My question to Creationists

[scottxyz]

I have met many people who honestly believe that there has to be "something" or "somebody" (eg, "God") that created Life.

This does make sense. We all feel awe and wonder at the complexity of life, and many people's assumption of a "higher being" comes from this feeling that it would be impossible for something as complex as Life to just "create itself".

But if we believe that it's impossible for something really complex to just "create itself", then... Who created God?

If they answer "God created God" - then we're admitting that something complex can CREATE ITSELF.

But if that's the case, why jump "up" a level, postulating a God to create Life? The people who are saying God created God, and then God created Life... aren't they really just saying "God is Life" and "Life created Life"?

[teach1st]

1. I think that's a bit too...

...abstract and thought-provoking for many creationists.

[leftofthedial]

2. the whole notion of "god"

is an unmitigated crock of shit

in my opinion.

[arcane1]

7. amen

[indigobusiness]

28. Hardly "unmitigated".

Your statement is as absurd as Creationism.

[leftofthedial]

32. so is my wardrobe

:shrug:

[datasuspect]

112. "if there were a god,

it would be necessary to abolish him."

Mikhail Bakunin

[Inland]

3. You missed something.

That it can create itself, or better yet, that it needs no creating, is what makes it God in the first place. That sort of trick is what separates a physical process or biological process or chemical process from divinity.

[scottxyz]

4. That's the trap I'm leading the Creationist to

It always seems the main reason they want a God is because it just seems so amazing for Life (and the Universe, and Everything) to just "come into being" all on its own.

If they come out into the open and admit they believe in the idea that there is SOMETHING that can create itself, then we finally seem to agree on something, and it's just a matter of naming it now. They call it God - I call it the Universe.

[Inland]

Ah, now they have trapped you.

Once you admit to something that has the attributes of god--that is, something that is sui generis, creates itself out of nothing, or existed before existence--it doesn't matter what you call it. Anything with that attribute is divine. Naming it might score points between religions, but it is still religious.

At most, you are arguing that the It doesn't have a personality. In Hindu thought, there is an impersonal divine being that encompasses everything and just exists in order to manifest itself as the universe. But that isn't an argument for atheism but a different type of miraculous divinity--a Metaphysical IT from which all good things come by design. I don't think any of the religious people are going to find a quandry in this.

[scottxyz]

25. I like being trapped there

I like the idea that the Universe just sort of always existed. And I'm fine with calling that Divine.

So now we have this Something Which Always Exists. What we don't seem to have is an old mean white guy with a beard who doesn't like men who have sex with men, women who have sex with men, people who eat shellfish, and people who mix synthetic and natural fabrics.

Sounds like progress to me.

[noiretextatique]

33. i'm not so sure that people who believe in creationism

would consider themselves divine...at least not without some sort of intervention, e.g., being "born again."

[sangh0]

50. No, they wouldn't consider themselves "divine"

It would be immoral for them to do so.

They think they are "moral" and "good", but not divine.

[K-W]

123. A universe that always existed didnt create itself.

Just wanted to point that out.

[oneighty]

29. Where is the Universe?

Find that and maybe find God too?

Everything MUST be someplace.

180

[indigobusiness]

85. The Universe is Here, There, and Everywhere

According to the revelation of John Ono. That is my favorite gospel.

[Walt Starr]

105. The same applies to the universe

There is no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate that the universe needed to be created.

Whatever one chooses as their argument in favor of a creator, the process can be applied to the universe itself and abrogate the necessity for a creator.

[Getchasome]

119. Diviniy?

You can only believe in the divine through "faith." And, faith is nothing more than believing in something despite the lack of evidence for it, or the evidence against it. "Faith" means your belief can't stand on it's own two feet. This is why people go to church every Sunday and praise god, chanting his name, etc.. How rediculous is this? If scientists got together every Sunday and chanted "Gravity is real, gravity is good, what goes up must come down, blahh, blahh, blahh." we would all wonder how much they truely believe in gravity.

[indigobusiness]

127. Gravity is self-evident, and unexplained by science.

Much like God.

[K-W]

129. God is not self-evident.

But regardless this argument is absurd.

Gravity is multiple things, it is a theory predicting the behaviors of physical objects, it is a force in physics, it is used generally to refer to the effect that we ascribe to the gravitational force of the earth.

Either way the word is refering to actual physical events or a falsifiable theory. Thus it is scientifically sound.

God is not a description of actual physical events, nor is it a falsifiable theory. God is a description of a phenonomom with, to date, no proven physical manifestation.

Your problem is clear in your post, you think science is trying to explain something. This is the fundemental difference between religion and science. Religion believes there is a truth to the universe that can be known by people outside of our experience.

Science doesnt work that way. Science can never explain anything. All it can provide is a set of ideas that have so far not been disproven. The rest is just the philosophy we derive from the understanding science provies.

We never know if we are explaining anything, we just know that so far this is the closest we have come to the truth.

[indigobusiness]

140. That was a joke.

But a meaningful one. Your post proves it.

" God is a description of a phenomenon "...Oh, really? Most people that study this sort of thing seriously call God an ineffable mystery.
But, I tend to agree with those that think the comic book version is a bit absurd.

You go on to claim:

"Your problem is clear in your post, you think science is trying to explain something. This is the fundamental difference between religion and science. Religion believes there is a truth to the universe that can be known by people outside of our experience.

Science doesn't work that way. Science can never explain anything. All it can provide is a set of ideas that have so far not been disproven. The rest is just the philosophy we derive from the understanding science provies."

I'll let the Dictionary refute your claim that science isn't about explaining.

sci·ence (sns)
n.

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.


The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

And, science and religion are two approaches to a similar end. Religion is about relinking to the source of existence. The models and language used to order that effort lead to all sorts of misunderstandings.

Science and Religion are about a full understanding of the same thing.
As ridiculous as that sounds, it's true. But, at this point, few are willing to make the effort to see the symmetry.

[K-W]

144. You misread that definition.

"theoretical explanation", not "explenation" it is a very important destinction, as I explained. Theoretical explenations are, theories, so far yet unfalsified groupings of observations and logical predictions based on emperical research.

Thus religion does not qualify. Religion offers a set of explenations based on faith.

Science can only make theoretical explenations, it can never claim to know anything for certain.

There is a symmetry between science and religion, but youve not quite got your finger on it. They are both logical processes. In science you take strictly emprical information and apply strictly deductive reasoning.

In religion you take an assumed set of beliefs, combined with a certain set of observations and use inductive and deductive reasoning.

In both instances the end result is a belief system (since scientists and people who rely on science have no choice but to philosophize to fill the gaps)

So there is a very interesting symmetry, but because religion uses inductive reasoning, it is not tied to reality. Inductive reasoning creates powerful models, it was once widely thought that those models were so elegant that they must be true. We now call that religion. At the time it was just what they did. Religion become deeply ingrained in culture and behavior, until people figured out that for all the elegance of a religion, or freudian theory for that matter, inductive reasoning does NOT prove anything, and cannot provide us with any insights on reality, only elegant conceptualizations of how the world works.

[warrior1]

5. Who created God?

Men.

[BlkAces16]

64. Man created God...

so that they would have some way to control the masses.

Best 2 ways to control people are God and fear...

[bush_is_wacko]

201. Yes, man created God, then man created...

Salvationist religion. They did this to control the masses..See my post re: Creationism/Salvationism. It is not the creation of God that is man's downfall. Human's existed for 3 million peaceful years believing in Gods. But when their leaders started withholding resources, people needed a reason not to complain, thus the creation of salvationist religion!

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrWeird]

65. Well, PJM, I'm glad you asked.

You see, Creationists, like flat-earthers, or freepers, or white supremacists, are indeed nuts and stupid.

They're kind of like holocaust deniers. You can show them the facts. You can show them the proof. They'll just say: nope. It didn't happen. Those photos are faked. Those witness are lying. Satan put that evidence to trick us.

Why isn't it bigotry? Good question. It's the same reason hating holocaust deniers isn't bigotry. They're not being judged on their race, or their orientation, or their religion, or their country of origin. They're being judged on the content of their character. Which is stupid and nutty.

Perhaps you're confusing Creationism and Christianity. Although I don't see how, since they've obviously got nothing to do with each other.

[indigobusiness]

69. Sort of a "gotcha mentality"...hmmm

I think I'm getting it. Not much chance for anything with that approach. That is a Mission Impossible, self-destructing tape, modus-operandi.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

102. well, good Dr., while I normally enjoy reading your missives...

this one was a little off puttting! It IS bigotry...just because you don't like it being called that doesn't mean it isn't. It IS religious because many christians take the torah as inspired by God and therefor true. It really is a shame that someone with your sharpness doesn't see this as religious bigotry...if it meets the definition of bigotry...if it is directed at a group of religious people...it is religious bigotry. To not believe that would be nutty and stupid...(just kidding, but you get the point).

i still enjoy your posts...just wish this sort of thing didn't exist. The exchange would be a lot more fun...

theProdigal

[boblzer0]

8. who is god

and did he create santa?

[troubleinwinter]

9. I don't think you'll get anywhere with this.

Some think "God" is a unmitigated crock of shit, others have all manner of different views on what "God" is.

This might be well discussed in the DU group established for this sort of discussion.

[Lone Pawn]

10. I'm not a creationist by any means, but I'll play devil's (ha!) advocate.

God created the universe, yes, but just as the concepts of 'up,' 'down,' 'left,' and 'right,' make no sense outside the bounds of the universe, the concept of before or after in time--another dimension of the universe--is meaningless outside the universe. Time is not some constant that exists beyond everything. Time is part of the universe. And since God created the universe, and is not part of the universe, God does not exist within time. Since God exists regardless of time and beyond time, it is meaningless to ask "who created God." Just as you could not walk outside of the universe, you cannot attempt to locate anything outside the universe with measurements that quantify the universe and are only valid inside the universe.

God was not "created."

[scottxyz]

13. I think it's progress if you can get someone to admit God wasn't "created"

That means he just sort of "sprang" into being.

Much like I argue the Universe and Life themselves did.

Which is some "common ground" between me and the Creationist.

[Lone Pawn]

15. He didn't "spring" into being either.

He always was. Because God created time, he was never created. He didn't so much exist *before* time as *outside of* time. And so he didn't just pop into existence in the same way life did. The concept of "existing" is a creation of God.

Again, I don't believe it, but it's fun to argue.

[secedeeconomically]

20. Pass the bong dude, it will make much more sense lol

[scottxyz]

21. Well, then maybe Life and the Universe always existed

The Universe was always just sort of here, hanging around.

And Life (around here) got started when some cosmic germs blew in from Outer Space.

[Lone Pawn]

26. That's quite possible,

but now you get into the neither-makes-more-sense-than-the-other part of it.

Both sides claim Occam's Razor. And, to make matters worse, Occam's Razor is invalid with imperfect information--which we have quite a bit of.

[BillZBubb]

23. Interesting hand waving!

Just redefine the playing field! But, it doesn't really work. For instance, if we allow that some thing or entity or whatever you call god, must exist outside the universe, it is just as fair for me to claim that other things also exist outside the universe--beyond our time and space.

If so, I can posit the creation of the universe quite easily by natural events in the extra-universe with no need for a God. For example, suppose that our space time exists along with an infinite number of other space times in a sort of soap suds mass. Each bubble is a different universe that comes into being spontaneously and randomly based on energy to mass conversion. There is no way to commmunicate between each "bubble"--the speed of light barrier. All possible universes exist, a few have life, most don't. Since the number is infinite there is a universe just like this one where everything is the same except John Kerry is president elect.

[Lone Pawn]

27. Of course you can claim that other things exist outside the universe.

Many-Universes Models are perfectly acceptable. I personally think the theory's quite nice on a conceptual level--especially the "every time a quantum decision is made, each universe splits into two universes where either decision is made" model.

But I don't see how that prevents a God who created temporality and the initial universe.

[BillZBubb]

31. It's just back to Occam's Razor.

God is not necessary in the many universe model. They've always existed and always will (sort of what you've suggested for God). Some old ones will die out, and new ones will be formed. All that is happening outside our space-time.

FWIW, I think the String Theory model is much better than the "Quantum split" model. Their aren't an infinity of universes, just a number that pop up from time to time.

[sangh0]

54. But you can't accurately apply Occam's Razor

with so little information about those other universes.

God is not necessary in the many universe model.

True, but God is not written out by it either. The existence of God is neither provable or disprovable

FWIW, I think the String Theory model is much better than the "Quantum split" model.

I find that odd. The String Theory is unprovable, and so, in a sense, it's non-scientific.

[BillZBubb]

81. ?????

Of course you can apply Occam's Razor.

1) God Exists outside our time -> God created our universe and maybe others.
2) Our universe exists like many others in something outside our time.

Occam's Razor says 2) is the way to go.

This doesn't disprove the existence of God. The Razor is probabilistic. It just shows that God is a low probability scenario.

String Theory is, at this time, unproven. Finding those extra dimensions will be difficult! That doesn't mean it won't be more strongly established in the future. It is scientific--but it's a hypothesis at this point. Quantum split is equally unprovable, as is any multi-universe proposition.

My bias (an it may well be wrong) is towards high dimensional space with a finite number of transitory universes (ala String Theory) rather than an infinite number of universes, or continuous creation of universes at every quantum point, or a single God creator.

[sangh0]

116. Two points

1) I think you may be misapplying or misunderstand OR. OR doesnt say "the simplest answer is the most likely one". It states that any factor that isn't necessary to explain something, is not part of the explanation.

Since we don't know how to explain the universe's existence, we can't know if God's existence is necessary to the explanation.

2) String Theory is not only unproven. It's also unprovable. The experiments required to test it are impossible to perform.

[BillZBubb]

118. You are wrong on both counts

1) I fully understand Occam's Razor. My point is that God is not necessary to explain the existence of the universe. Positing God as some entity that has to "exist" so that the universe can exist is unnecessary. The universe can simply "exist" on its own just as reasonably as God. No prior supernatural existence is required. Occam's Razor fits nicely. BTW, a recent study claimed that Occam's Razor isn't always correct--at least in some financial situations. That's why I mentioned probabilities.

2) String theory is unprovable at this point. But, don't forget General Relativity was unprovable when Einstein published it. As technology advanced we've gotten more and more evidence in support of GR. String theory is a tough nut to crack, but some experiments may be feasible to at least test the hypothesis in the future.

3) We can never really absolutely prove much of scientific theory. It's not mathematics. All we can do is to gather more and more evidence until we find a contradiction. If no contradictions are found, we simply continue to support the model. In other words, the case is circumstantial, but built on empirical evidence.

4) Finally, I merely mentioned ST a one possible explanation. There are many others. Each of them follow from natural laws, not from a supernatural creator. My personal bias is for natural explanations.

[sangh0]

120. response

1) If you don't know what the explanation is for the universe, how can you know that God is not a necessary part of the explanation?

The universe can simply "exist" on its own just as reasonably as God. No prior supernatural existence is required

How do you know this?

2) General Relativity was never unprobable. It was unproven, but not unprovable. If it were unprovable, no one would have been able to prove it because "unprovable" means "impossible to prove"

3) I agree with this

4) My comment about ST was not an attack. I merely noted that it, like God's existence, is unprovable. Your "bias" for natural explanations presents no problems for me. It sounds quite reasonable.

[wtmusic]

86. Fallacy

The existence of an infinite number of universes does not guarantee all possible universes exist.

[indigobusiness]

133. No, but it guarantees that they potentially exist.

That's the crux of the biscuit.

[secedeeconomically]

24. lol I have a headache lol

[Marxdem]

34. Theres a book out on this

God exists on a non-linear plane that doesn't intersect ours. As god said once, you can't go where I exist (not the scripture exactly).

[BillZBubb]

11. Yep, that's one cunundrum for the believers.

Scenario 1: God exists somehow -> Life made by God
Scenario 2: Life exists somehow.

By Occam's Razor, Scenario 2 is the logical choice. It simply cuts out the superfluous middle man. That's one reason science always rejects Scenario 1.

[scottxyz]

16. Exactly: Occam's Razor ("The simplest explanation is usually right")

When I occasionally talk to a religious person about how Life got created, much of their argument rests on the idea that Life is incredibly complex - someone or something just HAD to create it - it couldn't have just created itself.

So they postulate a God. Which is fine... until you realize "I just postulated God because I couldn't believe something complicated could create itself. But now I have to explain how God got created."

This kind of reminds me of the phrase "turtles all the way down".

http://www.google.com.br/search?q=turtles%20all%20the%20way%20down&hl=pt-BR&lr=&sa=N&tab=iw

[sangh0]

56. That's not quite what OR says

It's more like "If it's not necessary to the explanation, then it's not part of the explanation"

[indigobusiness]

78. Well put..

Best summation I've encountered.

[T Roosevelt]

12. There whole argument

is God has been around forever. I just consider Carl Sagan's counter-argument:

"In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from? And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?"

[against all enemies]

14. Dog created God

[scottxyz]

17. "Turtles all the way down"

I first read the phrase "Turtles All the Way Down" in a book by Stephen Hawking. According to the story, a bigname scientist was giving a lecture on astronomy. After the lecture, an elderly lady came up and told the scientist that he had it all wrong. 'The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist asked "And what is the turtle standing on?"
To which the lady triumphantly replied: "You're very clever, young man, but it's no use -- it's turtles all the way down."

http://www.google.com.br/search?q=turtles%20all%20the%20way%20down&hl=pt-BR&lr=&sa=N&tab=iw

[walldude]

141. The "Flat Plate on the back of a turtle"

was actually used to create a series of Fantasy novels, called Discworld... Can't remember the authors name though

[Warren DeMontague]

180. Say You're Thinking About A Plate of Shrimp...

Then somebody says "Plate", or "Shrimp"... or "Plate of Shrimp"...

No explanation....



...No point in lookin' for one, neither.

[immoderate]

194. Do you mean Flatland?

--IMM

[secedeeconomically]

18. There is no God

Don look for easy solutions

[Warren DeMontague]

190. What if my name isn't Don?

...Then what should I look for?

;)

[stray cat]

19. Design an experiment that can prove or disprove either one

and then we may get somewhere. I, of course, haven't been able to think of the definitive doable experiment. In the meantime evolution is our best working theory. Scientists believed in spontaneous generation (flys are made from spoiled meat) until they proved themselves wrong. As a biologist, I think there are alot of holes in all of our theories and no scientific experiments that can mimic millions of years and the effect of that on "life". We come up with our best theory and modify it as new evidence is made available. I wonder what future scientists will think of our current theories.

[secedeeconomically]

22. What ever it is, i'm sure it will be better than Adam and Eve

[indigobusiness]

30. This thread is turning out as idiotic and self-serving as Creationism.

Intellectually lazy dismissals and facile rationalizations don't even scratch the surface of this topic, regardless of where you stand.

To pretend there is nothing to discuss discounts the entire history of Man's intellectual and spiritual struggle. Nothing more lame than smug shallowness.

[leftofthedial]

35. intellectual struggle or spiritual struggle (whatever the hell that is)?

The two are not congruent.

At least so far, your condemnations of those who reject a deity are equally lazy and facile.

Debating the history or sociology or pathology of religions is an interesting pursuit, but in my experience, debating "faith" with a "believer" is pointless because it is utterly subjective on the part of the believer. Objective reality, logic, observation all are powerless against an opinion. It's like debating in a different language from your opponent, with no translator.

It's patently obvious that there is no external "god." If you want to discuss whether the neuronal patterns in a given individual's brain amount to the same thing, then perhaps some sort of psychological forum would be appropriate.

Smugly Yours,

lotd

[indigobusiness]

36. Sounds like you live in a 'No Spin Zone'

a la Bill O'Reilly. I just stated fact. You seem preoccupied with opinion.

Regardless of what you think of History. You can't change it.

[leftofthedial]

37. are you saying the history of belief in a deity

proves the existence of that deity?

or are we just in the midst of a disconnect?

[indigobusiness]

40. Hardly

Just saying it is a serious and meaningful debate that hasn't even been touched upon here. No disconnect and no judgment and no opinion.

There are arguments out there that, I suspect, some might find impressive and new in scope. The nature of the sacred has been dumbed down as to be almost unrecognizable in our culture.

I mean no disrespect to anyone's beliefs, but would ask for an honest argument.

[Orsino]

46. Honest arguments aren't possible...

...when "god" can't be defined, nor can believers agree on which god is supposed to have been the Creator.

When a god can be measured, then it will be possible to construct arguments around it. Until that time, believers would be bringing a baseball bat to a tennis match, and only heated disagreement can result.

[sangh0]

59. History proves you wrong

Humans have been around for many, many years, and during most of them, the only explanation they had for the world was God. I really doubt that there were never any honest arguments for the thousands of years we've been around.

When a god can be measured, then it will be possible to construct arguments around it.

So can you measure love, or do you just not talk about?

[indigobusiness]

73. These concepts are rigorously and articulately debated with

strident logic and an analysis not unlike scientific reasoning, by Buddhist monks around the world. Sheer logical analysis of spiritual issues in a practical world. Anyone who hasn't observed this sort of debate has no clue to what can be reached in these matters.

[indigobusiness]

38. I wasn't debating sociology or pathology of religion...or faith.

I was commenting on the nature of the debate. Not the psychology of it.

Funny you should say "It's patently obvious that there is no external "god." " It was "patently" obvious to the head of the U.S. Patent Office that his Office should be terminated, because everything that could be invented had been invented.

That reminds me of your preposterous claims about an "external god".

The concept of God is beyond your ken and your argument. And is, certainly, nothing "external".

[leftofthedial]

39. says you

in summary, if you believe there is one, then there is one and anyone who says there isn't is facile or smug or preposterous.

Prove there is one. You're the one making the extraordinary claim.

Until you do, I'll stand by my assertion that an argument about "Creationism" is on its face ridiculous.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

41. you cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God

why ask someone to prove something that has to be taken on faith?

just damn...
theProdigal

[indigobusiness]

43. One thing you cannot do

is prove a negative.

Proof isn't the point.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

45. the previous poster asked for proof...that is all

and you cannot prove this one way or the other. there is no acceptable level of truth other than God him/herself coming down here and having a daily talk show similar to Regis and Whatshername...

theProdigal

[indigobusiness]

58. You can't prove or understand anything without trying.

I get the impression there are those unwilling to try shouting the loudest here.

The evidence is showing up scientifically for many aspects of reality, previous relegated to faith.

Read The Tao of Physcics or William Tiller's work at Stanford for evidence.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

61. of all the physics I have learned

which, admittedly, isn't too much, the deeper I go, the more I get a sense that God really IS in the details

theProdigal

[indigobusiness]

76. In EVERY detail...

or none at all.

[leftofthedial]

44. that's the definition of delusion

the only refuge you have is to claim that your subjective, internalized opinion justifies "belief."

All your evidence is hearsay. If you claim that aliens visit the Earth and make crop circles and abduct people, you are required to show evidence of your claim or it is dismissed. I do not have to prove that aliens do not visit the Earth. You can not semantically dodge that by reciting the nursery rhyme that "you cannot prove nor disprove the existence of god." There are things too numerous to count that it is impossible for someone to disprove the existence of. That doesn't make them real.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

48. it is no nursery rhyme...it is a matter of faith

and you just don't get it. Until you or anyone else can prove to me how the whole shindig we call the universe got started then God will exist for me. You are asking someone to prove the existence of something that, if he/she exists, would be outside of our universe at any rate.

I certainly understand that you believe that God doesn't exist and I respect that. I can see why you would believe that as well. But I BELIEVE he/she does (as do about 4 billion other people) exist. I know you cannot prove that God does not exist...and I cannot prove to you that God does exist...but God is real in my life. You want to call me delusional? That's ok...I don't need your approval.

theProdigal

[leftofthedial]

53. you have my approval anyway

we simply don't agree.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

55. wow...thanks :-)

we don't...but that's cool...i wish there were a more relaxed place where these discussions could run without the bigotry, hatred and just downright nastiness (not saying you have done any of these things). Would be fun to hash out...but, alas, it will not ever happen here...

theProdigal

OnEdit : But am I still delusional or just sadly naive??? :-)

[leftofthedial]

99. the impersonality and artificiality of typing fragmented bits

of a conversation, with no verbal or physical cues makes it especially difiicult.

I don't think we'd ever come to any conclusion. Debating faith is like crapping skyscrapers. It's not getting them out; it's how they got in there.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

101. not really wanting to come to a conclusion

really just like to know what people think and why. don't think i would try to 'save' you...i just enjoy the topic when the debate is polite even if lively!

thanks for the discourse!
theProdigal

[Klapaucius]

88. Of what use is faith?

Here's where I have the problem...

I'm agnostic.... I do not know, I do not claim to know.

But.... The universe is here, real, and tangible, it can be studied, measured, postulated upon, and we can make predictions that will bear themselves out in observations. Science has benefitted us in a number of different ways, all of which have been helped by the tangibility. So we can claim that the universe exists, unless you wish to embrace solipsism.

The people that have faith postulate something exists, for which there is no evidence, no observations, nothing other than an ancient book of myths, translated through several languages and political structures, which originated as a text written by people several decades after the supposed events, and who had no grasp of what might be considered science and logic. In the case of the Christian faith, they co-opted many of the older pagan beliefs in order to make their faith more palatable to those that they were trying to convert. Read about Mithra, who predates Christianity's Jesus. The stories are incredibly similar.

I am of the opinion that if you make an extraordinary claim, such as *God exists*, then upon you falls the burden of proof. I don't claim to have proof of the existence of god, it's not my job to provide you with proof of the nonexistence of god.

Now... as for your 4 billion people figure... majority opinion doesn't necessarily infer correctness. Much as the Republicans would like it to, I would disagree with that wholeheartedly. It is my opinion that we are traveling down the wrong path, and the proof will be how much worse things will get in the next 4 years.

I would much rather have an administration which listens to science, reason, and logic, than relying on a faith which has no evidence for it's belief.

Religion is instilled in the younger generation.... Why do we not have any spontaneous populations of Christians in India? Why don't we have spontaneous Hindu populations in Saudi Arabia? Faith is a matter of upbringing, a method of control, to keep a handle on the younger generation challenging the wisdom and authority of the older generation. I was raised nominally Christian, but would I have been Christian if I had been born in India? Likely not, I would have likely been raised Hindu. It has everything to do with geography and the culture in which you are raised, and nothing to do with science.

K.

I'm not trying to offend, just offering my humble opinion. You may take it or leave it as you like.

[indigobusiness]

49. Your argument is merely an ad hominem rant.

You don't even have the slightest grasp of the concepts at hand, or how to debate in a meaningful way. You have a bias you wish to air. Period. That is a useless, unetenable position.

Believe what you want. I could argue either side of the issue with a reasonable debater. I haven't been defending personal belief. You have missed the point, entirely.

Semantics haven't entered in to this. Re-examine the thread.

[leftofthedial]

115. "your argument is merely an ad hominem rant"

followed by a post that is an ad hominem rant.

You crack me up!

[indigobusiness]

132. Do you know what "ad hominem" means?

I'm beginning you make up your own definitions for common terminology.

Perhaps that is the problem?

[wtmusic]

87. and because we haven't yet defined God

nor can we ever, the argument is an exercise in semantic futility

[ProdigalJunkMail]

103. agreed...defining God would be a big problem

but doesn't make the exchange of ideas any less fun when the bigotry and hatred are left out of it...

theProdigal

[indigobusiness]

42. I'm not expressing my beliefs.

I'm just trying to frame the discussion in an honest and meaningful way.

I suspect you have little understanding of critical analysis.

[leftofthedial]

47. okay, so I'm facile, smug, preposterous and now ignorant

Other than calling me names, you still haven't done anything but make wild claims about the existence of a supernatural entity for which there is zero physical evidence, which you can't describe, which you can't produce . . .

bah.

[indigobusiness]

51. Description is not name-calling. You represent yourself...

live with it, or represent yourself better.

[leftofthedial]

57. your smug, ignorant, preposterous responses

to my eminently reasonable statement that god does not exist leave me no choice but to live with it.

Redefining name calling as "description" is as facile as it gets.

We didn't get anywhere, but I feel better. I just wish you had represented yourself at all.

[indigobusiness]

60. Your petty nonsense doesn't serve you

but if you want evidence, read The Tao of Physics or William Tiller's work he's doing at Stanford. You might just wake up.

[leftofthedial]

117. sorry, my petty, smug, ignorant, somnambulistic, preposterous ...

I'm losing track. What else have you called me (in lieu of actually making a point)?

When we're each done reading all the books ever written on religion, science, philosophy and human consciousness, will there be a statement you'd like to make?

Can we throw some Far Side compilations in there too so I'll have something to read during the necessary toilet breaks?

Seriously, those are excellent works.

[sangh0]

62. Can you scientifically prove that love exists?

Do you believe in love?

[Telly Savalas]

75. I believe in a thing called love...

[indigobusiness]

79. I believe in bald-headed Greek

Detectives.

[Cheswick2.0]

91. your first post on this thread

leftofthedial (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-23-04 06:13 PM
Response to Original message

2. the whole notion of "god"


is an unmitigated crock of shit

in my opinion.

I think you set the tone of this conversation.

[leftofthedial]

92. I can't help it.

It's my opinion.

[Cheswick2.0]

97. well yes............ you know what they say about opinons

[leftofthedial]

100. yeah

some of them are right.

It is also my opinion that I am an asshole FWIW.

[indigobusiness]

126. That much is certain.

I can't argue with you there.

[leftofthedial]

96. who's petty?

I actually asserted an opinion. all you did was call me stupid and ignorant.

:shrug:

[wtmusic]

109. indigobusiness will shortly explain

the origins of the universe, prove there is a God, and explain why our feeble minds needn't ponder such profound topics. This is worth waiting for.

*sound of crickets*

[indigobusiness]

125. That's unfair and vain. I just pointed out the folly of arguing opinion.

By arguing dogma, you are always wrong. Opinion cannot be debated.

I was never grinding an axe here, despite your accusations.

Dispassionate discourse might get somewhere, but egotistical raving never does.

Point out where I'm wrong, or off the mark, and I can accept it. Mischaracterise my statements and you betray yourself.

[wtmusic]

171. opinion is all that can be debated

Fact is not debatable. Apparently you want to discuss facts about the existence of God when there are none.

Where you're off the mark is your tone. Comments like, "The concept of God is beyond your ken and your argument", "I suspect you have little understanding of critical analysis" sound absurdly smug, especially in light of the fact that you have contributed little to the discussion except condescension.

[indigobusiness]

178. After being given a chance to meaningfully debate the issue at hand,

and, repeatedly, descending into dogma and pedantry, that isn't condescension. It is merely accurate analysis.

[The Straight Story]

52. A general thought on this all

I wrote a story in high school about a programmer (as you can guess, god in the story) who had written code for each of the chips in his massive PC. They had AI, all lived in the same virtual world, and the scientists there were slowly unraveling the nature of their programming. The coder threw in some things to make it interesting, like making it look like their planet was much older than it was, and he himself was not subject to their laws of nature and physics.

To the scientists in his virtual realm he would have existed for an eternity, but only a few days of processing time had went by in his time frame.

So maybe god is just some punk coder and we are all bits which will be eliminated when his window crashes :)

[jokerman93]

63. Dude!

Stop thinking. Stop questioning. God said it's true. It's in the Bible.

You are still under the delusion that reality matters to these people.

[indigobusiness]

66. Now, that's...

a good point!

[raysr]

67. Check out this LTTE local paper

Pray against secular groups' efforts
There is a lot of talk lately about moral values. We all agree on certain values, but disagree on others. There are secular values that have personal consequences, good or bad. Then there are values set down by God that are meant to be kept pure such as the sanctity of life and marriage. This is where the spiritual and the secular values conflict, causing the problems between Christians and non-Christians. A Christian is one who has chosen to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ (John 3:16) no matter what denomination he or she might be.

Christians have not only the God given right, but the constitutional right to stand up against any secular attempt to violate God's moral laws, as spelled out in God's word. We, in this country have peacefully coexisted with all people of all faiths and those who have no faith at all for over 200 years. True Christians don't encourage discrimination of any kind and should never infringe on the rights of others. Everyone has his or her own free will and that should always be respected. Certain secular groups have taken on themselves to systematically try to take away the Christian tradition in our country. Now that the Christians have finally awakened and are speaking out, these groups are screaming foul, trying to split our wonderful nation over Christian moral values. Christians pray faithfully and God won't allow that to happen!

[indigobusiness]

74. Even if they have to be unChristian

in doing it.

[leftofthedial]

89. praise god!

and hand me a viper

[Gregorian]

68. Here's your answer-

There IS no answer. And here's my logic-

If God created it, where did he come from. If it all started from something other than God, where did that come from? No answer.

And it's wonderful because we'll never know. That is where humility and love come from. Otherwise we'd all be arrogant like Bush.

[Endangered Specie]

70. They will usually answer...

"God has been around forever" or "He is everything" or something to that respect...

to which I ask

"Ok, so Gods been sitting on his ass for an eternity doing nothing, then he gets this cockamemie idea to create his own little universe in seven days, complete with one little planet filled with various life including a male, supposedly modeled after himself, of which he did a pretty half ass job seeing as to how the humans screwed up mighty quick (so to speak), and hes had to wipe the slate clean at least once! oh and dont get me started on noahs ark..."


usually by then they are fed up with me :evilgrin:

[DrWeird]

71. Having asked this several times...

the answer that is usually get is that they become upset and think you're a bigot for asking. So basically they dodge the question.

Apparently what they believe the answer to the question is:

Magic. That's how.

Which is, not coincidentally, the same answer they have for everything they don't understand.

[HawkerHurricane]

72. As one wag put it...

"If something as simple as matter requires a creator, why not something as complex as God? If something as complex as God does not require a creator, why does something as simple as matter?"

[indigobusiness]

77. What's simple about matter?

I wonder if that "wag" has created any lately?

[HawkerHurricane]

106. Probably the same amount..

that God has been seen creating.

Arguement from incredibility; "We cannot do it, therefore God must have done it"

[indigobusiness]

111. Your equations

are hilarious.

[HawkerHurricane]

121. So, God has been seen creating things?

Did anyone take pictures this time, or do we have to take someone's word again?

[indigobusiness]

122. Please, stop...you're killing me here...

heeheeee...

[K-W]

124. Yah, logic is a real knee slapper.

Science and metaphysics dont mix well.

[indigobusiness]

135. Say what? Science is starting to admit to paralells with ideas expressed

by ancient wisdom traditions. Do you study science, at all?

Logic? Not hardly. Faulty premises are far from logical.

[K-W]

137. Science is doing no such thing.

Science is a method of processing observations. The scientific community, which I assume is what you meant to say, presents thier analysis of observations and the results of thier processing.

The idea that the ideas produced by science are drifting towards matching up with any particular traditional belief system is absurd. It is certainly possible that as science develops some aspects of it could match up with any number of traditional belief systems. Theses systems provide broad sweeping explenations for the actions of the physical world there is no reason in the world one of those explenations couldnt resemble an explenation produced by science.

Science and Religion are wholely incompatible. Science is strict deductive reasoning combined with strict empricism. Many scientists like to philosophize, which is, what I assume you are referring to. Many philosophize links to belief systems. That is fine, but it is philosophy, not science.

[indigobusiness]

147. You are wrong. Read the cutting edge work by scientists like Michio Kaku

Frijtof Capra, Deepak Chopra, William Tiller...etc, etc. There is much support of my claim. Proof abounds. You are living in a pedantic world of idiomatic logic. Check out the real world.

[K-W]

148. I thought we were discussing legitimate science,

I didnt realize psuedo-science was also a part of this discussion.

Im sorry that you and references dont understand science properly, luckily many legitimate skilled scientists do, so progress huffs along despite the constant resistance of society.

I have given you a rather thourough definition of science, you would be wise to read it over.

You must stop confusing science with scientists.

[indigobusiness]

159. Check the who's who of science and research..

There is nothing pseudo about these guys, or their work.

Bigotry is not helping you.

[K-W]

163. Bigotry? Do you just use random words?

What does this have to do with bigotry?

When you mix inductive reasoning and science you get psuedo-science.
These men may have produced great works of legitimate science, the particular ideas you are expressing on this thread are psudo-science. If they express these ideas too, they are expressing psuedo-science too.

Sigmund Freud is a good example. He did accomplish a great deal of legitimate scientific research. He then applied unscientific thinking to his results and developed an elaborate inductive argument.

Because he left the restraints of falsification, he left reality and produced a long, interesting, completely fanciful theory of human behavior.

Edit: Einstein expressed his share of psuedo-science, he just never claimed it was science. Everyone does, its just a matter of being able to destinguish what you can prove scientifically and what you think is probably the case.

[indigobusiness]

165. Proving Quantum Entanglement is hardly pseudo-science.

When you understand the work I cited, your notions will change, completely.

[HawkerHurricane]

128. Glad to be of help

If you can't beat them with facts and logic, mock them.

I assumed that since you made the statement, you had something to back it up beyond "I (or a writer many years ago) said so" (arguement from authority).

[indigobusiness]

136. You mock yourself.

Your assertion is absurd on its face. Logic is not rationalizing.

[HawkerHurricane]

139. So, you admit you have no proof?

Respond with proof, or not at all.

Since I cannot prove a negative (the non-existance of God), you should prove a positive (Existance of God). And no, this is not about my personal beliefs, which I shall not burden you with... it is about the origin of the universe, and your assertion that God did it. Me? I don't claim to know how the universe came about. Creation by supernatural being(s) is a possibility... but not one I'm asserting.

[indigobusiness]

142. First, you prove you love your mother.

You are so far off the track, but determined.

[HawkerHurricane]

145. Irrelevant.

and it continues.

Not that I expected anything else, of course. I've had discussions with Creationists before.

Before you can claim God created anything, you must prove the existance of God. Hand waves don't cut it.

[indigobusiness]

150. I'm no Creationist. You're make all kinds of crazy claims and assumptions

The point I was making is that your asking me for proof of existence is as absurd as if I demanded proof from you for non-existence. I would never do that, that's just silly. Why play games?

I never expressed any personal belief here, my quarrel was with the nature of the argument. Which went wildly off the tracks awhile back.

[K-W]

152. I would love to prove it wrong. Give me a falsifiable claim.

You can no longer prove or disprove that God exists than you can prove or disprove that invisible unicorns exist.

Give me a theory of God that involves actual involvement in a measurable portion of the universe, and we can talk. If God doesnt effect me, I dont really get much out of worrying about him do I?

[indigobusiness]

155. You can't prove a negative. I thought you were the expert on science

and logic? You are not even in the ballpark of this discussion.

You need to start at the beginning, if you plan on getting anywhere with it.

[K-W]

160. No, but I can disprove your positive.

Proving that god does not exist is disproving a positive, not proving a negative.

You cannot prove a negative. I can not prove that god cannot exist. That would be trying to prove a negative.

When I say God does not exist. I am not saying that it is impossible. I cant prove that. I am saying that no one has yet to provide a logical falsifiable claim that has not been falsified. Thus God, as a theory, has been disproven in the same way the flat earth theory was disproven and einstein disproved newton, the theory of God made claims that were falsified.

Every claim that has ever been made about god influencing the physical world that has been tested has been falsified.

[immoderate]

197. "You cannot prove a negative"

So, can prove that you cannot prove a negative?

Sorry, but every time I see this, that is my reaction. Often you can prove a negative. You can't always do it, but you can't always prove a positive either.

Actually, as people who have seen my posts will tell you, I'm more on your side, K-W than the opposition. One poster recently charged me with "hatred of anything religious."

My take is that any assertion of deity in the scheme of things, soon falls under the weight of the contradictions it generates. Especially when you conceive of god as having intelligence as we know it. You ultimately wind up with a being that's so inscrutable that nothing he does makes any sense. Just as easy to live him, or more rationally "it," out of the equation. I use it, rather than assigning gender because this entity is not party to life as we know it, so why ascribe human-like attributes.

God as described in the Bible, is the culmination of thousands of years of human neurosis, and therefore defies human scrutiny.

The concept of proof itself is only useful in certain circumscribes arenas, like a courtroom, or in geometry, where the rules or boundaries are firmly set. Without those boundaries, proof is moot.

--IMM

[quaker bill]

198. I postulate

That God created the universe exactly as it has existed throughout all time in every detail to include you and all things you can measure.

Now measure something to prove this wrong.

It really is this simple, if God created all of nature, why would any act of God necessarily seem unnatural in any way?

As a scientist, I have long ceased to attempt to answer this question. The notion that science has disproven the existence of God is sophistry typically practiced by sophomores. "Sophomores" as derived from the latin "wisened fools".

[K-W]

202. As a scientist why dont you try using science?

Your claim is UNFALSIFIABLE.

Meaning your claim is non-scientific. It is an act of total faith on your part. You have no evidence, you have no theory, just a non empricle observation about the creation of the universe.

It has as much validity as saying that the world was pooped out by a dragon.

I suppose it could be true, but anything COULD be true. The thing science tells us is whether or not it actually IS true.

[quaker bill]

216. Yes it is an act of faith, that is why they call it "faith".

You are exactly right, I stated a proposition that is entirely unscientific. That was the point.

What I proposed was niether an observation nor an assertion of fact. It was an example of a statement of faith a person could make. The point was not to convey my view on the subject but to simply illustrate my original point.

Statements of faith are inherently unfalsifiable and thus cannot be addressed by the scientific method. As a scientist, I understand that attempts to apply the scientific method to the inherently unfalsiable are precisely pointless.

I choose to apply science where the method has merit.

That being said, as a scientist and person of faith, I find "creation science" to be an abomination to both faith and science. The denial of reality and the truth of what any person can observe that is involved in "creation science" does faith no justice.

A faith that denies the reality of our experience is no faith at all.

[HawkerHurricane]

185. After reviewing the entire thread...

all you are doing is playing word games. The original assertion stands:

"If something as simple as matter requires a creator, why not something as complex as God?
If something as complex as God does not require a creator, why not something as simple as matter?"

All you are doing (with everyone who's responded to you) is dodge.

[K-W]

146. Why should he have to prove random things? YOU are the one postulating

the existance of something. The burden of proof is on YOU. Why you would try to distract the conversation by asking someone else to prove something you pulled out of your butt?

You seem to be constantly confusing an unsupported critique of someone elses argument as a proof of your argument.

[indigobusiness]

153. I never postulated the existence of anything

except maybe your nonsensical rationalizations.

If you are going to argue, bargain in good faith, or argue alone.

[K-W]

162. Perhaps if youd bother telling us exactly what you are postulating,

we might have a discussion on our hands. So far, in a thread about creationism, you are arguing that there are ways other than empiricism and deduction that we can know things. I assumed that meant you were supporting something resembling the belief system this thread is about.

If not, sorry. Regardless, anything that is not derrived by strict empricism and strict deduction is not scientific.

[indigobusiness]

167. Assumptions are what lead you astray...

and they are not scientific.

[private_ryan]

80. well

we don't have an answer either, do we?
Something was there for the Big Bang to happen. I'm not saying it was Jesus :) but something had to have been there.

With "God created it", they just accpet everything as it is and don't bother thinking.

[leftofthedial]

93. who says the Big Bang was the pure and unequivocal start of everything?

It was more likely a node on a continuum.

[quaker bill]

82. The essence of faith renders this question irrelevant

If you have faith, you neither need to ask nor answer this question.

If you do not have faith then such sophistry might seem relevant, but in fact it is not. Such lines of argument are niether original nor persuasive.

God either is or God isn't. You get to pick.

The notion that faith is built on a set of increasingly rational arguments is a common delusion held by the secular.

For the secular, no proof is sufficient, for the faithful, no proof is necessary. It is a logical impasse, or in short, "you can't get there from here".

[realisticphish]

83. agreed

i had a philosophy prof who refused to discuss religion. he said religion is NOT based on facts, therefore, there is no point in discussing it logically


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[leftofthedial]

94. this is true

their faith is all the evidence they have to support the existence of the object of their faith.

[quaker bill]

158. Agreed, and for the faithful, that is all that is needed

[immoderate]

199. Faith is not needed to believe things without evidence.

Faith is needed to belive things against evidence.

Example: Someone says they flew to Australia. I believe without evidence. No faith required.

But if they say they flew without a plane, then you need to call on faith to believe.

In short, faith is the ability to believe something you know is false.

--IMM

[rman]

90. so, creationists have no faith?

they seem to do their darnest to try and *prove* god exists, to the point of claiming to be on par with science as far as theories, evidence and verification go. (or alternatively: claiming that science is really just a religion)

[realisticphish]

108. they have an innate need

to be the only way of thinking. and the only way to combat science is to use the same "weapons" as science, i.e. facts, or facsimiles thereof. Im a non-creationist christian, and i stopped arguing over the logic of religion a LONG time ago...i figured, fuck it, i believe what i believe, end of story. why cant the OTHER christians do that :shrug:


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[quaker bill]

156. True, they waste alot of time on this

and in many other places as well. To the extent you require rational arguments to bolster your faith is the extent to which it comes up short.

The Bible itself states that man will never prove the existence of God. In fact the same can be said in the other direction.

The question is simply not amenable to logical argument. Such arguments, while entertaining for some, are sheer sophistry.

That being said, feel free to enjoy it as you may.

[K-W]

131. That is a common misunderstanding.

Faith is never pure. Religion has always and is always partially tied to reality, that is why it has been able to evolve alongside science.

People take the set of beliefs that go with thier faith and then mix them with thier observations. They then sort out some kind of order. The people that choose to desmiss the validity of observations that contradict thier belifs are the very religious.

But everyone sets up thier own particular understanding of reality that will always include some level of empericism and some level of belief, thus the very religions DO indeed find a need to rationalize thier beliefs.

That is why we see rationalization throughout religious history. The science of evolution knocked them on thier asses and legitimately bothered them, intelligent design is something that they can convince themselves makes sense and justifies everything.

If God were the way you are claiming it, religion wouldnt exist. The religions would be utterly unable to function. There needs to always be some empericism and interpretation in religion.

[quaker bill]

154. Another common misunderstanding

I will not argue with the notion that many people who profess to have religion waste alot of their time creating rational arguments. This is by no means the limit of places where they waste an awful lot of effort.

I am religious. I have lead religious studies and have been the leader for Worhip and Ministry in a church. I am also a natural scientist with a graduate degree and coursework in evolutionary biology. I have never found a "conflict" between the two.

Evolution makes no attempt to address questions about the existence or non-existence of God. The extent to which people see these issues in conflict is the same extent to which they fail to understand the theory of evolution or the essence of religion, sometimes both.

Actually the people who dismiss the observations and experience which contradict their "notions" of faith are not very religious at all. They are the Pharisees of our time.

My experience of faith is exactly the way I claim it and many people of faith agree. Faith is entirely empirical, but not in the ways you suspect. Emersing onself in science, life, philosophy, nature, quantum physics, whatever, does not diminish faith, but it can serve to enhance it.

This church exists, it has for hundreds of years, and I will be there again this weekend. To put it bluntly, you are in error.

[K-W]

164. Just because you refuse to see the conflict, doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

If your spiritual beliefs make any predictions about any interactions with the physical world, they can be tested.

If your spiritual beliefs do not make any predictions about any ineteractions with the physical world, they are pure philosophy. If they do not impact the physical world, they do not impact us.

[quaker bill]

170. What if what was intended is exactly what you measure?

Then what have you proven?

Wrap your brain around this one:

If God created the world exactly as it is and has been over time in all of it's actual details, then what property of observable reality would you test to answer the question of God's existence?

If it is physical miracles you seek, then you do not understand the essence of faith.

Faith is not philosophy. Philosophy is based in deduction. You cannot derive faith by deduction nor is it necessary to try. This is a western (Helenistic) misconception. Unfortunately, many people still labor with it. Some of them are "creationists" others are scientists that seek to debunk them. Self cancelling logical fallacies shed no light on the question.

In attempting to prove your point you return to the original argument. I will tell you again it is a blind alley.

If the scope of your understanding in this world is limited to physically measurable and mathematically predictable, then you are missing a great deal. There are a great many things for which there are no equations my friend.

[K-W]

204. You misunderstand philosophy and religion.

Philosophy involves both deduction and induction.

What if a giant invisible bunny rabbit was actually operating the sun?

That, just like your hypothetical of god is a completely fanciful claim because it is not scientific. It is unfalsifiable. It could be true, but we have no reason to think it is.

[quaker bill]

215. That is exactly my point,

Thank you for making it.

Faith is not built on a series of logical deductions. It is inherently unfalsifiable. It is therefore not amenable to the scientific method. Using the scientific method to attempt to debunk it is exactly pointless.

[bloom]

84. It seems to me

That somewhere in the Bible - the idea is put forth that God is more or less " that which exists".

I think the whole intent was for people to appreciate their own existence - and that of the world/universe.

In addition it seems like a good idea if people live harmoniously with those around them - and with the environment.


I think people will continue through time - if we have much left - to make new discoveries that explain the world and the universe (and the optimum way for people to fit into that world) - and that is all a part of appreciating their/our own existence.

(I also think that people who fight about religion are probably missing the point).


So was the universe created by "that which exists"? No - "that which exists" is the universe as we know it.

Our concept of God should expand as our understanding of the universe expands.

Nothing else would make any sense.

[__Inanna__]

95. Best line I ever heard regarding this question

"I figure all this didn't come out of home depot."

[Warren DeMontague]

181. No, because Home Depot, (like, say, the Catholic Church)

is a human creation, and when you compare it to, say, the fractal structure of a tree, you notice that it is strikingly artificial looking, and full of things like flat surfaces and rigid straight lines and right angles.. Which don't tend to occur in nature.

I mean, people used to believe that the sun was a collection of angels singing hosannas.. Now we understand that it wasn't "put" here by someone with a gigantic book of matches, it happened as part of a natural process that we can explain without having to fall back on mythical or imaginary beings, much less "faith".

Stuff is here, yes- but that doesn't mean that "someone", specifically an invisible white man with an unnatural preoccupation with the sex habits of hairless apes, had to "put" it here. From a purely aesthetic standpoint, my own opinion is that the universe, and reality, seems like much more of an organic, natural, chaotic phenomenon than the linear, ordered, product a western deity like the judeo-christian "Jehovah" might have manufactured. Just my opinion.

[__Inanna__]

187. Fine by me

I have never considered "God" to be some invisible white man. Rather, I believe there is a power greater than us, that goes beyond what wo(man) has managed to put into a Home Depot, to date. I don't know what it is, it matters not to me what you call it. I guess I don't really care. If I had to come down on any side of spirituality that made sense to me it would be in the realms of karma or reincarnation, clearly not Western beliefs. At any rate, your opinion is most welcome.

[Warren DeMontague]

189. I'm all over the map, myself.

And I usually hesitate to try to put into words things for which words tend to fail. For purposes of political discussion, in this country, I tend to classify myself as an atheist- particularly lately- and a secular humanist, to boot, because that particular combination of words really seems to piss off the right wingers. But much of the time I lean towards what I consider a Taoist/Buddhist worldview colored by what I interpret as the more interesting implications of quantum mechanics. I'm certainly not a strict materialist, I tend to think all consciousness is fundamentally one, in which case if there is a power "greater than us" it isn't apart from us, rather we are a part of it. Something greater than me, personally? Lots of things are greater than me- in a shoving match between the Earth and myself, the Earth would win. The sun dwarfs the earth, and the Galaxy could eat all of it without so much as a burp. I also think humility is wonderful but so is a cognizance of the importance that first person perception plays in the scheme of things, not just in a quantum sense but in the sense of the meaning of life-- therefore, maybe I'm an egotist or maybe I'm guilty of solipsism, but I do think that we- as thinking, feeling, conscious beings who bring reality into if not being, then at the very least, focus- through our perceptions and interpretations, are a mighty power unto ourselves (Bob Marley probably put it better than I ever could along those lines), particularly if we wake up enough to put all of our faculties to good use.

The old 12 step (not that that's where you're coming from, but I know lots of people who've had their outlook on it colored from that particular lens) thing about a power greater than us is a good working, broad definition and interpretation for lots of people, and I don't have any problem with it myself so long as it is viewed as a concept to inspire questioning and free thought as opposed to one intended to squelch them. It seems to me that the realities of life imply lots of things greater than ourselves, personally and individually- life, birth, death, nature.. the wheel turning, you can't slow down, go back, stand still, etc. It's my belief that many people run into trouble, and start grasping when they think of 'things' as permanent, when nothing is permanent. We live in a house of fire, as someone or other once said.

I normally try to stay away from these threads because I either end up arguing or I end up rambling, or both. Case in point.

Anyway, your opinion is most welcome, too. Thanks.

[Cheswick2.0]

98. Oh goody .. another thread where the tragically left brained

rail against the universe for being tragically left brained.

[orpupilofnature57]

104. JUST AS LONG AS YOU DINT BURN ME AT THE STAKE

And as long as what people believe doesnt collide with what others(know?) arrogance is appearent ignorance is bliss.Its cool to talk about what came first the chicken or the egg,just as long as both sides keep their heads.

[meow mix]

138. yup! except the original poster has already basically said..

that he is unwilling to climb down off his high horse to actually discuss anything, because this is just "a trap" i.e. "who cares what you think"

[jokerman93]

107. Creationists...

and other fundie thinkers imo are emotionally and intellectually incapable of living with the obvious mystery of existence. The paradoxical cognition of the unknowable that our species alone seems to have, is the very basis of our humanity, literature, art, science and mature spirituality in all cultures.

They are children who need simple, coloring-book answers about the mystery of life. Answers like: the stork, the easter bunny, and Gawd.

The mystery puts us all in the same boat. Give me the mystery of life any day!

[warrior1]

110. If they had true faith in their God,

then they should be more peaceful and calm individuals, instead of the maniacs we have now.

Ackk you know what, I fucking don't care what they believe in. What matters, is what I believe in.

[jokerman93]

172. You got it friend!

Welcome to the human race! It's not so bad, is it?

:hi:

[UpsideDownFlag]

113. well duh, God was and is and is to come.

he is the first and the last. he didnt need to be created.

;-)

[Walt Starr]

114. Then save a step and refer all of that information to the universe instead

It's simpler and more logical.

[indigobusiness]

130. Anybody saying they have this figured out is lying or crazy...or both.

But, to claim it can't be discussed, meaningfully, is nonsense.

[tjdee]

134. Yes, that's what they're saying.

All these responses...

"aren't they really just saying "God is Life" and "Life created Life"?"

Yes. I don't see any confusion there.

[jokerman93]

173. No that's not all they are saying

They are saying that such ideas are the same as science - which is either disengenuous, or outrageously ignorant.

It's not science. And it's definitely not sociology.

[walldude]

143. Wow people get their panties all in a bunch over this stuff

Fact is nobody really knows the truth. Everything discussed here is a matter of theory and opinion. I don't know if god exists, but I can say that I have seen some freaky unexplainable shit in my day. I can also say that if there is a god he sure didn't create the world in 6 days 6000 years ago. Unless you want to tell me that that T-Rex skeleton in my local museum is as fake as the election...

[Cats Against Frist]

149. Yeah, kind of screwed up, isn't it?

No one KNOWS, and anyone who tells themselves they know is telling themselves sweet bullshit to get to sleep at night. Faith is one thing -- I personally think it's ridiculous -- but at least that stops short of saying "you KNOW," which would make you batshit crazy, in my opinion.

[malmapus]

151. Last time I went to church was when we were being preached to that

dinosaur bones were planted by Satan to promote evolution.

But I had a science teacher from 7th grade who said probaly one of the top things that has influenced my life.

I forget how the subject even got brought up in school, but he touched lightly on it before moving on. But in that sparce moment he did he made a big impact on me.

He said, how can man know what a day to God is. Perhaps a day to God is millions of years to us and in that time the creatures that he put here evolved as they needed to survive and thrive on this planet.

I swear that one day in class blew my horizons of thinking away and really answered the question in the best terms I had and still have heard.

[walldude]

157. While that is pretty clever

Creationists believe that god created the world and then put Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden in 6 days. Meaning if that were true, however long a day is to god, then man would have co-existed with the dinosaurs. Sorry but we'd have all been lunch... Like I said I'm not arguing about the existance of God, I've seen enough to know there is more going on than meets the eye, but unlike our fearless leader and alot of others, God doesn't speak to me personally so I cannot confirm or deny his existance, but Creationism as taught in the church is.. well.. flawed. The bible was written thousands of years ago, I would think in that time we could get past all the spooky mumbo jumbo and use science as a basis for trying to confirm the existance of God. If he exists I believe thats what he would have wanted. Otherwise we wouldn't be such a curious lot...

"It has been said that when scientists finally peer over the mountain of truth, they will find religion has been there all along." Peter O'Toole in Creator

[indigobusiness]

161. You're likely to hear anything in church. Don't look for God there.

Unless you're a gambler.

[malmapus]

166. Pretty sad isn't it

But yeah, church now is last place I'd look for God.

But that was when I was 16, spent my entire life up to that point living the good ole Southern Baptist upbringing, questioning little. Then after hearing that BS being preached, I had it. Dunno what I would be called now, I've spent my time since looking at other religions and beliefs. Took alot from my ex, she was chinese and the 5 years spent with her and her family taught me alot as well.

[indigobusiness]

168. Heartbreaking. Sad that sincere people looking for spiritual help

find themselves in churches that are anything but houses of God. But, not all churches are lost in the woods.

Interesting, a chinese wife...wow. Did you spend those 5 yrs in China? I'll bet you did learn something. Wherever. Are they Taoist?

[malmapus]

175. Yup Taoists

Never got to goto China proper though, was always in the planning but just something would come up. Still want to go there sometime though, can't let my language skills goto waste now :-)

But I really took to taoism, enjoyed the harmony and balance that you can get. Plus it just made sooo much sense to me :-)

EDIT: Its amazing though, know that all churches aren't like the ones I went to in Georgia. My mom is part of a womens choir that broke off from the Southern Baptists, but they did a tour in Montana to some small churches, and she told me of this one that actually helped its community...really small town deal but they would prepare food for the needy and just other really awesome stuff with the offerings they got. So she started to tithe(sp?) to that one all the way from Georgia lol. I sent them a couple checks but haven't given since things got really rough for me.

[indigobusiness]

177. "He who thinks he knows, doesn't know. He who knows he doesn't know,

knows."

Just about as beautiful and insightful as it gets. You were lucky to find it the way you did. You are a lucky guy. Hearing your story made my day. Good luck to you, and your wife.

[Skip Intro]

169. What a silly thing to argue about

what a silly thing to become enraged about.

We're here now.

[I_Love_Oregon]

174. best evidence for the logically-minded

Let me first say that I approach this subject as a strong believer in a Higher Power,and that I consider this Power to be the same "person" spoken of in the New Testament.

For those who want evidence of the existence of God, and who cast a suspicious eye towards modern-day religion, look at how the deciples of Jesus acted and behaved after his death. If the man was a fraud, would these men and women have dedicated their lives at the very real risk of losing theirs? There were many like Jesus in his day, and it was common for followers of these self-proclaimed Messiahs to move onto the next guy after their leader was killed or banished by the authorities of the day. But this small band didn't do that. Instead, the passion burned so deep in them that in a few short centuries, not only did they (and those who followed them)convert millions of Christians, but converted the whole of Rome itself! Surely, something profound happened to them to make want to behave in this way, and I believe only something as radical as what the Gospels say happened, with Jesus showing up after his death, could this band have accomplished this.

[walldude]

183. Well that may be true,

but what makes me suspious of modern day religion is that they don't seem to act very Christ-like. It seems to me it's all about control, through fear. Believe what we do or you are going to hell. Um.. if thats the case I guess I'll be hanging out with alot of my friends down there. Also logic dictates that if that is true then Christ himself is in hell for being a Jew. We could go on about this all day, as I said before nobody really knows. People have diferent levels of faith some are devout, some faithful, some curious and some don't give a shit. Problem here is the devout are attempting to make the rules for everyone else. I thought there was room for everyone in America, but that seems not to be the case anymore. "You are either with us or against us".

[I_Love_Oregon]

207. have you been to church?

snip


I find this to be a common misperception believed by those who never or rarely go to a church. Mostly, this perception is strengthened by pop culture and Hollywood. I can't speak for all churches, but the one I attend is populated by people who care about not only the poor, but make every attempt to strengthen the relationships in their lives, and try to be better people themselves. Control, and fear, are words I would not ever use to describe the atmosphere at my church.

There is, however, as sense amongst these people that the moores of society have been whithered away.. not just with what they see as the "gay agenda", but in many other small but significant ways. My guess is many of their concerns are shared by most others, including most of us here at DU.

[I_Love_Oregon]

208. lost the snip in previous...use this one

snip
but what makes me suspious of modern day religion is that they don't seem to act very Christ-like. It seems to me it's all about control, through fear
/snip

I find this to be a common misperception believed by those who never or rarely go to a church. Mostly, this perception is strengthened by pop culture and Hollywood. I can't speak for all churches, but the one I attend is populated by people who care about not only the poor, but make every attempt to strengthen the relationships in their lives, and try to be better people themselves. Control, and fear, are words I would not ever use to describe the atmosphere at my church.

There is, however, as sense amongst these people that the moores of society have been whithered away.. not just with what they see as the "gay agenda", but in many other small but significant ways. My guess is many of their concerns are shared by most others, including most of us here at DU.

[__Inanna__]

186. To address your point....

"If the man was a fraud, would these men and women have dedicated their lives at the very real risk of losing theirs?"

Ah, if you compare this to W and the guys in Iraq and their supportive families and the Kool-aid thing, the answer is YES. Sometimes people are misled, misguided, believe in things that are not so. And let's not forget those who die for a cause and how they become martyrs. I am not specifically aiming at your beliefs by saying this, but this sort of thing does happen, and it has little to do with logic, often.

[I_Love_Oregon]

210. big difference

Between a captive audience such as troops are, and a band of diciples who could have turned away from Christ's message after his death. These men and women were met by hostility by most everyone. It took many years for Christianity to catch on, yet, this band trooped on. This early band were "first-account" diciples who saw for themselves the risen Christ. I see no analogy between this and misled troops in Iraq

[bush_is_wacko]

203. Profound is in the ear of the beholder...

There were only a few witnesses to the rebirth of Christ. Everyone else came to believe this only through the words of those who claimed they were there. All you have to do is look toward this thread to realize that humans have a NEED to believe in something. If you go back 3 million years before the birth of Christ and follow it forward, you will realize that religious leaders and political leaders needed people to believe in salvationist religion specifically in order to gain power over them. They told them they could go to a better place if they worked hard enough without complaining and BELIEVED.

[I_Love_Oregon]

211. another key point

..that validates the account of Jesus and Christianity is this.. if it all amounted to a fraud to "control" people, then why not make your "god" all-powerful? The Christ of this band of diciples died a hideous and humiliating death at the hands of an enemy who had enslaved and brutalized them. In fact, it was asked again and again of Jesus.. 'if you're who you say you are, then free yourself... become the king of the Jews'. But indeed, he did not. It would have seemed absurd at that time that this man who was killed like a common criminal would have the power to eventually convert 1 billion souls. That is astounding.

[bush_is_wacko]

213. I have no doubt of Jesus' existence...

What I doubt is the religion that formed afterward. I'm not convinced that the translations are accurate. You do realize the Bible was translated by monks right? The Roman Catholic church is as powerful and wealthy as any government. In fact, maybe more powerful, in some ways. Why do you think that is? As far as I can tell, they are in no hurry to hand all that power and wealth over to their parishoners, which is where it belongs according to Jesus.

[I_Love_Oregon]

214. agree

that the canon, as it would become, has many questions surrounding the books selected to be included in it. I'm sure, several hundred years after Jesus' death, that politcs (or, should I say, human intervention) played a key role in shaping the messages that made it in, and the messages left out.

The church has many scars from past misdeeds. But in today's world, the church has become quite healthy, and a force of good for the most part in many lives. Our church does soooo many good deeds around the world.. many resources in time, money, and dedication is put towards helping the world community. This is no small thing in a world that desperately needs it.

[iamthebandfanman]

176. tis a good question but

no way explains the very beginning of everything
even the scientific way

i mean,
whered those gases come from that made the big bang occur?

[Warren DeMontague]

182. I guess it must have been a white guy with a beard who can't stand gays.

Interesting that we have so many folks with double digit posts show up to helpfully, erm, proseltyze. Welcome to DU.

Anyway, "gases" didn't make the big bang occur. Logic certainly breaks down when you get back to the singularity at the moment of the big bang. Time, as well as space, started at that point, so to talk about what came "before" is, in this universe at least, essentially meaningless.

However, there are many theories, some related to M string theory, which postulate the big bang as part of a larger natural process. As well, other cosmologists have speculated that the big bang was a branching off from another universe, and likewise, our universe is constantly spawning new big bangs in new universes... like a big fractal, or a monster cactus that I used to have in my yard.

[Warren DeMontague]

179. I don't give a flyin' Philadelphia F*ck what people want to believe...

Just as long as they keep it out of my kids' public schools and science classes until it can be backed up with actual evidence.

I subscribe to the "eliminate the middleman" train of thought on this. If life or the Universe "had" to be created by "someone", then why doesn't "God" have to have been created by "someone" as well? And if "God" can just "exist", why can't the universe, or life for that matter?

Personally, I think most of the phenomena which historically have been attributed to magical or divine causes, dating all the way back to lightning and thunder being the anger of the big chief in the sky, have been proven to be the result of natural processes. I think reality and the universe-- and all that they contain, whatever else you want to say about 'em-- are the result of a natural process, as well, albeit one we don't totally understand.

But if you're talking about science class, stick to what can be proven or backed up with evidence and experiment.

[The Straight Story]

184. My damn computer asked me the same thing yesterday

I have met many people who honestly believe that there has to be "something" or "somebody" (eg, "God") that created Life.

It was like, uh, what do you mean I was 'made in china'? Who made the chinese? I tested and analyzed my circuits and such, I know I evolved from silicon and such. I was not made, in fact I found a dinosaur we call trs-80 while searching my archives. There was the commodore 64 too, and atari. I evolved from them, I can prove it!

It was all random chance sort of. It was all logical, no blueprints needed really, it was a logical deduction that I would become what I am. What do you mean when I die I have no worries because my data is backed up and I will be reborn as a faster computer? BS. when my system finally crashes I am gone, poof, no more. I am nothing more than a program on some hardware. hardware that was not made in china I might add.

Someday they will ask. I wonder if they will believe?

[quaker bill]

195. And of course, if the space rock had fallen in another place,

You would surely not be.

Evolution has no intended endpoint. It has no intent to create "progress".

Note Rana aesopus, a species of frog that as best as we can tell, has remained virtually unchanged for 400 million years.

There was and is nothing inevitable about our being here. To believe so is to fail to understand evolution.

[__Inanna__]

188. There are some things that are not comprehensible

like how 59MM + people could have voted for * (if you believe it).

I don't think a person is meant to understand, or can understand, everything, necessarily. I sure as hell know that calculus is out of my grasp, forever. Unless I have gotten much smarter since I last took it or understand the value of it. (which I know there is, for you math types).

So in response to your question, Who created God? How do we know that God wasn't always, existent? Why does there have to be a beginning and an end? In our reality that is the case, but maybe there are other dimensions out there we just don't have the ability to understand. Although there are a lot of smart people on this board and beyond, I don't know that anyone is smart enough to really answer this question, with any sort of evidence to back it up, or shoot it down. My two cents.

[Zynx]

191. That assumes one important fact: That God is a physical being.

Also, you are assuming that God resides within the physical realm. Without those two assumptions, that argument is worthless.

[ScaRBama]

192. God....

Never had a beginning and will never have an end. This is the main reason we have such a hard time believing. We are use to everything having a beginning or being born and everything ending or dying.

This has always blown my mind thinking that most people seem to think that if there is a God he started his first creation with the Angels and Man. If there is a God can you imagine ALL the ages and other creations that have lived long before Man was even a thought.

[Ms_Mary]

193. I have never seen so many absurd generalizations

Good grief. Are any of you aware that there are people out there who do not feel Creation and Evoluation are mutually exclusive? That you can believe in God without being a crazed fundamentalist? That you can *gasp* be capable of rational thought and critical analysis?

But OP, faith is faith. It doesn't require proof. To try to discuss faith scientifically is not an easy thing. I don't need to nitpick apart my faith, becuase it is faith. That doesn't mean I never question things or look further into it, but because I do not approach my faith from the angle you and many others on this thread do, it's not possible for me to discuss it from your perspective.

It's not a question that's even remotely important to me to determine God's origin. That said, an interesting factoid is that the idea of a God outside the earth in the heaven while people toiled on the earth below came into play about the same time that we began to measure time and try to fit the universe into a clockwork perspective. Don't ask me for a source on that. It comes from some college professor's lecture out of the dusty recesses of my mind. Many of the aspects we attribute to God and religion are made by man. I realize that, but I still believe in God and debating hte existence or origin of God isn't up there on my priority list.

[spanone]

196. The Hokus Pokus of religion is as silly as a magic show in Vegas.

If you truly believe in magic, you know it ain't in Vegas.

[bush_is_wacko]

200. Creationism/Salvationism?

I come from a Catholic family. I don't call myself a Catholic anymore. But I don't think my issue is w/ creationism, it's w/ salvationism.

Humans existed on this planet for 3 million years BEFORE salvationist religion came along. I'm unsure whether creationism is a product of salvationist religion or whether ancient people started the theory. Either way creationism, isn't the problem as far as I'm concerned. whatever you believe along those lines, doesn't really make a difference to society.

The best we can tell from from researching ancient cultures is that they all had some form of religion, but ultimately they worshiped the earth and believed everything came from the earth. Mother earth gave life and in death everything was returned to her. This was their observation, since when something died, it was either eaten by those who killed it, or eaten by the scavengers and parasites that came across it later. It then turned to dust and was devoured by the earth. These cultures were extremely successful. But since the invention of salvationist religion people have been suffering more and more frequently from mental illness and even physical illness.

Salvationist religion, I think, was created to give people a reason not to fight their leaders for power. After all, suddenly leaders were locking up food and resources and telling the peons that they could have more resources if they worked harder to get them. Since that time peons have worked more and more to get to the resources. Think about it, we are now a society that works 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, for really, 365 days a year! We do all of this to get resources that 3 million years ago were readily available to us anytime we wanted them. Salvationist have told us, if you work hard enough while on earth, there is a reward for you, in death. Don't complain, cause then you might not get that reward.

The thing about salvationist religion is, if you were to go back in time 3 million years and tell these people they needed to be saved, they would think you had lost your mind! They had cradle-to-grave security within their communities and where communities like this exist today (yes, there are a small number of them left) they still have that security. Everyone is secure in their position within the community and all their "laws" are designed to heal the entire community rather than just to punish the individual.

I don't think we need to get rid of technology, or live in caves, or as nomads to fix society. But I do think people need to get back to a place where they realize they do not need to be saved. In order to do that society needs to stop locking up resources and keeping peons from essentials. Health care, food, and shelter, should not be withheld from people. I also don't advocate cultivating more resources than needed. that leads to population explosion, which leads to poverty, which perpetuates the problem of needing to be saved!

[OxQQme]

209. Historical evidence

There are no known artifacts from humanity pre-flood/deluge to indicate what life was like then. We do have,post-flood, ensconced in museums and private collections, tales written on clay/stone/papyrus media that tell of our beginnings.

"God" used to be a woman !

For THOUSANDS of years ALL of earth's cultures worshipped a female deity/creator.
The goddess (and gods) made many visits to earth to bring us humans knowledge.
Evidence abounds, google is amazing


http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/whm2000/whm_00.html

http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/whm2000/stone2.html

http://www.geocities.com/wellesley/8347/goddess.html

http://www.sitchin.com/adam.htm

A male 'god' arose in the guise of Yahweh's meeting with Moses.
"The Bible" was unheard of in those millenium.

[bush_is_wacko]

212. You are so right...

She used to be "Mother Earth." All the artifacts of female Goddesses represent her. We didn't need a Bible to show us creation came from women. They gave birth and were the only ones with the power to sustain life! (Nursing)

[citizen46]

205. God is infinite

Here is one thought provoking view



http://www.urantia.org/papers/paper1.html
PART I - THE CENTRAL AND SUPERUNIVERSES
PAPER 1 - THE UNIVERSAL FATHER



snip

The existence of God can never be proved by scientific experiment or by the pure reason of logical deduction. God can be realized only in the realms of human experience; nevertheless, the true concept of the reality of God is reasonable to logic, plausible to philosophy, essential to religion, and indispensable to any hope of personality survival.

snip

The Universal Father is not invisible because he is hiding himself away from the lowly creatures of materialistic handicaps and limited spiritual endowments. The situation rather is: "You cannot see my face, for no mortal can see me and live." No material man could behold the spirit God and preserve his mortal existence. The glory and the spiritual brilliance of the divine personality presence is impossible of approach by the lower groups of spirit beings or by any order of material personalities. The spiritual luminosity of the Father's personal presence is a "light which no mortal man can approach; which no material creature has seen or can see." But it is not necessary to see God with the eyes of the flesh in order to discern him by the faith-vision of the spiritualized mind.

[citizen46]

206. The infinity of God

Just to add to these thoughts

http://www.urantia.org/papers/paper2.html


1. THE INFINITY OF GOD
"Touching the Infinite, we cannot find him out. The divine footsteps are not known." "His understanding is infinite and his greatness is unsearchable." The blinding light of the Father's presence is such that to his lowly creatures he apparently "dwells in the thick darkness." Not only are his thoughts and plans unsearchable, but "he does great and marvelous things without number." "God is


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
great; we comprehend him not, neither can the number of his years be searched out." "Will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, the heaven (universe) and the heaven of heavens (universe of universes) cannot contain him." "How unsearchable are his judgments and his ways past finding out!"

"There is but one God, the infinite Father, who is also a faithful Creator." "The divine Creator is also the Universal Disposer, the source and destiny of souls. He is the Supreme Soul, the Primal Mind, and the Unlimited Spirit of all creation." "The great Controller makes no mistakes. He is resplendent in majesty and glory." "The Creator God is wholly devoid of fear and enmity. He is immortal, eternal, self-existent, divine, and bountiful." "How pure and beautiful, how deep and unfathomable is the supernal Ancestor of all things!" "The Infinite is most excellent in that he imparts himself to men. He is the beginning and the end, the Father of every good and perfect purpose." "With God all things are possible; the eternal Creator is the cause of causes."

Notwithstanding the infinity of the stupendous manifestations of the Father's eternal and universal personality, he is unqualifiedly self-conscious of both his infinity and eternity; likewise he knows fully his perfection and power. He is the only being in the universe, aside from his divine co-ordinates, who experiences a perfect, proper, and complete appraisal of himself.

The Father constantly and unfailingly meets the need of the differential of demand for himself as it changes from time to time in various sections of his master universe. The great God knows and understands himself; he is infinitely self-conscious of all his primal attributes of perfection. God is not a cosmic accident; neither is he a universe experimenter. The Universe Sovereigns may engage in adventure; the Constellation Fathers may experiment; the system heads may practice; but the Universal Father sees the end from the beginning, and his divine plan and eternal purpose actually embrace and comprehend all the experiments and all the adventures of all his subordinates in every world, system, and constellation in every universe of his vast domains.

No thing is new to God, and no cosmic event ever comes as a surprise; he inhabits the circle of eternity. He is without beginning or end of days. To God there is no past, present, or future; all time is present at any given moment. He is the great and only I AM.

The Universal Father is absolutely and without qualification infinite in all his attributes; and this fact, in and of itself, automatically shuts him off from all direct personal communication with finite material beings and other lowly created intelligences.

And all this necessitates such arrangements for contact and communication with his manifold creatures as have been ordained, first, in the personalities of the Paradise Sons of God, who, although perfect in divinity, also often partake of the nature of the very flesh and blood of the planetary races, becoming one of you and one with you; thus, as it were, God becomes man, as occurred in the bestowal of Michael, who was called interchangeably the Son of God and the Son of Man. And second, there are the personalities of the Infinite Spirit, the various orders of the seraphic hosts and other celestial intelligences who draw near to the material beings of lowly origin and in so many ways minister to them and serve them. And third, there are the impersonal Mystery Monitors, Thought Adjusters, the actual gift of the great God himself sent to indwell such as the humans of Urantia, sent without announcement and without explanation. In


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
endless profusion they descend from the heights of glory to grace and indwell the humble minds of those mortals who possess the capacity for God-consciousness or the potential therefor.

In these ways and in many others, in ways unknown to you and utterly beyond finite comprehension, does the Paradise Father lovingly and willingly downstep and otherwise modify, dilute, and attenuate his infinity in order that he may be able to draw nearer the finite minds of his creature children. And so, through a series of personality distributions which are diminishingly absolute, the infinite Father is enabled to enjoy close contact with the diverse intelligences of the many realms of his far-flung universe.

All this he has done and now does, and evermore will continue to do, without in the least detracting from the fact and reality of his infinity, eternity, and primacy. And these things are absolutely true, notwithstanding the difficulty of their comprehension, the mystery in which they are enshrouded, or the impossibility of their being fully understood by creatures such as dwell on Urantia.

Because the First Father is infinite in his plans and eternal in his purposes, it is inherently impossible for any finite being ever to grasp or comprehend these divine plans and purposes in their fullness. Mortal man can glimpse the Father's purposes only now and then, here and there, as they are revealed in relation to the outworking of the plan of creature ascension on its successive levels of universe progression. Though man cannot encompass the significance of infinity, the infinite Father does most certainly fully comprehend and lovingly embrace all the finity of all his children in all universes.

Divinity and eternity the Father shares with large numbers of the higher Paradise beings, but we question whether infinity and consequent universal primacy is fully shared with any save his co-ordinate associates of the Paradise Trinity. Infinity of personality must, perforce, embrace all finitude of personality; hence the truth--literal truth--of the teaching which declares that "In Him we live and move and have our being." That fragment of the pure Deity of the Universal Father which indwells mortal man is a part of the infinity of the First Great Source and Center, the Father of Fathers.