Who Made God?

Hi jar, Lets try this a little bit at the time like the cat ate the iron wedge.In my original post you replied too I said:

quote:

---

Science has not and can not discover the origin of the universe.

​

There is no scientific data until T=10^-43 s.

---

What is specifically factually wrong with that statement?God Bless,

Hi jar, Another statement from my post.

quote:

---

String theory was proposed to solve this problem. Since there is no data available anything that is devised by scientist that existed prior to T=10^-43 s. has to come from their imagination.

---

If there is no scientific data prior to T=10^-43 s, where would any scientist get data to make assumptions of what took place prior to T=10^-43 s?What is factually wrong with my quoted statement?God Bless,

As usual you are simply posting bullshit.There is no way you or anyone else can factually say "Science has not and can not discover the origin of the universe."You then go on to show your ignorance by saying an irrelevant statement like "There is no scientific data until T=10-43 s. " when the factual statement would be "There is no scientific data until T=10-43 s at this time."Really, you need to stop saying stupid things.

That would be a pretty idiotic thing to assume. I don't have the inclination to debunk every silly thing I see on the internet. I plan to attempt even less of that this year than I have in the past.

quote:

---

Some of us believe(though do not know nor can prove) that Christianity is a revealed religion. Granted, my ideas on Spiritual impartation,special knowledge, and wisdom that is not understood by the learned minds of today borders on a fusion with gnostic thought,but in regards to I CANT, keep in mind that he is probably more traditional evangelical...similar to Faith, though I commend and applaud Pastor I CANT for even taking the time to comment and participate here at our forum...to the limited degree that he does.

---

I have known people that say they (or he/she/it) know what the Christian God taught, simply by the "Holy Spirit" talking to them, and they actually are fairly critical of the Bible, since it is simply a man-made work. There will be lots of reading of scientific works, then a complete rejection of the man-made system.I like the skepticism, but there tends to become a bit of a radical rejection of almost everything.

quote:

---

He likely spends most of his time preaching and discussing Christianity in a far more Biblical Inerrant sense than what we do here...which of course jar laughs at.(jar is unimpressed with Biblical Christianity) Larmark, what you will find around here at EvC is that it is not easy to get a conversation going with many members. We too are creatures of the flesh and of matter as opposed to the spiritual plane of ideas which you seek to google and conceptualize. We often like to talk and teach rather than discuss and listen.

---

It is what it is.

quote:

---

I consider God to be Spirit rather than matter...hence no material need even be used in defining Him. Thus logically, the only conclusive element that could conceivably be of His eternal preexistent makeup would have to be Spirit rather than matter, whether dark matter or regular matter.

---

But, where did "he" come from? He might have been something else on a universe where he arose. And the whole issue of an "eternal" something (whether God or Universe) is quite confusing.Roger Penrose (co-author of the famous Stephen Hawking book from the 1970s) says that our Universe is simply an ongoing recycling (naturally occurring) operation, with the previous one destroyed. He says the same thing will keep on happening.But, he says the (endlessly recycled) Universe is unlimited in age from both the future AND PAST directions. "Unlimited in both directions". Unlimited in the past!I simply can't grasp this "unlimited" concept.Remember how Fred Hoyle said that our Universe was of unlimited age with no beginning and no end? He even said that Hydrogen and Helium were always present. His Steady State theory, in hindsight, now looks like a straw man punching bag just waiting to be knocked to pieces BUT IT WAS A VIEW THAT HAD THE MOST POPULAR SUPPORT AMONG LAYPEOPLE. Additionally, similar (unlimited eternal Universe) views held a plurality among the scientific community until about 1949, then till 1965 it was about as strong among scientists as the Big Bang.The closest I can come to this "eternal God" or "eternal Universe" concept is if one the (very likely)considers total complete NOTHINGNESS stage to be part of the "age" (if one can even call it that) of what sprung up later (whether the Universe or God ).

quote:

---

I don't quite understand (nor likely believe) in what Plato describes as an eternal archetype.
Perhaps what Plato meant is that the father of all things is the God of our imaginations and the eternal archetype is GOD Himself.

---

Plato is interesting, though he might have contributed to the near total complete destruction of ancient scientific works.Plato seems to have hated science (he might even have advocated book burning of scientific works, and that included the amazing Democritus of the Ionian Island Abdera)See this link for Sagan talking about these issues of ancient Ionian science, and scroll down to chapter 7.

quote:

---

CHAPTER VII

​

The Backbone of Night

​

They came to a round hole in the sky . . . glowing like fire. This, the Raven said,
was a star.

​

- Eskimo creation myth

​

I would rather understand one cause than be King of Persia.

​

- Democritus of Abdera

​

Full text of "COSMOS - CARL SAGAN"

---

Plato was influential.Neo Platonism is considered a major strain of "Gnostic" theology (or Cosmology).He seems clearly to have influenced early Christians.The very LOGOS was not from his musings, but this Greek philosophical "thing" clearly captured the early Christian imagination. It is part of evangelical Christianity today, and the Gnostics weren't any less accepting of it, in fact far more so.

quote:

---

it touches on what the argument is about over at our thread The Science Of Miracles. Some believe that human wisdom is the origin of all philosophy and premise on all topics. Others believe that the universe itself is created by God and thus qualifies itself as a miracle...the original miracle, of course, being creation itself.

---

The very existence of anything, is a miracle.God or no God, the fact that there is anything but an ABSOLUTE NOTHINGNESS is miraculous.Let us be very humble about the enormity of the very existence of anything period.Let us consider all conscious life an even greater miracle.Let us see every individual sentient creature to be both a miracle and something very short lived and precious (in every sense of the word). Biological life, especially to the point of existing, is a miracle (sort of) almost on par with the existence of any universe or space or element. The only thing making it less of a miracle is that it at least had the great advantage of being in a place where its very elements EXISTED at least, while the issue of space and matter existing AT ALL is (seemingly) simply impossible to understand (it seems just impossible for anything to logically exist at all, though we can comprehend NOTHING ever existing "everywhere").The fact that we can't comprehend an eternally existing anything (any and all attempts to grasp such have failed totally and so much so that we take for granted the continual failure) should make us all very humble.

Please explain your sentences.

Hi LNA, Which ones?God Bless,

Hi jar, But the theory of general relativity is what says there is no data prior to T=10^-43 s, not me.jar don't you know how to copy and paste numbers that require special codes? Peek then copy and paste from there. Maybe you are right jar. But until someone comes up with a theory to replace general relativity there will be no data prior to T=10^-43 s.God Bless,

More stupid things. You really should try to stop posting stupid things.Edited by jar, : fumbl fingrs

ICANT SAID:

quote:

---

But the theory of general relativity is what says there is no data prior to T=10-43 s, not me.

---

Now, I have a revised "Answers Book" of AIG (from around 2000 and it had multiple authors credited as the main author) and I was about to type a half page or so into this thread. I was happy to see that the EXACT text I was about to type is online. It seems that Sarfati was the original author.It is interesting because it will show us that even AIG doesn't seem to see God as a supreme being in anything but our own universe.Pay close attention

quote:

---

A number of skeptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question ‘Who created God?’ is illogical, just like ‘To whom is the bachelor married?’

​

So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: ‘If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause? And if God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?’ In reply, Christians should use the following reasoning:

​

1.Everything which has a beginning has a cause.1

​

2.The universe has a beginning.

​

3.Therefore the universe has a cause.

​

It’s important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn’t need a cause. In addition, Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in timeGod is ‘the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity’ (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn’t have a cause.

​

In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.
1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.

​

If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energythe ‘heat death’ of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible. So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.

​

Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But it is self-evident that things that begin have a causeno-one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. So would all law enforcement, if the police didn’t think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house. Also, the universe cannot be self-causednothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity

​

In Summary
The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.
It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.
The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.
God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause.

​

If God created the universe then who created God - creation.com

---

Notice this part."Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in timeGod is ‘the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity’ (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn’t have a cause."God is described as outside "time" as in the "space time" in our Universe.God could very well be limited in his creation. Only OUR universe could be his creation.Sarfati might not accept the Big Bang, but we know that roughly 34,999/35,000 of our Universe's 13.7 billion year age is observable through telescopes - all the way back to the young age of 380,000 years after the theorized Big Bang. Assuming the first 380,000 years (the only part of the 35,000 parts of roughly 400,000 years that cant be observed via telescopes) cranks back to a period of NO SPACE, then we have the period of the creation event, and the invention of time.Sarfati says that God always existed.But he sidesteps where God came from, and choose to only look at the space (time) creation in our Universe.He no doubt believes in an eternal God.Back to my earlier quote (I fixed the errors in the quote from my original post)

quote:

---

The closest I can come to this "eternal God" or "eternal Universe" concept is if one considers the (very likely) total complete NOTHINGNESS stage to be part of the "age" (if one can even call it that) of what sprung up later (whether the Universe or God ).

---

quote:

---

He does not believe in what the original text says just a version of it that he has been taught by his peers.

---

Explain this please.

why are you accusing him of saying stupid things? That's a bit disingenuous. Perhaps you had better explain why his statements make no sense rather than seeing so arrogant. And didn't they tell you in school that there was no such thing as a stupid question?

Yes, I have heard that said. But that bromide turns out to be wrong. There are stupid questions.Many questions are not true requests for information but are instead thinly veiled attempts to state some position despite having a question mark at the end. The implied statements in those questions may well be stupid. Those are not the kinds of questions your school teacher was talking about, but they are the kind of questions ICANT asks very frequently.

See above. It is not arrogance Phat but simply honesty.

I still don't understand how anyone can accept such a concept as a nothingness phase.
Is it not obvious that if at any given point there was nothing...then at any future point there simply must be nothing? Otherwise what you are implying is that something was created.Of course, if an unbeliever conceives of nothing (in the form of No God) and then later becomes a believer, the belief itself becomes the creation. Nothing becomes something. I reject this theory, however, because God is more than a subset of the human mind.