Existence of God

[Cheeder]

And a god can create itself, but no other thing can create itself? Let's say god is Michelangelo, and the universe is the Mona Lisa. Is it more likely for Michelangelo to spring into being, or the Mona Lisa?




Similarly, what was there before god?

Besides, the obvious counter to the 'before' argument is that time may be circular, not linear, and so everything has allways existed.


In any case, as this is my post for #800, I won't close it for another post, or whenever I check.

Shados, good to see you using your brain power. However, this was not an issue of 'How did God come to be', or 'what was there before God', but rather explaining God through logic.
Any opinion of mine on your questions is just that. Same goes with anyone else who wants to tackle that question of 'before God'. I will give you my opinion since you asked for it.
We've all only been speaking of and about logic. I preseted the fact that something cannot possibly come from no-thing; that which does not exist cannot birth anything into existence. So, according to nothing as a reality, not even God could POSSIBLY exist.
From these facts i personally have concluded, for myself, that God has always been. God never was not.
And if God never was not, could there be something else besides God? Well, understand that God is not human. God is not a being nor is God personal. God is not A being, God IS being. God is not personal, God is impersonal (universal). God is the accumulation of all the power that does and could ever exist on every fathomable level of imagination and reality (meaning, including dimensions). It is not biased, it is just. It's laws apply to ever being, and given our free-will, even the wisest and holiest of men could choose to do bad actions (except they wouldn't be so stupid to do so), and they would be subjected to the same "punishment" (Karma) as anyone else. Just HOW that "punishment" is deleivered is unique to the person.
I personally believe that suffering, as in a constant suffering, for example, from lonliness, is an expenditure of bad Karma.

Moving on.

This is what i think happened. God created our souls. We began to question God about ourselves. Why would we ever question ourselves if we came from the all-knowing? Why would God create the ignorant if he could simply make an equal companion for himself? (that's my answer to the previous question).
So, instead of spoiling his creations by divulging in the knowledge of all power and wisdom, he created these physical existences for us, sort of like a playground. There is a goal to this playground, to become one with the maker. How do we reach that goal? By experiencing ourselves as the gods that we are. We are of God, God has given us examples (dieties), even knowledge (various spiritual texts) to get through this game. When we experience ourselves we uncover answers which relate to the existence and workings of God. Once we understand these concepts, which takes any number of lifetimes, depending on the mistakes we make in the previous, we become the power of God. This is why dieties have shown much power in their times here on Earth. It's why when Jesus was asked to show "the Father", he replied, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father. I am in the Father and the Father in me."

I do not support modern Christian values, for they are disgrace. I do support the universal knowledge which exists in the spiritual texts, which are history books if not a direct source of understanding, and someone's ignorance of the words and the purpose and meanings behind such texts should not be tolerated without defense. The offensive to enlighten.
I have already enlightened one of the fallacy of the circular logic fallacy, and that's the way i think it should be done. Of course, MySpaceBarBroke is open-minded enough to accept and learn from what i say without being pitifully defensive. Sometimes it's just not possible with others in their lifetime.

So i ask of you not to get defensive to this post, which is purely my personal opinion.

 

[Hakeem]

And a god can create itself, but no other thing can create itself? Let's say god is Michelangelo, and the universe is the Mona Lisa. Is it more likely for Michelangelo to spring into being, or the Mona Lisa?

All things considered, the wood, the ink, the canvas, the representation of a human, it is more likely for Michelangelo to exist than the complex result of his existence. The painting is actually more complex than the artist.


It is not necessary for anything to exist. Before time and everything, before any existence of a circle of time, there was no need for anything to exist. All that was was nothing, or rather there wasn't anything, and there was no need for anything to be. That should be the most logical version of the cosmos. Nothing.
Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Besides, the obvious counter to the 'before' argument is that time may be circular, not linear, and so everything has allways existed.

I don't see that as a possible explanation.
There is no need for existence, so even if time was circular, then it would not be necessary to fill the circle with anything.
If we are in a circle of time, then why is this circle not the most probable and logical version of a circle of time, which would be nothing?
I cannot see a way for a circular version of time, which contains matter, to exist without the entire circle being created by some external means.
Why would our random universe (being one of the infinite possible versions of existence) exist while others do not?
The only way to remove the randomness (and give a possible explanation of our existence), is to say that all other possibilities exist as well.
Then why does everything exist instead of nothing?
The only possible explanation for anything and/or everything to exist, is that something came from nothing, or God has always existed.

Personally, I can't see it possible for God to have always existed, but I do see a possible way for something to come from nothing.

However, this was not an issue of 'How did God come to be', or 'what was there before God', but rather explaining God through logic.

Actually, it's about God's existence, and for that to be answered, some need an explanation for how God came to be.

 

[Elenai]

God is the only thing that did not come to be. God is the only thing that is absolutely eternal.

There is no way to explain how he came to be, because there is no way for him to come to be.

 

[PurplePoot]

ITS ALIVE!
*hides*

---

I'm sorry, but this is not true. The Bible clearly says "I am the way, the truth ,and the light. None come to the father but through me"

Proving, of course, that Christ didn't get into heaven?

God is the only thing that did not come to be. God is the only thing that is absolutely eternal.

There is no way to explain how he came to be, because there is no way for him to come to be.

Replace 'god' with 'matter' and 'he' with 'it' and you'll see a huge gaping flaw with your argument.

Hell, replace 'god' with 'cream pie' and it's still there.

-That argument can be applied to everything, and common sense tells me that it's more likely that a cream pie came into being than the most powerful thing possible.

 

[Hakeem]

Okay, now try to find a hole in my logic.

 

[Elenai]

Replace 'god' with 'matter' and 'he' with 'it' and you'll see a huge gaping flaw with your argument

Ok..I will replace God with matter. The conservation of mass and energy.

Energy and matter cannot be created or destoryed. So then where did the matter that makes up our universe come from?

I see no flaw. Because if the purest basis of materiality can exist without being created, then so can God.

 

[Shados]

Thread closed. If you think of a valid reason for it to be re-opened, I'll be glad to read it in a PM.