Where does God come from?

[Azure]

Think about it, most creationists believe that everything around us, human life, plant life, etc, etc, has to come from some where.

Even if it evolved through time, they still claim 'god' must have started the whole ordeal way back when.

So where did God come from?

[andyandy]

Think about it, most creationists believe that everything around us, human life, plant life, etc, etc, has to come from some where.

Even if it evolved through time, they still claim 'god' must have started the whole ordeal way back when.

So where did God come from?

Coventry

[brodski]

Coventry

Since when was Coventry in Yorkshire, Gods own county? ;)

[TobiasTheViking]

Coventry

controversy

[kc440_]

The Catholic Church says where does God come from. This, we are told, is one of the mysteries.

kc440

[H3LL]

So where did God come from?

As we are supposed to be made in his image. I guess it is exactly the same place that I do.

BTW, you have a typo.

.

[Small Town Jesus]

Coventry

Jimmy Hill is God?

I knew it! The chin was a give-away.

[blutoski]

Think about it, most creationists believe that everything around us, human life, plant life, etc, etc, has to come from some where.

Even if it evolved through time, they still claim 'god' must have started the whole ordeal way back when.

So where did God come from?

Depends on who you ask. Some gods have origin stories. Some created themselves. Some are from prior gods.

The Abrahamic monotheisms claim that God exists outside of our concept of time, so causality - as in 'what caused God?' or 'what was before God?' - has no meaning, and so the question can't be asked. Like asking "what time is the colour blue?" or "what is six plus five times Wednesday?"

You gotta give 'em credit for creative question evasion.

[wolfgirl]

Think about it, most creationists believe that everything around us, human life, plant life, etc, etc, has to come from some where.

Even if it evolved through time, they still claim 'god' must have started the whole ordeal way back when.

So where did God come from?I've asked this question in relation to intelligent design. Their main claim is that life is so complex that it has to have been designed by someone or something. Yet that designer, clearly the most complex thing imaginable, where did it come from? Oh, God always was...is the typical answer. So why can't the world always have been? Or the Universe? Or anything else? Why does there have to be a designer for everything but God?

[tomgv15]

It's the easy answer - end of the line - an absolute, no more questions.

Where does God come from? Kansas City, so Eden could be set up in his back yard: Independence Mo.

[Ausmerican]

So where did God come from?

Well you see, sometimes when a lady god and a man god love each other very very much they have a special time together and then the lady god grows a little baby god in her belly. Then an eon or so later out pops a little god. The only bad part is cleaning the little universes out of its diaper now and then.

[Azure]

I've asked this question in relation to intelligent design. Their main claim is that life is so complex that it has to have been designed by someone or something. Yet that designer, clearly the most complex thing imaginable, where did it come from? Oh, God always was...is the typical answer. So why can't the world always have been? Or the Universe? Or anything else? Why does there have to be a designer for everything but God?

Because everything has a beginning....and an end...

[Tricky]

Think about it, most creationists believe that everything around us, human life, plant life, etc, etc, has to come from some where.

Even if it evolved through time, they still claim 'god' must have started the whole ordeal way back when.

So where did God come from?
He stood on the back of the last turtle.

[bruto]

He stood on the back of the last turtle.

Was that the last turtle or the last visible turtle?

[Azure]

Was that the last turtle or the last visible turtle?

The last turtle on top of King's Hill.

;)

[Diabolos]

So where did God come from?
Man

[elliotfc]

So where did God come from?

Parts unknown, like many other wrestlers. God's wrestling career only lasted one match, one fall I think.

[brodski]

Parts unknown, like many other wrestlers. God's wrestling career only lasted one match, one fall I think.
:D

[Upchurch]

So where did God come from?
The imagination and human need to impose meaning on events.

[Josh Redstone]

I say man - some people need to be able to explain everything, even if it requires all faith and no logic. I'd rather accept that the beginnings of time and space are beyond my comprehension, than believe in something based on pure faith.
It's like Mark Twain said; 'I was gratified to be able to answer promptly. I said 'I don't know.'"

[RenaissanceBiker]

It's like Mark Twain said; 'I was gratified to be able to answer promptly. I said 'I don't know.'"

My follow up comment would have been, "However, I do know that you don't know either. You might think you do, but you don't."

[wolfgirl]

Because everything has a beginning....and an end...Did God have a beginning? What was it?

[Azure]

Did God have a beginning? What was it?

Why do you think I asked the question? :boggled:

[UndercoverElephant]

God can't have come from anywhere at all. The question presupposes both that there was at one time a state of complete nothingness - that not even God existed - and that God is a temporal being. This, as has been pointed out before, is silly - for two reasons.

1) God is non-temporal and eternal. Therefore, in terms of our time frame, God has always existed and will always exist.

2) It is a simple, undeniable truth that nothing comes from nothing. If there had ever been a state of absolute nothingness, there would still be absolute nothingness. And, from the point of view of a creationist, if there is something which always existed (which follows from there never having been absolutely nothing), then that thing must be God.

Some religions (such as Buddhism) claim that before the Universe existed there was only a "pregnant void" - that is a nothingness which nevertheless contains the potential to become something.

All of which probably goes over the head of most creationists, I guess. These sorts of arguments will never make the slightest bit of difference to what they believe.

[Beerina]

If God exists outside of time, how does he do anything? If he does something, then there's time.

Oliver: Scientists have it all figured out. How it all began. Time, the universe, existance. A big bang!

Opus: Yeah, but what was before...

Olvier: YESSIR, A REAL BIG BANG WE FIGURE!

[UndercoverElephant]

If God exists outside of time, how does he do anything?


Why should something which is itself non-temporal not be able to do anything?


If he does something, then there's time.


I don't understand this statement. Why does "then there's time" follow from "if he does something"? What does "then there's time" have to do with whether or not God is a being which is itself within time?

For me, time and space are wrapped up together. If something is temporal, it also has to be spatial. And, IMO, God cannot possibly be spatial. The idea that God has a body is just so silly I don't really understand how anyone but a child could ever have believed it in the first place, especially after Darwin.

NB: I'm playing devils advocate here. If you read the other thread on God (the one in the science section), in which I am participating, you'll see that I think it is meaningless to talk about God either existing or not existing. God isn't an object or a "thing".

[Ryokan]

Some religions (such as Buddhism) claim that before the Universe existed there was only a "pregnant void" - that is a nothingness which nevertheless contains the potential to become something.

Where does Buddhism claim that?

As far as I know, the Buddha said that questions like that were irrelevant.

Q: Who created the world?

A: We believe that we cannot answer that. It is beyond our ability to know that at this time. For if there was a creator, with the concept of cause and effect, we must ask who created the creator. It is not important for us to know that. One of the basic concepts within Buddhism is interdependence. With this teaching, we realize that all of us are interconnected and depend upon one another for our existence. Asking questions such as who created this or that is a way the mind distracts our attention to the more important matter of how I am living this moment. I am grateful to receive and have the life I have now. How do I repay that debt of gratitude? These are the questions we ask.

Source (http://www.slbuddhist.org/info/faq.html)

But don't take the word of the Salt Lake Buddhists for it, read the parable of the arrow (http://www.sln.org.uk/storyboard/stories/b13.htm) from the Dhammapada, one of the oldest Buddhist texts.

"Whether the view is held that the world is eternal or not, Malunkyaputta, there is still re-birth, old age, death, grief, suffering, sorrow and despair - and these can be destroyed in this life! I have not explained these other things because they are not useful, they are not conducive to tranquillity and Nirvana. What I have explained is suffering, the cause of suffering, the destruction of suffering and the path that leads to the destruction of suffering. This is useful, leading to non-attachment, the absence of passion, perfect knowledge."

In other words, the origin of the universe is outside the scope of Buddhism, and any Buddhist that tries to give you an explanation of the origin of the universe that is not firmly planted in science is not worth listening to.

[UndercoverElephant]

Where does Buddhism claim that?


http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=sunyata+%22pregnant+void%22&spell=1

If it was a total void, and not a "pregnant void", nothing could follow it.

NB: Even though beliefnet registered me as 100% Mahayana Buddhist, I know considerably less about Buddhism than I do about Hinduism and Taoism, and do not claim to be a Buddhist. Buddhism is a bit too metaphysically bleak for my taste. I like the bells and whistles of Hinduism and the dialectical beauty of Taoism.

[CplFerro]

Think about it, most creationists believe that everything around us, human life, plant life, etc, etc, has to come from some where.

Even if it evolved through time, they still claim 'god' must have started the whole ordeal way back when.

So where did God come from?


Dear Azure,

As best I can tell, Platonic natural law - not Plato's beliefs, but the tradition of natural law working in the spirit of Plato - holds, in scientific terms, that "God" is essentially the unity of all natural law, which are themselves eternal. That is, the natural laws that science discovers are not individuals, but reflections of a single, comprehensive, eternal Law that governs the behaviour of the universe, and that Law itself exists outside of notions of change that govern timespace. It didn't "come" from anywhere, it is a result of pure necessity; for the Law not to exist would, it is supposed, be rationally incoherent. We can give the Law the name "God" if we choose, but this doesn't change its function as the originator of the universe, all of which unfolds according to it.

Cpl Ferro

[Ryokan]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=sunyata+%22pregnant+void%22&spell=1

If it was a total void, and not a "pregnant void", nothing could follow it.

NB: Even though beliefnet registered me as 100% Mahayana Buddhist, I know considerably less about Buddhism than I do about Hinduism and Taoism, and do not claim to be a Buddhist. Buddhism is a bit too metaphysically bleak for my taste. I like the bells and whistles of Hinduism and the dialectical beauty of Taoism.

Aha. Mahayana Buddhism. I'll admit to not knowing too much about the different beliefs of the Mahayana sects.

I'll change my question to 'Where does the Buddha claim that?' then, and repeat that any explanation for the origin of the universe that's not based on science is not worth listening to.

[UndercoverElephant]

Aha. Mahayana Buddhism. I'll admit to not knowing too much about the different beliefs of the Mahayana sects.

I'll change my question to 'Where does the Buddha claim that?' then, and repeat that any explanation for the origin of the universe that's not based on science is not worth listening to.

Not if it is based on undeniable logic?

Think about it for yourself instead of worrying about whether the Buddha said it. I have no idea whether or not the Buddha said it. It just happens to make perfect sense.

Geoff

[Ryokan]

Not if it is based on undeniable logic?

Think about it for yourself instead of worrying about whether the Buddha said it. I have no idea whether or not the Buddha said it. It just happens to make perfect sense.

Geoff

I quoted the Buddha because the question was about what Buddhists believe. And he should be an authority on that, don't you think?

All I said was that the Buddha said that the origin of the universe is outside the scope of Buddhism. And if he hadn't said it, I would have. Not only is it irrelevant to Buddhism, but it's not something Buddhism can speak of with authority. Such questions are better left to science, who can base their theories on evidence, not guesswork, wishful thinking and metaphysical pondering.

[UndercoverElephant]

I quoted the Buddha because the question was about what Buddhists believe. And he should be an authority on that, don't you think?


Not the one and only authority. Buddhism doesn't consist solely of the writings and beliefs of the Buddha. One of the most attractive things about Buddhism and Buddhists, to me, is the apparent capacity to move with the times rather than being stuck in the past.


All I said was that the Buddha said that the origin of the universe is outside the scope of Buddhism.


That is fair enough. Perhaps this partly my fault for saying that the concept of "Pregant void" or "sunyata" had something to do with the origin of the Universe. It may have been more accurate to say that Buddhists do not accept the concept of absolute nothingness/emptiness. For Buddhists, even emptiness is "pregnant". I don't know where this concept came from, but numerous internet sources claim it is Buddhism. I am personally not especially interested in disputes between different Buddhist sects.


And if he hadn't said it, I would have. Not only is it irrelevant to Buddhism, but it's not something Buddhism can speak of with authority. Such questions are better left to science, who can base their theories on evidence, not guesswork, wishful thinking and metaphysical pondering.

Science can't answer this question at all. Science answers questions about the behaviour of the Universe, not its ultimate origin. If Buddhism can't answer it and science can't answer it then the only position open to a scientific Buddhist is to claim that the question is of no interest because it is unanswerable.

Geoff.

[Apathia]

"Pregnant Void" is one aspect of a metaphor for the relationship between Form and Essence in Mahayana Buddhism. Looking for the inherent, ultimate existance and essence behind what we experience (That and what things are in themselves), Buddhism says we find no inherent, independent existance and no metaphysical essence, just the "Void," or "Emptiness."
But The Mahayana teaching doesn't stop there, gazing on Nothing. It shifts the attention away from the empry concept to the dynamic reality. "Form is not without Emptiness, and Emptiness is not without Form."
Because we look beyond appreance for that which is transcendent and find it absent (as an object) there is just, so to speak, this empty plot. There is no plot (objectivly speaking). We just posit a space where we expected something to be. The essence isn't actually the empty space, but our expectation of transcendance. That Transcedance turns out to be empty of content, but it's that emptiness of content that is the Urground, Field, or Womb of Form.
Because there is no Ultimate fixed essence behind what we experience, that "Void of Essence" is discribed as "pregnant with possibility."

The other side of the metaphor is that the forms we experience are "Unborn."
Unborn in essence, having not become anything of themselves.

Together Reality is imaged as an Unborn in the Womb.

The Taoist angle that contributed to Zen Buddhism is that Transcendence and Self-Transcendence are within experience. That's why we make the effort to look beyond. and our looking beyond mere appearance is the evidence of Transcendence. But there's no content to be seen, and the space we posit where we expected the content is a fiction of our expecation.

So Zen tries to get us to shift our attention away from the fictitious void where things in themselves aren't to the fullness of interdependent events of experience, of things Such as they are to experience (including how we describe and understand what we experience).

"Suchness" is what we have minus the fictions of Metaphisical content. But it's a dynamic, for minus essences that fix nature in what it is eternally supposed to be, there is trenscendence and change. And one metaphor of this dynamic is the Unborn in the Womb.

I don't expect this to make a lick of sense to most who are going to read it. I expect UCE and Ryokan will get my drift. As for others, the place to start is
practicing attention. Never mind all this Buddhism babble. Just sit down and pay full attention to what you are experiencing. This is how one gets to know what "Suchness" means.

[Dave1001]

Maybe a parasite microbe? Believing in God may effect our behavior in such a way to facilitate its propagation, at the stage of its life cycle where we're its host.

[Complexity]

Too much pepperoni before bedtime.

[Swishy McJackass]

[obligatory Clapton reference]God was born on March 30, 1945 in Ripley, England.[/obligatory Clapton reference]

[snooziums]

Well, since many religions (not all) claim that humans are born, and will spend an eternity in a heaven or hell, yet never existed before this life, then they would be energy created from nothing.

Yet, the first and most important rule in the universe: All that begins, must end.

However, most religions that have a God state that he always existed. Since energy cannot be created from nothing, all of these people that come into existence are taking energy away from God. Also, using the logic that what begins will last forever, then what never began must end. So, in reality God is dying, and will pass away soon.

R.I.P. God
There will be a funeral service for God on Friday.

[UndercoverElephant]

Snooziums,


Also, using the logic that what begins will last forever, then what never began must end.


I realise you are not being serious, but this....

Premise: What begins will last forever
Conclusion: What never began must end

...isn't a logically valid argument. The premise only tells us about things which begin. It tells us nothing about things which didn't begin.

[snooziums]

I realize you are not being serious, but this....

Premise: What begins will last forever
Conclusion: What never began must end

True, I am not being serious.

However... if energy (and matter) cannot be created, only converted, then something that begins must take energy from something else. And what existed before humanity? According to the Bible, God (and nothing else six days before humans cane into existence).

So, using that argument, there is this:

1. What begins will last forever.
2. Energy cannot be created from nothing <- law, not a step in the sequence.
3. What ever existed before hand must give up its energy to that which is being created (and will supposedly last forever).
4. Thus, what ever existed (God) must be losing energy, and as long as new beings are created that will last forever, then God must be continuing to lose energy.
5. Unless people stop being created, that energy (God) will run out in time.
6. R.I.P. God. (Remember to come to the funeral service on Friday).

However, like stated, I am not being serious.

[UndercoverElephant]

True, I am not being serious.

However... if energy (and matter) cannot be created, only converted, then something that begins must take energy from something else.


See: http://www.hedweb.com/witherall/zero.htm


And what existed before humanity? According to the Bible, God (and nothing else six days before humans cane into existence).

So, using that argument, there is this:

1. What begins will last forever.
2. Energy cannot be created from nothing <- law, not a step in the sequence.


See above link. Maybe it can. I'd challenge (2), which is called a "premise", BTW, if it is not a step in the sequence.

Geoff

[snooziums]

See: http://www.hedweb.com/witherall/zero.htm See above link. Maybe it can. I'd challenge (2), which is called a "premise", BTW, if it is not a step in the sequence.

Hmm... interesting. Although not proven. However, for everything to balance out to zero, it seems like there would have to be some level (equal) of some "opposite" to energy, perhaps? And that if "positive energy" increases, so must its counterpart to balance it out. All interesting theories.

However, where would God be in that whole equation? Would "he" be balanced, or on the other side providing balance (in which case he would be growing)?

[lifegazer]

Think about it, most creationists believe that everything around us, human life, plant life, etc, etc, has to come from some where.

Even if it evolved through time, they still claim 'god' must have started the whole ordeal way back when.

So where did God come from?
This is reduced to: "most creationists believe that everything comes from within God.", so that God embraces everything that can be experienced.

This, of course, includes the space & TIME which is experienced between/amongst those ~things~.
... Which means that the causality of these things/experiences/time begins with 'God'.
... Which means that causality emanates from God.

The bottom-line is that causality is a concept gleaned of experience and applying to ~things~ directly within that experience.
... The concept of 'God' is a concept applied to an entity which created the actual experience of causality itself.

Hence, the concept of 'causality' does not relate to the concept of 'God' since God created the concept/experience/idea of causality itself.

An eternal being is without beginning and end and - by this very nature - excludes itself from questions of it's own causality.

... Just logical considerations for you to ponder.
In other words, it is absolutely illogical to equate 'God' to one of the ~things~ created by It. The questions we ask of them cannot be asked of It.

[UndercoverElephant]

Hmm... interesting. Although not proven.


I doubt there will ever be any proof in this particular branch of philosophy.


However, for everything to balance out to zero, it seems like there would have to be some level (equal) of some "opposite" to energy, perhaps?


Yes. All the matter and energy would have to exactly cancel out all the potential gravitational energy of everything being attracted to each other.


However, where would God be in that whole equation?


God would be the Zero, which would also be some sort of Infinity.


Would "he" be balanced....?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Yin_yang.svg/180px-Yin_yang.svg.png

[pchams]

He issued forth from us.

http://thisplace.ca/FullMoon.mp3

[kurious_kathy]

I've asked this question in relation to intelligent design. Their main claim is that life is so complex that it has to have been designed by someone or something. Yet that designer, clearly the most complex thing imaginable, where did it come from? Oh, God always was...is the typical answer. So why can't the world always have been? Or the Universe? Or anything else? Why does there have to be a designer for everything but God?

Because when it all comes down to it, God is life. He created all life, designed everytning in the whole universe, yes even DNA comes from God. Pretty amazing to think about, all things were created by Him and for Him. So what's our purpose here? Anyone care to answer that?

Somehow we are all part of a bigger story that will someday be revealed, but for now we get to be in awe of our creator. The great I Am. He's always been and always will be, so why doubt Him?

Trusting in God means trusting in His Word!

[Kopji]

hi kathy,
You have two linking errors on your homepage:
http://www.savedbyloveministries.org/
One is on the Spiritual Warfare url, and the other is on your email link

You are wrong about a lot of other stuff, but it is probably good to start with something easy like fixing bad links. The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

[snooziums]

[God]... designed everytning in the whole universe

Even sin? Hmm...

... yes even DNA comes from God.

I have God's DNA? Wow! Now to use my power to move mountains! Huh? It is not working for some reason.

Pretty amazing to think about, all things were created by Him and for Him.

Yeah, to squish at his willing, as seen in the Bible.

So what's our purpose here? Anyone care to answer that?

Well, my propose is to avoid being burned at the stake by "Christians," like I was in a previous life.

Somehow we are all part of a bigger story that will someday be revealed...

When? People have been waiting for 2,000 years for that to be revealed.

... but for now we get to be in awe of our creator.

Really? Hmm... God has been around for 6,000 years. Yet, I have been incarnating for the past 27,000 years. Well... it would seem like I would have a bit more understanding than "God" does.

The great I Am. He's always been and always will be, so why doubt Him?

Because he claims that there are no other Gods, that nothing can compare to him, and yet he is jealous. But jealous of what?

Trusting in God means trusting in His Word!

Which is? The "Bible"? A book that has only been around for about 2,000 years?

I really hope that by my next life that this "God" idea will be behind us. Oh well.

[Beerina]

> Because he claims that there are no other Gods, that nothing can compare
> to him, and yet he is jealous. But jealous of what?

Piles of money and gold, I presume. But why he would get jealous of that, when we are in a world of need and want, because of Him, it's rather facetious on His part.

But in any case, the Bible admits other gods do actually exist. Specifically, the Egyptian gods who turned Pharoah's priest's stick into two snakes, so Yahewh could show how tough he was by turning Moses' stick into one snake that ate the other two.

Furthermore, some Psalms mention Yahweh fighting both Leviathan and Behemoth, which are, respectively, the Great Chaos Dragon and the Great Chaos Beast, where chaos is the untyped void of the vasty deep waters.

Christian apologists claim in the first case that it was either a prestigitation trick or a manipulation by Satan (presumably teleportation since Satan, not being a god, cannot create life. Perhaps robotic snakes?). However, that is all speculation not supported by the actual text, which directly suggests the Pharoah's priest's god did make real, if inferior, fighting snakes. The Koran, evidently, re-tells this story, clearly pointing out it is trickery, but the Koran is, of course, also sponsored lies by the Devil.

And in the second case, they claim these great Chaos creatures are not that, but something else, even though other religions and writings of the time also clearly describe the incident in further detail. It would be like people 1500 years from now claiming computers were fruit, because apples were fruit, even though there are "non-canonical" books like an Apple computer repair manual floating around.