How can "god" have created the universe?

also. shouldnt there be only one god? no one can prove there is a god. i would like to see you all try. really.

Realistically you cant prove anything unless you have seen in for your self. And even then it could just be some cool hollywood graphics hologram.

World Trade Centre bombings, i wasnt there, hollywood nowdays could have created it easilly.

Holocost, why should i believe what i read in the textbooks? i dont know the authors and i was not there.

There are so many layers of your question that could be asked, i will sum up an answer to the question"

"How can "god" have created the universe?"

Answer: easilly, its god for christs sake.

God can create the universe however the fuck he wants. That's what 'God' means. An all-powerful being. He can splooge and form something called the milky way. He can take a shit and call it a black hole. He can fart and call it a nebula. Or maybe he said something like 'let there be light.' who the fuck knows. If you were truly 'all-powerful' that would mean you could do anything with just a thought. Think of it in terms of that.

There is NO CONCRETE PROOF that God exists. That's why religion is based on 'faith'. The only remote proof I can think of is the universe itself. Everything comes from somewhere - the big bang - but where did the big bang come from? Perhaps a higher power. Perhaps that's God. Who the fuck knows. Give me a beer.

quote:Originally posted by ftwchriso:

How can "god" have created the universe?

also. shouldnt there be only one god? no one can prove there is a god. i would like to see you all try. really.



1st question - god created the universe in the same manner that he creates everything: by falling deeper into sleep.

2nd question - no. there should be only all god.

3rd question/challenge - do you want to see people try because you suspect that they will fail? or is it because you hope that one might succeed?

to the second poster, learn how to use logic. seeing is not beliving. proof is not made by witnessing. to prove something it must be concrete.

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

3rd question/challenge - do you want to see people try because you suspect that they will fail? or is it because you hope that one might succeed?

That's the same kinda reason why I rarely argue with people here. It mainly seems that most people wanna argue that god doesn't exist than hope to find answers.

God exists. Simple as that. Why? Because He has talked to me. Was I high? No. Was I drunk? No. I was perfectly fine at the time. Why else? Because my sister felt someone drag her out of her car when she rolled it 3 times, and when she asked the person who called 911 at the hospital who dragged her out, she said "You walked out, then you grabbed your daughter, and sat her on the ground, then you just fell over." Now tell me that isn't a miracle. She was also perfectly fine at the time. Anything else? No? Good.

Sincerely,

The Student

people hear voices all the time....

quote:Originally posted by Discipulus:

God exists. Simple as that. Why? Because He has talked to me. Was I high? No. Was I drunk? No. I was perfectly fine at the time. Why else? Because my sister felt someone drag her out of her car when she rolled it 3 times, and when she asked the person who called 911 at the hospital who dragged her out, she said "You walked out, then you grabbed your daughter, and sat her on the ground, then you just fell over." Now tell me that isn't a miracle. She was also perfectly fine at the time. Anything else? No? Good.

Sincerely,

The Student

how do you know it was god? maybe it was actually an evil spirit that was pretending to do something good for you in order to gain your allegiance and steal your soul away from the one true god... after all, why would the real god save you and your sister, but let millions of innocent fetuses (fetii?) die from abortions? i mean, this incident HAS seemed to give you a certain amount of righteous confidence...

could flattery be how satan gets someone to sign their soul over?

ever read Job?

quote:Originally posted by monopoly:

Realistically you cant prove anything unless you have seen in for your self. And even then it could just be some cool hollywood graphics hologram.

World Trade Centre bombings, i wasnt there, hollywood nowdays could have created it easilly.

Holocost, why should i believe what i read in the textbooks? i dont know the authors and i was not there.



Radical empiricism.

It's an untenable position though, because you have to assume a willful stance of ignorance on so many levels. It's unreasonable doubt.

For instance, you have to automatically start with the assumption that everyone in the world you have not yet experienced with all your senses in person does not exist, that I don't exist, that there is no such thing as outer space, that anything outside your immediate sight isn't there, etc.

It's bullshit.

If you accept the definition of the universe as "absolutly everything", it is logically impossible for god to have created the universe, because he is part of it. You cannot argue that god exists outside the universe, because nothing exists outside the universe, it is "absolutly everything" after all.

Saying 'God exists outside of the universe' is no different than saying he exists outside of existence or doesn't exist in reality, but can influence it.

It's a logical dead-end.

quote:Originally posted by stealthdonkey:

If you accept the definition of the universe as "absolutly everything", it is logically impossible for god to have created the universe, because he is part of it. You cannot argue that god exists outside the universe, because nothing exists outside the universe, it is "absolutly everything" after all.

If God is the universe, and the universe is energy, and energy is an infinate process of self-actualization, then God did create the universe, because the prior universe actualized itself into the current universe by changing into a completely different entity.

^no takers? yeah, that's right... stumped y'all.

If there was proof that takes the point of faith. You my friend are an agnostic, or an aethiest. Pick one and let us know so we can come beat the shit out of you for posting useless topics that have been posted a thousand times before you.

"If God is the universe, and the universe is energy, and energy is an infinate process of self-actualization, then God did create the universe, because the prior universe actualized itself into the current universe by changing into a completely different entity."

I'll take this up.

It's absurd to call the Universe by a second name of God. If you describe the Universe as God, just simply call it the Universe. There's no need to bring a middle man into the situation when it makes no difference. If the Universe is God, then faith is pointless anyways. All that exists is physical, there would still be no afterlife. Making the definition of God more and more general until it encompasses all of existence does nothing but make one look foolish and further one's self from any sort of an answer.

Understand though, that it is in my experience that once someone starts defining God as the Universe, it is mere months before atheism is likely to occur. The brain can only fool itself so long.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:



It's absurd to call the Universe by a second name of God. If you describe the Universe as God, just simply call it the Universe. There's no need to bring a middle man into the situation when it makes no difference. If the Universe is God, then faith is pointless anyways. All that exists is physical, there would still be no afterlife. Making the definition of God more and more general until it encompasses all of existence does nothing but make one look foolish and further one's self from any sort of an answer.

Understand though, that it is in my experience that once someone starts defining God as the Universe, it is mere months before atheism is likely to occur. The brain can only fool itself so long.

i've already experienced atheism, and i do plan to again, however, that is not the issue. you state that it is absurd to call the universe 'god'. i disagree. words are symbols. having many different symbols reference the same object can be a means of encryption. also, sometimes symbols originate from separate sources, and possess nuances of meaning. in these cases, realizing their general equivalence can be beneficial to the definition of the different symbols.

you say that it makes no difference to bring a middle man into the equation, then why do you care?

you say faith would be pointless, because all that exists is physical. while i agree that all things have a physical component, you imply that all things are exclusively physical. this is the true absurdity.

Please, tell me one thing proven to exist that is not physical in nature. I am begging you.

Which religion's God is the correct one tough? That's a question I've wondered before. Too me it seems that all religions have the same purpose...is it possible they could all be connected? I've seen similar things in different religions. Zeus having a son to a mortal woman..God having having a son to a mortal...

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Please, tell me one thing proven to exist that is not physical in nature. I am begging you.

no. you've missed a point, read my post again. if you don't get it, i won't force you to.

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

i've already experienced atheism, and i do plan to again

???

quote:also, sometimes symbols originate from separate sources, and possess nuances of meaning. in these cases, realizing their general equivalence can be beneficial to the definition of the different symbols.

General equivalence is not enough. If you're going to call the universe God, it had better have the attributes that most people would agree God has - a personality, free will, response to worship, etc.

quote:you say that it makes no difference to bring a middle man into the equation, then why do you care?

I think I'll start calling cats "pillows". I mean, they're sort of oblong shaped, and warm and soft and fuzzy - all the attributes of a good pillow.

quote:you say faith would be pointless, because all that exists is physical. while i agree that all things have a physical component, you imply that all things are exclusively physical. this is the true absurdity.

I'm with Hexadecimal on this one. Give me some reason to believe that there's anything that's not physical. I'm not going to say with any certainty that only the physical exists, but I'm sure as hell not going to believe otherwise until you give me a good reason to.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

???

!!!

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

General equivalence is not enough. If you're going to call the universe God, it had better have the attributes that most people would agree God has - a personality, free will, response to worship, etc.

personality... in this same universe of seemingly infinite magnitude, guided by the most complex, elegant laws of physics and mathematics, there exists also the sublime idiocy of bubb rubb. http://www.ebaumsworld.com/bubbrubb.html

free will... hmmm, i can't prove that one. nah, that's not true, i can, i just don't want to get into it. "The more precisely

the POSITION is determined,

the less precisely the MOMENTUM is known" - heisenberg

response to worship... if you kiss your manager's ass, and he responds by favoring you as an employee, is this not a response to worship? yes, it is. and is that manager not part of this universe? yes. then this universe is capable of responding to worship. but how about on a macro scale? a person is much less likely to let his house fall into disrepair if he is happy in it.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

I think I'll start calling cats "pillows". I mean, they're sort of oblong shaped, and warm and soft and fuzzy - all the attributes of a good pillow.

why not? i use my sister's cat like a pillow, so technically, it's what she is at those times.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

I'm with Hexadecimal on this one. Give me some reason to believe that there's anything that's not physical. I'm not going to say with any certainty that only the physical exists, but I'm sure as hell not going to believe otherwise until you give me a good reason to.

i was very careful to state that i believe everything has a physical component, so no, i won't do that. however, i highly doubt that you only consider your emotions to be physical processes of your nervous system, and intentionally refrain from viewing your own thoughts subjectively. if you do, please explain to me how you get through life.

The same way everyone else does: cognitive dissonance. Knowing one thing to be true while your mind forces you to believe the contradictory as a biological defense mechanism against insanity and suicide.

so which is it? is your mind forcing you to deny the truth, or is it a built-in biological defense mechanism? you realize the two are not the same, right?

that oversight is an ironic example of cognitive dissonance.

Most things I say aren't accidental http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

They aren't exclusive though, and not necessarily ironic now that I think about it, as it does hold truth. Denial is the strongest of our defense mechanisms and is just that: the mind forcing you to believe that which isn't true, to protect itself from the truth.

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

response to worship... if you kiss your manager's ass, and he responds by favoring you as an employee, is this not a response to worship? yes, it is. and is that manager not part of this universe? yes. then this universe is capable of responding to worship.

Worshipping your manager isn't worshipping the universe. I could probably obtain a favourable result by kicking somebody's ass, but it doesn't mean the universe is giving me what I want because I'm kicking its ass.

If I can get the same result by worshipping the universe as by trashing it, then presumably the universe doesn't really care what I do.

quote:i was very careful to state that i believe everything has a physical component, so no, i won't do that. however, i highly doubt that you only consider your emotions to be physical processes of your nervous system, and intentionally refrain from viewing your own thoughts subjectively. if you do, please explain to me how you get through life.

I do consider them to be chemical processes, and will do so until somebody demonstrates that there is a non-physical component to them. I can change my emotions (and my entire state of mind, and the things I see, hear and feel by ingesting chemicals - I think that's pretty good evidence.

I'm not sure what you mean by viewing my own thoughts subjectively, but I get through life by doing the things that I need or want to do, same as anybody else.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

Worshipping your manager isn't worshipping the universe. I could probably obtain a favourable result by kicking somebody's ass, but it doesn't mean the universe is giving me what I want because I'm kicking its ass.

If I can get the same result by worshipping the universe as by trashing it, then presumably the universe doesn't really care what I do.

it's not the same result though. in one case, you've fostered positive feelings, in the other, negative feelings. in this scenario, i agree that 'general equivalence is not enough.' it is beneficial to consider the differences when deciding courses of action.

when trying to understand difficult, incomplete concepts developed over eons of human experience, such as reality, god, and universe, i believe it is beneficial to consider synchronicities, if only because the similarities are often overlooked in our zeal to defend personal concepts against foreign (or 'archaic') conceptions of the same phenomenon.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

I do consider them to be chemical processes, and will do so until somebody demonstrates that there is a non-physical component to them. I can change my emotions (and my entire state of mind, and the things I see, hear and feel by ingesting chemicals - I think that's pretty good evidence.

i agree. i also consider them to be chemical

processes; where we disagree is on their non-physical component. again, i cannot prove this non-physical component, nor should i try for the sake of this argument. my intent all along has been to appeal harmoniously to your non-physical, personal experience of reality, not to convince you that you possess such independent sentience. i apologize if i've failed, but i won't make things worse by introducing logic to a point i originally intended to be poetic. i admit i was using fuzzy logic.



quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

I'm not sure what you mean by viewing my own thoughts subjectively, but I get through life by doing the things that I need or want to do, same as anybody else.

is 'need' and 'want' better defined by their physical properties, or their nonphysical?

for example. can you spare some food? john needs it to survive.

description 1: this need is the result of the human organism's metabolic system, designed to ingest vegetable and animal matter and convert the material into energy for the regular processes of cell growth and renewal, as well as any physical activity related to the further acquisition of foodstuffs.

description 2: dude, john is starving! he's a friggin' twig, he was caught under a giant pile of porn mags for a week. he might pass out at any moment, dude, give him some fucking ramen noodles or something!!! hurry up, man!

just like universe/god, the decision of whether to use a left vs. right brained approach to description depends on the situation, goal, or intent.

hey craftian and hexadecimal, thanks for the replies and critiques so far, this is turning out to be a great thread! i don't know if we'll see eye to eye, but whatever, it's been fun and thought-provoking. i respect your opinions. i actually just saw a whole show on the discovery channel about how brain imaging has reached real-time scanning capabilities... amazing stuff.

I have no problem when people disagree with my points so long as they actually understand my points; you've apparently understood what I've said, so I respect any conclusions you've come to, whether complete disregard, partial acceptance, or full acceptance.