|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Mar 10, 2010 23:04:56 GMT -5
Who created your creator? Whether it be God, Science...etc whatever you believe in...how did that being coming into existence?  |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Mar 11, 2010 18:07:48 GMT -5
Who created your creator? Whether it be God, Science...etc whatever you believe in...how did that being coming into existence? I'd take the Hyksos and Ptolemy I for Judaism, 'Christianity and Islam for $1000 . |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Mar 11, 2010 20:30:12 GMT -5
That's not a surprise. Go research if you care to and see what I'm talking about. Afterwards mayyybe you can make a sound counter argument. I'll just be the thorn for now on. Its like you offer folk water and wonder why they won't drink. The realization sets in that folks don't know they're thirsty. So I'm here for fun. Carry on lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Mar 12, 2010 8:47:14 GMT -5
What was your first thought? What is the highest number?
|
|
|
|
Post by BlackPrincess on Mar 12, 2010 10:03:50 GMT -5
how did God come into existence? hmm deep!
I was taught, God is the Alpha and the Omega...the beginnning and the end...so there was Nothing before God therefore God was NOT created.
We come to know of God through other people's experiences which was documented in the Bible. Therefore one can say that God was created by way of man's experiences?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Mar 12, 2010 10:12:46 GMT -5
Are you sure there is no highest number? What if there is but it's existance moves beyond our logic?
Your first thought is still stored in your brain...you just cannot recall it.
Where is the spritual realm? Where does God live? I mean, if he exists....what's his address?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Mar 12, 2010 14:22:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Chal™ on Mar 12, 2010 14:44:12 GMT -5
1) lol @ you been on that board
2) interesting question, to say the least
3) interesting answers
carry on
|
|
|
|
Post by BlackPrincess on Mar 12, 2010 16:02:38 GMT -5
Thanks Outtie!!
Now I want to clarify myself a bit. Yes, I am saying that God was not created based on how I was taught. However I am also suggesting, that God did not come into existence until someone experienced "him" and put that experience down on paper/book (i.e. moses). That can be in a sense how God was created...had it not been for the stories how would we have come to know of God?
@ VP...i wouldn't liken God's "creation" to that of a movie. With a movie, there is a specific beginning and a specific end, however with God his beginning can not be determined as "he" existed before man (based on how I was taught).
|
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Mar 12, 2010 17:37:39 GMT -5
Thanks Outtie!! Now I want to clarify myself a bit. Yes, I am saying that God was not created based on how I was taught. However I am also suggesting, that God did not come into existence until someone experienced "him" and put that experience down on paper/book (i.e. moses). That can be in a sense how God was created...had it not been for the stories how would we have come to know of God? @ VP...i wouldn't liken God's "creation" to that of a movie. With a movie, there is a specific beginning and a specific end, however with God his beginning can not be determined as "he" existed before man (based on how I was taught). Why not..... * cues spooky music* lol |
|
|
|
Post by Chal™ on Mar 12, 2010 23:51:06 GMT -5
Why not..... * cues spooky music* lol I'm hearing the theme to Twilight Zone myself, lol |
|
|
|
Post by denounced on Mar 13, 2010 17:07:18 GMT -5
The question doesn't make sense. God does not fit into the category of the created. Let me ask you this, Can you taste the number 3? What's wrong with the question?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Mar 14, 2010 8:38:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by denounced on Mar 14, 2010 18:24:31 GMT -5
Good point Grrrr!
My point nsync is why ask an uncreated being where he came from. The question is baseless. Better yet, how can you ask a created being where an uncreated being came from? Read Job, he posed some similar questions, and then got put in his place.
|
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Mar 15, 2010 10:04:05 GMT -5
I do enjoy Job 38. A lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Mar 15, 2010 10:12:34 GMT -5
Good point Grrrr! My point nsync is why ask an uncreated being where he came from. The question is baseless. Better yet, how can you ask a created being where an uncreated being came from? Read Job, he posed some similar questions, and then got put in his place. Good point, denounced. I actually liked the "Can you taste the number 3" question too. Grrr had to salt you up like that. LOL! I don't think the question itself is knowable. |
|
|
|
Post by Mrs. Eyes on Mar 15, 2010 10:30:50 GMT -5
Good point Grrrr! My point nsync is why ask an uncreated being where he came from. The question is baseless. Better yet, how can you ask a created being where an uncreated being came from? Read Job, he posed some similar questions, and then got put in his place. ^ The best answer I've seen so far. |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Mar 15, 2010 13:26:40 GMT -5
Warning: Long winding thesis to ensue:
ok so I thought about this all most of the part of the weekend - and I'm not sure if I have an answer (or one that will make sense).
One answer is (somewhat counterintuitively and highly semantic dependent) that the "creation" actually creates the "creator". Yeah I know - it's backwards sounding, but it's premised on the idea that an action is required to hold a title that describes the action. One cannot be a "artist", if they have not created"art", one cannot be a "musician" if they have not created music. Using similar logic, one cannot be a creator unless one has "created" - so in a way (which is entirely dependent on semantics) you could argue that the "creation" creates the "creator".
But semantics is the easy argument. Because here, the entity in discussion exists whether it creates or not. The semantic argument only addresses his/her title - not their beginning of their existence.
So how do we address the question from an operative stand point? I first start off by establishing framework. I suggest to you that there is a material world, and a non-material world. The way I envision it (and to be clear this is a hypothesis not a declaration of truth) there is a material environment that exists as a pocket in the non-material environment.
So if something is in the material world, it is also simultaneously in the non-material world. But theoretically something could be in the non-material world and not be in the material world. Still with me? Ok let's push forward.
Food, water, road, buildings, elements (like sodium, calcium, nitrogen)... they are all material items. Anything with physical existence exists as a material item, in a material world... this would include time as it is part of the time-space continuum. We perceive them all with our senses - it is part of how we can confirm that they are material.
The non-material world is different. We do not observe here so much as we "feel". The temptation here might be to dismiss "feeling" because it is not scientific. I would argue it does not have to be scientific to be real. What makes a woman love one man and not the other? What attracts a man to one woman and not the other? An inability to quantify what might cause it, doesn't mean that that "feeling" is unreal. What drives us to create music, to create art? Who can quantify it? I've often heard humanists (read: atheist) reduce this process (and any other that is feeling centric) to random chemcial reactions; a cop out (IMO). It's not a question if there are neurons firing in our brain, but WHY they are firing the way they do? Why that chemical reaction? Why that neuron firing pattern? Why that thought? Why that feeling? Chance is not an answer.
Now (finally) if there is a material world, and a non-material world, and we exist in both, but experience them differently - then the last leg of my hypothesis is that God is a part of that non-material world. That is to say, he is not composed of molecules or atoms... He would equivalently not be held constraint to time or concepts thereof (there is no before or after). If you accept all the preceding as reasonable logic then I say the question who created God becomes unanswerable because it's asked from a material framework (a framework wherein all things material have a beginning and an end) of a Power that exists in a non-material framework. Of course you only agree with this conclusion if you feel it's credible to say, there is a plane of existence where no time exists, or a plane where all time exists simultaneously (i.e. the very first moment is the same as the very last moment). That's the best I can come up with right now. I'll have to think some more maybe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Mar 15, 2010 13:52:36 GMT -5
Warning: Long winding thesis to ensue:
ok so I thought about this all most of the part of the weekend - and I'm not sure if I have an answer (or one that will make sense).
One answer is (somewhat counterintuitively and highly semantic dependent) that the "creation" actually creates the "creator". Yeah I know - it's backwards sounding, but it's premised on the idea that an action is required to hold a title that describes the action. One cannot be a "artist", if they have not created"art", one cannot be a "musician" if they have not created music. Using similar logic, one cannot be a creator unless one has "created" - so in a way (which is entirely dependent on semantics) you could argue that the "creation" creates the "creator".
But semantics is the easy argument. Because here, the entity in discussion exists whether it creates or not. The semantic argument only addresses his/her title - not their beginning of their existence.
So how do we address the question from an operative stand point? I first start off by establishing framework. I suggest to you that there is a material world, and a non-material world. The way I envision it (and to be clear this is a hypothesis not a declaration of truth) there is a material environment that exists as a pocket in the non-material environment.
So if something is in the material world, it is also simultaneously in the non-material world. But theoretically something could be in the non-material world and not be in the material world. Still with me? Ok let's push forward.
Food, water, road, buildings, elements (like sodium, calcium, nitrogen)... they are all material items. Anything with physical existence exists as a material item, in a material world... this would include time as it is part of the time-space continuum. We perceive them all with our senses - it is part of how we can confirm that they are material.
The non-material world is different. We do not observe here so much as we "feel". The temptation here might be to dismiss "feeling" because it is not scientific. I would argue it does not have to be scientific to be real. What makes a woman love one man and not the other? What attracts a man to one woman and not the other? An inability to quantify what might cause it, doesn't mean that that "feeling" is unreal. What drives us to create music, to create art? Who can quantify it? I've often heard humanists (read: atheist) reduce this process (and any other that is feeling centric) to random chemcial reactions; a cop out (IMO). It's not a question if there are neurons firing in our brain, but WHY they are firing the way they do? Why that chemical reaction? Why that neuron firing pattern? Why that thought? Why that feeling? Chance is not an answer.
Now (finally) if there is a material world, and a non-material world, and we exist in both, but experience them differently - then the last leg of my hypothesis is that God is a part of that non-material world. That is to say, he is not composed of molecules or atoms... He would equivalently not be held constraint to time or concepts thereof (there is no before or after). If you accept all the preceding as reasonable logic then I say the question who created God becomes unanswerable because it's asked from a material framework (a framework wherein all things material have a beginning and an end) of a Power that exists in a non-material framework. Of course you only agree with this conclusion if you feel it's credible to say, there is a plane of existence where no time exists, or a plane where all time exists simultaneously (i.e. the very first moment is the same as the very last moment). That's the best I can come up with right now. I'll have to think some more maybe. So the non-material world isn't created? Does that fit everywhere or just within the framework of what you have put forth? Before I write, I think. My thoughts are in the non-material world which were influenced by the physical realm . The argument between the material and non material realm is the same as the chicken and the egg. We really can't state which came first as both feed off of each other. Both need each other to exist. |
|
|
|
Post by Mrs. Eyes on Mar 15, 2010 14:53:32 GMT -5
IMHO, to ask who created God is that you may not believe that God is who He says He is. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God. That's how I view it. That question is confusing, and God is not the author of confusion. If we question who created God, then that would mean everything that God has done is not valid.
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Mar 15, 2010 15:01:42 GMT -5
So the non-material world isn't created? Does that fit everywhere or just within the framework of what you have put forth? Before I write, I think. My thoughts are in the non-material world which were influenced by the physical realm . The argument between the material and non material realm is the same as the chicken and the egg. We really can't state which came first as both feed off of each other. Both need each other to exist.
I agree that the material world can influence non-material thoughts, and I also agree (based on this preliminary hypothesis) that we exist in both material and non-material - as far as the material and non-material world needing each other - I'm on the fence on that one.
Remember a while ago, in another debate, I referred to creation as a divine act of creativity and not necessity? I honestly see a parallel between us (man) creating art, and God creating the material world as a work of divine art.
So for your statement to be true, I need to consider does the material world require art? I know that the material world HAS art but does it require it? And I haven't answered that question yet. I'll think about it this weekend - or maybe it'll just come to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Mar 15, 2010 16:44:42 GMT -5
According to my Study Bible, Genesis deals with the history of the human race living in the lands from Eden to Ur, and from Canaan to Egypt. It states that before the Genesis account, God was and always will be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Mar 15, 2010 16:45:39 GMT -5
According to my Study Bible, Genesis deals with the history of the human race living in the lands from Eden to Ur, and from Canaan to Egypt. It states that before the Genesis account, God was and always will be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Mar 15, 2010 18:33:53 GMT -5
It says verbatim:
Genesis is the first 5 books of Moses, called Pentateuch. Before the Genesis account, God was and always will be. Genesis deals with the history of the human race "dwelling" in the lands from Eden to Ur in the first 11 chapters, and from Canaan to Egypt in the remaining 39 chapters. This first book forms the basis for all further revelation about God and His plan for man.
|
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Mar 15, 2010 18:39:18 GMT -5
I re-read my paraphrase and I'm still not seeing how you came to that conclusion. It is talking about the human race dwelling or living in certain lands.
|
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Mar 15, 2010 18:48:04 GMT -5
And from Cannan to Egypt, it states, "the last 39 chapters of Genesis reveal how God-through the family of Abraham-directs history to establish the early stages in His plan to save the people and mend their fellowship with Him. The book closes with His Chosen People in Egypt.
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Mar 15, 2010 18:55:04 GMT -5
Great! When asked this question I will say I don't know. I will be comfortable with that answer. I won't make anyone feel guilty for asking it. Honestly, I don't understand why the average person can't say "I don't know". Usually someone will get offended or saying it's evil and insulting to ask OR they will answer in cryptic puzzles...asking more question then they are answering. I don't understand all the attitude that surrounds such a question. |
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Mar 15, 2010 19:00:34 GMT -5
Also, in using the maps in the back, it doesn't state were Eden is, but Ur is located in the lands of what we call the Middle East today. Cannan is what Saudi Arabia is today. We all know where Egypt is. It doesn't show Eden, but it isn't far fetch to assume it is in Africa, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Mar 15, 2010 19:19:51 GMT -5
To back up my previous statement, in Genesis 2:10-14, it talks about the river that went out from Eden to water the garden, and from that river it split into four. The first one compasseth the whole land of Havilag, the 2nd river compasseth Ethopia, the 3rd river goes towards the east of Assyria, and the 4th river can be found near Babylonia.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Mar 15, 2010 19:35:39 GMT -5
I don't think we can use the biblical account for this discussion because it has major holes. I can remember when I was watching this show called Beyond the Big Bang. It was showing how the universe was expanding. I remember thinking " If the Universe is expanding...What the fuck is it expanding in?" Therefore I believe we live in a multiverse but even then I still arrive at a problem. If we exist in a mulitverse that is being held by a something... what is outside of that? Its like if you really think about this question... it will send you down a deep deep worm hole with no bottom. Leave it be I say lol
|
|
