’m fully willing to admit I’ve missed the thrust of your posts. I hope I’m permitted such human frailties without either of us being insulted by them.

In any event, I continue to struggle with your meaning. You said...

However, this same theory proposes an open, closed, or saddle shaped universe. Speaks of universal expansion. Speaks of a beginning from nowhere to somewhere. Strives to find pre BB explanations for the BB itself via postulating vacuum energies tunneling out and virtual particles coming into existence from nowhere to somewhere and back to nowhere. On of these was our universe according to this scenario. Which again postulates a previous location for the Big Bang
and other possible BBs within that pre BB place into which such virtual particles appear and threaten to tunnel out. According to this idea, there is location apart fro the BB.

If you’re talking about the standard GR model of the Big Bang, you’re simply wrong in the part I bolded. Standard Big Bang emphatically does not “postulate a previous location for the Big Bang.”

There are some models which do. The most widely accepted one at present does not.

You are suffering from delusions of ignorance. I am familiar with the idea you just mentioned. I simply find it unacceptable because it's meaningless.

I guess there are worse delusions to suffer from.

However, a closed, spherical space of the kind I described is not only meaningful, it’s acceptable to working cosmologists the world over. The fact that it’s not acceptable to you is perfectly fine. You must realize, though, that it puts you on the far outer fringes of science. In fact, it puts you off the map.

You seem to be projecting your own inabilities on others. Rest assured I don't share your limitations. Of course we are bound by our fallible limited senses. That's so elementary it's laughable.

We’re bound by our fallible senses, but you don’t share those limitations? If this is plain English, you’re going to have to help me out a little.

But I am referring to the physical sense. Furthermore, your statement is self-contradictory or better yet, illogical. Some persons have a knack for concocting such statements in an attempt at conveying intellectual prowess but only manage to be nonsensical.

I assure you the statement is not nonsensical to a cosmologist, topologist, philosopher of science, mathematician of any kind, physicist of any kind, or anyone who’s studied the subject in any depth.

Quotes like that are the reason I think you’re missing something in your understanding of the field.

Again! Perhaps the warm feeling you mention is one YOU experience via your assumptions of ignorance and presumptions of knowing for sure what all the realms beyond your perception contain=no God.

Now you’re making assumptions about my beliefs. If you don’t like it done to you...?

Me? I'd rather reasonably not presume that I know for sure what reality contains since I simply am not in a position to know. However, I do have a right to posit an ID just as you have a right not to. The difference between us is that I am not hell-bent on depriving you of your right to express your idea as you are in depriving me of mine.

Now you’re really going into presumption overload. Yeesh.

BTW
I didn't say that an ID creates and we can never know the reason why. That AGAIN is your idea not mine.

At the core of creationism lies God. Yes? God is ineffable. Yes?

My favorite passage of the Old Testament occurs (if memory serves) in Exodus. Moses asks God to reveal Himself completely. God assures him that to do so would mean certain death. Nonetheless, God sweeps past Moses revealing only a portion of Himself to the prophet. Moses is completely overwhelmed.

No one can know God. No one can fully understand the things He does. Creating the universe was surely the most ineffably thing He did. These are not my ideas.

Also, I have a low tolerance for insults regardles of how they might be phrased. But there is a solution for that.

I thought we had an interesting conversation going. If you need me to proceed with kid gloves, I’ll be happy to try.

Since I don’t know where you’re drawing the lines, though, I can’t promise I won’t cross them unintentionally now and then.

[Ryan O'Dine]

Sorry, one more thing for Radrook...

It occurs to me you may think people are saying the universe could be "in the shape of a sphere." What they’re actually saying is that the universe may "exhibit spherical curvature."

If you understood that, and are objecting to spherical curvature, I'd like to understand this better. Could you elaborate? It may clear up some confusion between us.

Apologies for the derail, folks. I won't press it too long.

[Undesired Walrus]

Believers in the biblical God don't believe he came into existence.



The Sagan argument in its accurate form:

'In many cultures.. God or Gods created the universe. But if we wish to pursue this question courageously, we must of course ask the next question: Where did God come from? If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not not save a step, and conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe always existed?

There is no need for a creation.

Cosmology brings us face to face with the deepest mysteries, with questions that were once treated only, in creation and in myth.'

[Roadtoad]

I was under the impression (from a very massive fallen object) that God came from Boise, Idaho some time in the late thirties.

You are incorrect, sir. It was Albaquerque, New Mexico, on June 12th, 1933. He was driving a black Plymouth, and the kids were driving him nuts. Jesus was the worst of them, bouncing on the back seat, leaving Hershey bars in the back shelf to melt, asking constantly, "ARE WE THERE YET!?!?!"

Finally, God blew his stack, and left Jesus with a band of Gypsies who were on their way to Big Sur to make way for Henry Miller. He didn't stick around, though; he's now running a newstand on Van Ness in San Francisco, specializing in current events and gay porn.

[Radrook]

Or not say anything in the first place.

That's hilarious! I am in no way under obligation to keep quiet or not participate simply because you or any other member demands it based on aversion to religion. I could turn that on its head and suggest that anti-religionists who don't want to hear the religious angle on a religious subject refrain from posting religiously oriented questions on a religious forum.


Or if they do post, then make it clear that only anti religious views are permitted. That would prevent someone like me from joining in and save you people time in having to demand that such a person shut up so you can maintain some semblance of oxymoronic, atheistic, sanity.

Make sense?

BTW

I am not averse to discussions or even an occasional rational debate on this subject. What I'm averse to is the interweaving of insults, snide remarks, denigrating insinuations, and other such irrelevancies which in my view completely destroys the possibility for any further rational communication.

[Radrook]

In a simplistic sense, science should stick to questions of what, why, and how and religion should stick to questions of should. Science looks at how the universe works, but really nothing to say about good or bad. The universe doesn't care. Religion, or more generally morals and ethics, is the proper place for discussing what we should do, or how we should behave.

Regarding the soul, science can tell us that there is no evidence of a metaphysical self that exists independent of the body. So somewhat paradoxically, questions of the existence of the soul are scientific, not religious questions.

First, thanx for not deploying the annoying sarcastic mode with all its distracting irrelevancies. I agree with you up to a point. However, there is overlap. for example, what prevents a scientist from employing his knowledge to detect ID in nature? There are scientists right now who claim that nature itself provides copious evidence for ID.

There is also the realm of logic which has traditionally been employed in the service of pro-ID arguments.

Should these scientists and philosophers be told to shut up? Actually, that's a rhetorical question since I know for a fact that they are being told to shut-up via ridicule, academic pressure which threatens their careers, and in other subtle and not-so-subtle unethical, undemocratic ways.

BTW

I never said that the study of the soul as described by most religions is not open to scientific inquiry. If I did say it-show me.

[bruto]

....I could turn that on its head ...etc.



Are you kidding? Don't you read your own posts?

[Radrook]

Funny how people insist on becoming vehemently upset over posts no one is forcing them to read. Comical in a pitiful sort of way.

[Roadtoad]

Rad, I don't believe there's a god. Period. If you want to declare there is one, please do so, and back it up with evidence.

I would love it if I could once again say, "I believe." I can't. The evidence is not there to support that. The idea of chasing a fantasy, of some divine being who wants what's best for me, simply does not hold water. I chased that fantasy for nearly 25 years, and it has cost me dearly.

You're right. We have no obligation to read your posts, unless we are interested in the truth. Then, if we are honest, we must ask ourselves if what you post is truth. If it isn't, then, yes, we'll likely become more than a little irritated. Some of us have already seen the lie.

[gdnp]

First, thanx for not deploying the annoying sarcastic mode with all its distracting irrelevancies. I agree with you up to a point. However, there is overlap. for example, what prevents a scientist from employing his knowledge to detect ID in nature? There are scientists right now who claim that nature itself provides copious evidence for ID.

There is also the realm of logic which has traditionally been employed in the service of pro-ID arguments.

Should these scientists and philosophers be told to shut up? Actually, that's a rhetorical question since I know for a fact that they are being told to shut-up via ridicule, academic pressure which threatens their careers, and in other subtle and not-so-subtle unethical, undemocratic ways.

BTW

I never said that the study of the soul as described by most religions is not open to scientific inquiry. If I did say it-show me.

The question of the existence of God is not a moral question. I suppose you could ask "should God exist", but it will not bring him into existence if we answer "yes" or cause him to disappear if you answer "no". It is a scientific question, which should be addressed based on observations and logic. If believers wish to undertake this endeavor, they should be willing to have their claims subjected to the same rigorous standards to which we hold other scientists. If ID believers think they have scientific evidence, they are welcome to present it. I just hope it is better than the "banana--Athiest's worst nightmare (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfv-Qn1M58I)" argument.

Philosophers over the years have attempted to prove logically that God must exist, but I find these proofs wanting. Even if we accept the proof of God's existence as convincing, it would still tell us nothing about the nature of God, and would do little to aide us in sorting through the hundreds of different contradictory myths about the nature of God, his current involvement with human affairs, and his desires (if any) for how we should behave.

[bruto]

Funny how people insist on becoming vehemently upset over posts no one is forcing them to read. Comical in a pitiful sort of way.I'm not sure who you think is "vehemently upset." I'm not upset myself, just mildly irritated. Ridicule and negative comments upset me only when they come from someone I respect.

It's true that no one forces us to read posts, but some kind of common courtesy, I think, requires us to read posts, even stupid and offensive ones, that are addressed to ourselves, unless we choose to put a person on ignore, which I think is tantamount to ending the discussion. I assume here that when a post is quoted, the response is addressed largely to the person quoted. Thus, I think it ironic that you should say, in response to a suggestion that the best way to avoid debate is not to enter the fray I could turn that on its head and suggest that anti-religionists who don't want to hear the religious angle on a religious subject refrain from posting religiously oriented questions on a religious forum. when you had just finished telling me that I should not mention the bible here because my interpretation (what you call a lack of understanding) disagrees with yours.

Just don't forget to ask "Make sense?" of yourself too.

[Hokulele]

Funny how people insist on becoming vehemently upset over posts no one is forcing them to read. Comical in a pitiful sort of way.


I can see how your Ignore List became so large, so fast.

Comical and pitiful do indeed sum it up.

[Silentknight]

That's hilarious! I am in no way under obligation to keep quiet or not participate simply because you or any other member demands it based on aversion to religion. I could turn that on its head and suggest that anti-religionists who don't want to hear the religious angle on a religious subject refrain from posting religiously oriented questions on a religious forum.

Or if they do post, then make it clear that only anti religious views are permitted. That would prevent someone like me from joining in and save you people time in having to demand that such a person shut up so you can maintain some semblance of oxymoronic, atheistic, sanity.

Make sense?
You are however under an obligation to cease the blatant personal attacks, which your posts seem to indicate a certain fondness for. You're in no position to insult other members or personalize arguments just because you feel offended by a disagreement with your beliefs. It's not your arguments that are deemed offensive, it's the fact that they were presented as petulant name-calling while simultaneously appealing to pity to stave off criticism of your own ideas.
BTW

I am not averse to discussions or even an occasional rational debate on this subject. What I'm averse to is the interweaving of insults, snide remarks, denigrating insinuations, and other such irrelevancies which in my view completely destroys the possibility for any further rational communication.
Then you should start by reading your own posts. Having your opinions challenged, even having your beliefs made fun of, is not the same as personal attacks. There's a difference between calling someone an idiot and saying that their ideas are idiotic.

If I were to say that God is a virgin-raping child-murdering sociopath, that's not a personal attack, that's a mockery of an idea. From my perspective God is, after all, just an idea.

If I were to say that the Bible and Qur'an are full of mountains of life-destroying garbage, that's not a personal attack, that's a criticism of a set of ideas and the consequences they can lead to.

If I were to say that Jesus, Mohammed, and Joseph Smith must be having a 3-way up in heaven, okay, maybe that blurs the lines a little, but the mockery is still technically directed at people's common beliefs about those figures. Beliefs are the same as ideas.


Nobody is going to object if someone states a belief that God exists or that the bible says this or that. It's their right to do so. That person just better be willing to accept the fact that their ideas and opinions will be challenged, evidence will be requested, and yes, sometimes their beliefs will be made fun of. Besides, it's not like they're being forced to read the responses. :rolleyes:

[Radrook]

The question of the existence of God is not a moral question. I suppose you could ask "should God exist", but it will not bring him into existence if we answer "yes" or cause him to disappear if you answer "no". It is a scientific question, which should be addressed based on observations and logic. If believers wish to undertake this endeavor, they should be willing to have their claims subjected to the same rigorous standards to which we hold other scientists. If ID believers think they have scientific evidence, they are welcome to present it. I just hope it is better than the "banana--Athiest's worst nightmare (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfv-Qn1M58I)" argument.

The problem is that I was not in any way attempting to prove the existence of God. My arguments were strictly in reference to the paradox of ultimate location. The oped mentions God so in my attempt to keep the thread on target I followed the oped's lead and brought in an ID. Perhaps to avoid suffering any further disagreeable experiences like the one I just unintentionally inflicted on the good godless people on this forum the oped's title should be modified to exclude the word "God". This way the mention of God will be inappropriate and irrelevant. Make sense?

Philosophers over the years have attempted to prove logically that God must exist, but I find these proofs wanting. Even if we accept the proof of God's existence as convincing, it would still tell us nothing about the nature of God, and would do little to aide us in sorting through the hundreds of different contradictory myths about the nature of God, his current involvement with human affairs, and his desires (if any) for how we should behave.

All fine and dandy. No problem. I too consider your pet
ideas requiring an infinite succession of exceedingly convenient happy-accidents which ultimately mimick a planning mind and your
water and pop-goes-the weasel explanations of where life came from unacceptable and far more mythical than the ID proposition which makes far more logical sense.

BTW

Oversensitiity to perceived opposing views only serves to deviate the thread. Lighten up! Or maybe such threads should be limited to members of the "Atheist Mutual Admiration Society" That too might work.

Incidentally, the majority of the things you mention are ideas and concepts I mnever brought up. So essentially you are arguing against yourself as usual. Which can be classified as useless irrelevant distracting clutter. Sigh!

[gdnp]

BTW

Oversensitiity to perceived opposing views only serves to deviate the thread. Lighten up! Or maybe such threads should be limited to members of the "Atheist Mutual Admiration Society" That too might work.

Sorry, I was not attempting to be too "heavy." I am not attempting to be disrespectful, or exclude you from the discussion.

Incidentally, the majority of the things you mention are ideas and concepts I mnever brought up. So essentially you are arguing against yourself as usual. Which can be classified as useless irrelevant distracting clutter. Sigh!
This may be the problem. I may start with a response to a specific point that you made, and then continue with some great insight that just popped into my head. Well, sometimes not so great. That I am replying to your post does not mean that everything I say is supposed to be an attack on what you believe. I hope in some cases we will agree.

[Radrook]

Is the oped question legitimate? It all depends what we mean by "Legitimate" Especially since atheists have the knack of formulating myriad's of personal definitions and quickly discarding them when deemed convenient. That's like chasing the legendary "Will o the Wisp" Then there's the "I don't see! I don't understand! and "You still need to prove!" evasions designed to stall and regroup behind hastily constructed skirmish lines of illogic in order to make previous inaccuracies seem fresh. Whatever the case may be-let's just say that its OK to ask that question. Is it consistent with the definition of God as given in err ummm [Should venture to dare?] the Bible, then it becomes a nonsensical question. So, as Socrates repeatedly pointed out, we must first agree on a definition. Othewrwise we will equivocate. I personally would not venture on a proposed discussion of an atheistically-defined God. That woiuld be like participating in a discussion about Afro Americans with racist skinheads while allowing them to define terms.

But strictly speaking, um [should I dare to say?] from a biblical standpoint, God is eternal. So the biblically-based answer is that God never came from anywhere because location, or somewhere as defined by the dictionary did not precede him. In short, to proceed from somewhere a somewhere has to exist. Since that is not the proposed situation then coming from somewhere was an impossibility.

BTW

No need to panic. I am not trying to convert anyone. Just responding to the subject which includes the word "God" and asks a question about the God concept.