If god created us do u know who created god?

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

That someone or something created the existance that we know is patently obvious. Beyond that it's every man for himself - and woman, of course 

---

Please tell us your definition of the word "create" as used in this statement.

---

'Create', as I meant it, means to create something in the midst of absolute nothingness, although "in the midst" is totally wrong because with absolute nothingness, there is nothing to be in the midst of.

---

Then the "creation of existence" is not only patently obvious, it's patently impossible. Absolute nothingness would also mean there would be nothing to create existence. If

anything

exists,

something

has to be eternal - not "created", in other words. And if

something

is eternal, there's no reason that the underlying structure of

everything

can't be.

---

You omitted, and overlooked, a part of what I said. I said "... the existance 

that we know

". That part is very important. Including that part negates what you wrote.

Let's suppose that a creator person or thing is real. Now suppose that he/she/it decides to create an existance for other types of beings to be in. Where does he/she/it create it? Let's say the decision was to create a volume for it to be in instead of where he/she/it is - the volume we know as the universe. From our perspective, the universe, and all that's in it - the existance that we know - was created when there was nothing. There wasn't any matter lying around in this volume to create the things that are in it. The volume didn't exist before it (the universe) was created.

---

When a car is built in a factory, that car is "created." It wasn't a car before. However, we all know that it was made from things that existed before. It wasn't created from "nothing."

I'm fully comfortable with the idea that our universe may be a tiny bubble spawned from something incomprehensibly greater. But that doesn't mean that it was created from, or within, "nothing" - it's still a part of/made up of something else that came before, even if we can't comprehend it.

The only thing I omitted was making you also define "nothing" because now you can come up with a definition that will let you weasel out. I will maintain, though, that "absolute nothingness" means just that: "absolute (complete, perfect) nothingness (nonexistence.)" Not, "nothing that we are aware of/can understand" because then it wouldn't be absolute, would it?

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Syo Emerald wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

If i give someone the knowledge to create a lawnmower,does that mean i created all the lawn mowers? 

---

If you gave someone the knowledge (ability really) to creat a lawn mower

out of nothing

, then you must be God

---

I'm just telling how the story say's it,i didn't write the books..

As the story goes,He created two pure people that went on to produce a bunch of impure people..

He had to kick them out of the garden before they took a bite out of the fruit that would have made them like him..

 

 

---

Sounds like incest.

 

---

History proves that if you are of royal blood or have enough money and power over everyone else,You get to call it something else..hehehehe

[Phil Deakins]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

If i give someone the knowledge to create a lawnmower,does that mean i created all the lawn mowers? 

---

If you gave someone the knowledge (ability really) to creat a lawn mower

out of nothing

, then you must be God

---

I'm just telling how the story say's it,i didn't write the books..

As the story goes,He created two pure people that went on to produce a bunch of impure people..

He had to kick them out of the garden before they took a bite out of the fruit that would have made them like him.. 

---

Just out of interest, He created 2 sinless people, but with the ability to sin - freedom of choice.

He didn't kick them out of the garden before one of them took a bite. He kicked them out afterwards.

Taking a bite made them like him in one respect only. They'd disobeyed and, in doing so, they'd sinned, which meant that they'd discovered the knowledge of good and evil. That was the only way in which taking abite made them like God.

[Phil Deakins]

From our perspective, the universe was created in absolute nothingness. The space it occupies didn't exist before it was created.

But we may be looking at it in similar ways and using different words. I did start out by saying that "someone or something created...", and I went on to make it clear that the someone or something is or was outside the existance (universe) that we know. I could put it another way and say that the existance that we know sprang from absolute nothingness. What I can't say is that the someone or something did not inject a bit of matter into it from the existance where he/she/it is. However, I used the word 'create' to mean creating something from nothing. I stick by that, but I can't argue that something wasn't injected, for want of a better word, just as nobody can argue the opposite..

[Phil Deakins]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

History proves that if you are of royal blood or have enough money and power over everyone else,You get to call it something else..hehehehe

---

Remember the golden rule - he who has the gold makes the rules.

[Kelli May]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

You omitted, and overlooked, a part of what I said. I said "... the existance 

that we know

". That part is very important. Including that part negates what you wrote.

Let's suppose that a creator person or thing is real. Now suppose that he/she/it decides to create an existance for other types of beings to be in. Where does he/she/it create it? Let's say the decision was to create a volume for it to be in instead of where he/she/it is - the volume we know as the universe. From our perspective, the universe, and all that's in it - the existance that we know - was created when there was nothing. There wasn't any matter lying around in this volume to create the things that are in it. The volume didn't exist before it (the universe) was created.

---

While you answered the question as you phrased it, you haven't touched the question as the OP put it. All you did is put the creator (or creative force) further out. Really, that's nothing more than primitive people did when they put gods in the sky or on top of mountains. Whenever we explore or manage to look beyond our current boundaries, we put the creator further away.

Climb the mountain? Put him/her/it in the sky. Peer into space? Put it beyond the solar system, or the galaxy, or the universe. It still smacks of turtles all the way down.

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

If i give someone the knowledge to create a lawnmower,does that mean i created all the lawn mowers? 

---

If you gave someone the knowledge (ability really) to creat a lawn mower

out of nothing

, then you must be God

---

I'm just telling how the story say's it,i didn't write the books..

As the story goes,He created two pure people that went on to produce a bunch of impure people..

He had to kick them out of the garden before they took a bite out of the fruit that would have made them like him.. 

---

Just out of interest, He created 2 sinless people, but with the ability to sin - freedom of choice.

He didn't kick them out of the garden before one of them took a bite. He kicked them out afterwards.

Taking a bite made them like him in one respect only. They'd disobeyed and, in doing so, they'd sinned, which meant that they'd discovered the knowledge of good and evil. That was the only way in which taking abite made them like God.

---

i wasn't talking about the tree of good and evil,There still remained the tree of life that would have given them eternal life..

It's what the whole book is about getting back to,eating of the tree of life to live forever in the garden..

 

He actually said they would be like US,meaning more than just being like him..

There was more than one guy that created the garden..

If they ate from the tree of life after eating from the tree of good and evil,they would have had eternal life and knowledge without the control of a god or gods.

They woudl be gods.

He can't kill off those that have enternal life as well as he can't gift it,he can only guard the gate to let someone access it..

It's why nobody will be burning forever,They never got to the tree of life..

 

if you believe in all that i mean..hehehe

 

 

 

 

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

The only thing I omitted was making you also define "nothing" because now you can come up with a definition that will let you weasel out. I will maintain, though, that "absolute nothingness" means just that: "

absolute

(complete, perfect)

nothingness

(nonexistence.)" Not, "nothing that we are aware of/can understand" because then it wouldn't be

absolute

, would it?

---

Nope. You omitted a very important part of what I wrote. Go back and check. I've told you what it was.

I haven't defined the word "nothing". I've defined the word "nothingness". Don't put word in my mouth as well as omitting words from my mouth.

We (not necessarily you) went through all this not too long ago. My views are there for the record. If I change them here, please let me know, but I won;t change them. I can't weasel out of anything here, because I've said it all before and it's still for comparison.

So, to get it straight. First you omit an imprtant part of my sentence, and then judge me on the part that is left. Then you switch the word "nothingness" for "nothing" and accuse me weaseling out when in fact they way I described it here is the same as the way I';ve decribed it before. No weaseling out of any kind. What 'mistake' will you come with next, I wonder.

[Phil Deakins]

Yes I know I didn't answer the OP's question. I didn;'t even try to answer it in any post. It's a sidetrack. But I don't think this thread was meant to be taken seriously.

All I'm saying is that it's patently obvious that existance as we know it was created by someone or something. I'm not placing he/she/it anywhere. If you want to argue against that, please do, but, afaik, there can only be two possible arguments. One is that it was never created, and the other is that it was created but not by anyone or anything - someone posted that Steven Hawking thinks that.

[Phil Deakins]

Sorry. You're right. I'd forgotten about that tree

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Sorry. You're right. I'd forgotten about that tree

---

Don't take what i say too serious in that area,I'm just hanging out until this flu passes over..

It's always an interesting topic in both respects.. I love the sciency stuff more i think,that's my fav..

Because to me it's soo much cooler hehehe

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Sorry. You're right. I'd forgotten about that tree

---

Don't take what i say too serious in that area,I'm just hanging out until this flu passes over..

It's always an interesting topic in both respects.. I love the sciency stuff more i think,that's my fav..

Because to me it's soo much cooler hehehe

---

Science (nature) may be cooler because it's not limited by our imaginations.

Religion is.

;-).

[Qie Niangao]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Science (nature) may be cooler because it's not limited by our imaginations.

---

Science and nature are two very different things. Science certainly is limited by our imaginations. Sure, sometimes nature is unexpected, but ultimately we only look for it under the streetlamp where the lighting is better.

(One might say that nature is limited by god's imagination -- which would say more about god than nature.)

[Aislin Ceawlin]

I have to tell you, I have never heard someone explain so precisely how I think/feel before. You BOTH are my new heroines! CHEERS! 

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

 

He had to kick them out of the garden before they took a bite out of the fruit that would have made them like him.. 

---

He didn't kick them out of the garden before one of them took a bite. He kicked them out afterwards.

Taking a bite made them like him in one respect only. They'd disobeyed and, in doing so, they'd sinned, which meant that they'd discovered the knowledge of good and evil. That was the only way in which taking abite made them like God.

---

Well, in the Bible story there were actually two different kinds of trees which God did not want humans to eat from.

So both Ceka and Phil remembered the story partly right. :matte-motes-big-grin:

[Quotations are from: Standard King James Version]

First, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 1

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

 

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

 

Genesis 3

1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

 

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

 

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

 

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

 

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

 

6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Second, the tree of life:

22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

 

24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

 

 

So, God did not like the idea that these disobedient people :smileymad:, knowing good and evil, would also live forever.

Thus God decided to kick them out of the garden - before the worst thing happened.

 

And God put various burdens on them as well as on rest of the humanity too.  :smileysurprised: :smileyindifferent:

 

[Edit]

Yeah, I noticed from further posts that Ceka and Phil are in agreement that there were two trees. I was a bit late (or early) to reply before reading the whole thread.

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Qie Niangao wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Science (nature) may be cooler because it's not limited by our imaginations.

---

Science and nature are two very different things.

Science

 certainly

is

limited by our imaginations. Sure, sometimes nature is unexpected, but ultimately we only look for it under the streetlamp where the lighting is better.

(One might say that nature is limited by god's imagination -- which would say more about god than nature.)

---

I agree, Qie. I was trying to reuse Ceka's "sciency", as I think Ceka was actually referring to nature, not science.

Science is the best invention we've ever had (so far) to discover what nature is all about (or to get at the truth of a thing). It's messy, but for the last 400 years or so, it's beat up pretty much every other method.

Speaking of god's imagination, as god is often described as omniscient, can s/he even have one?

 

 

[Coby Foden]

The two trees made me think... let's suppose that there is God. :smileywink:

What if Adam and Eve did not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Would God then have allowed them to eat from the tree of life at some stage? If God did let them eat from it, then we all would be going all over the places without any clothes at all - all the history and all eternity still ahead.

Which wouldn't be so bad idea - having perfect non-aging bodies. :smileyhappy:
.. one bonus factor, there wouldn't be any silly ideas floating about of the human body. :matte-motes-asleep-2:

 

[Coby Foden]

I got interested what 'nothing' and 'nothingness' really mean (because you only defined 'nothingness').
Quick Googling gave these examples:

• Nothing is a pronoun denoting the absence of anything.
• Nothingness is the state of being nothing, the state of nonexistence of anything.

Phil, would you define the words as above?

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

I got interested what 'nothing' and 'nothingness' really mean (because you only defined 'nothingness').

Quick Googling gave these examples:

• Nothing is a pronoun denoting the absence of anything.

• Nothingness is the state of being nothing, the state of nonexistence of anything.

Phil, would you define the words as above?

---

And if you have two hours to spare...

[Aethelwine]

I was created by my parents and them by their parents. We are a product of evolutionary forces, in an expanding universe that began at a point of singularity we call a Big bang.

There is no need for God to be any part of that system.

If we are to assume God created us then it just begs the question, what is this god you speak of?

[irihapeti]

is interesting line of thought this

if they hadnt of eaten from the tree then would they have had babies and still be in the Garden today living eternally?

so next thought

what would have all the animals created before Adam, which are outside the Garden, be doing over zillions of years? Having babies and evolving

is it possible that humans are not descended from Adam and Eve even tho they got kicked out of the Garden to be with the other animals?

+

also God created Adam in his own image. Is it possible that God is not of human form? If so then Adam was not of human form

If go down this path then maybe we just want to be descended from Adam and Eve bc we want to think that God made us special to rule over all other animals. Maybe we just one of the other animals

 

[Dillon Levenque]

I can't see 'Tree of Life' without being reminded of Larry Niven's stories of the Pak, a race of  humanoids from another part of the galaxy. They were remarkably human-like until they reached middle age. At that age some became intensely hungry for the fruit of what they called 'Tree-of-Life', and afer living on a diet of that fruit their bodies changed in ways that quite closely resemble the aging process in humans but which result in an entity that is smarter, stronger, and faster than the entity from which it matured. Joints expand (not arthritis, though: extra mechanical advantage). Genitalia disappear, and the groin becomes home to a second heart (makes sense: there was already a system in place to ensure maximum blood flow to that region, at least for males). Craniums lose all hair but expand to accomodate new brain growth.

As the story goes, there were several Pak colonies dispersed from the home system and one of them probably landed on Earth. They did not reach Protector status because Earth lacked the thallium oxide that Tree-of-Life requires..

A protector:

 

 

Imagine him at work, maintaining his territory. Practically naked except for a multi-pocketed vest, full of tools (most of which he invented and built himself). Straddling the skycycle he built so he could  move between levels as quicly as possible.

Hot, isn't he? Maybe you shouldn't think about him....because that's how I fell for the leader of the Pak.

 

 

 

[Suspiria Finucane]

Sure. God's god created god. It was a virgin birth of course

[Suspiria Finucane]

[Ceka Cianci]

---

irihapeti wrote:

 

if they hadnt of eaten from the tree then would they have had babies and still be in the Garden today living eternally?

 

---

my disclaimer,because i hear we need one nowadays for just about everything..hehehe

Just want to say first, I'm not a believer myself anymore,but i sure used to be..The things i've learned is from when i was a believer and not someone that started to read the bible to break it down for it's faults..

It used to be my way of life and took years to unbelieve..

The reading of the book and it's interpritation just depends on the church you are sitting in that sunday..

Then the version of the book you are reading and the changes that version has gone through in history..

I found that it was a much different book once i started to read it for myself without outside influence..

a lot of the gaps in it are from outside influence of many of the books not making it into the main book of books, because of cherry picking from the catholic church in the making of the king james version..

just knowing that alone was enough to spark doubt once i started to dig and learn hear first hand about the things that had happened to relations in this country..

Just felt the need to clear that up before going on

all that boring stuff aside hehehe

 

According to the story, they would have procreated,they were told to be fruitful and multiply..

According to the story,god was talking to someone else while he created all this stuff, most likely a woman,probably his woman,since things were created in their image.

The morning star ,gods most precious angel ,also known as Venus.The star before the sun..

a mistranslation lead things to her being seen as a male,but even genisis clears that up..

first he tells how they will make them and then tells what he does..

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 

---

irihapeti wrote:

so next thought

what would have all the animals created before Adam, which are outside the Garden, be doing over zillions of years? Having babies and evolving

is it possible that humans are not descended from Adam and Eve even tho they got kicked out of the Garden to be with the other animals?

+

also God created Adam in his own image. Is it possible that God is not of human form? If so then Adam was not of human form

If go down this path then maybe we just want to be descended from Adam and Eve bc we want to think that God made us special to rule over all other animals. Maybe we just one of the other animals

 

---

The animals would probably be doing pretty good without us around..

Smith from the matrix summed us up pretty well..Virus or maybe a bad bacteria..

If you take one of those rides that goes out to the edge of the universe and back,it's easy to start seeing just how much of a microbe we are and just how much we are related to a bad bacteria and other animals as good bacteria..

the sad thing is that some of us were good bacteria that is getting squashed out by the more powerful bacteria..

we're already looking at spreading out to other planets to infect them and eat up the resources..

always in fear of extinction,yet always keep creating more and overcrowding a planet that is about 4 billion overload..

In the story god created the heavens and the earth and put man incharge..

what does man get from that?

I am the center of the universe..