If god created us do u know who created god?

[Phil Deakins]

---

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?

---

No

I used the word 'nothingness' in the previous thread. I actually thought I'd made it up. I didn't know there was such a word already. 'Nothing' turns out to be a better word for my meaning, but somehow it doesn't feel as good at conveying the absolute absence of anything and any volume for anything to exist in.

[Ceka Cianci]

I always liked this song "One of us"

A lot call it "what if God was one of us" but it's not about god..

Eric bazilian: Even "One of Us" I think is a human story. It’s not so much about God as it is about people, being God-like, if there is such a thing.

 

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

I love that song too, Ceka. Yes, it's not about god, it's about us. Joan Osborne is one of my faves...

And my love of music might be another reason I stop just a hair short of full blown athiesm...

;-).

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

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?

 

 

---

I guess my term sciency stuff was more on the path of things looking to make sense of things..

I always find those conversations very interesting..

The closest thing i come to religion nowadays would be Buddhist which really is not a religion or strangled by one..

no idols to worship,all the freedom in the world to explore,and can even become a Budahh if you reach it..

how cool is that lol

Science can put a cold hard edge on things where there is a calming education in those things i find from philosyphers of budism.

like death for instance or nothing..

Nothing gave us everything, so maybe it's not such an empty place after all..

black holes have lots of nothing in them..information that cannot be reached has been called nothing..

 

it makes me curious and this probably sounds silly because i really haven't put a lot of thought on it other than it sparking from this thread..

But,

some say the last thing in the universe will be a black hole that has all the nothing in it..

It makes me curious if the last black hole holding all the nothing would explode and start it all over again and if this hasn't just been going on time after time just like everything else in the universe that dies and is reborn in some way.

just a thought i kicked around while the flu has me relaxed and thinking hehehehe

 

i don't think i've posted so much in these forums in the last 6 months as i have today and yesterday lol

 

 

[Ceka Cianci]

Just WOW,i never heard her do that song,In fact i really never heard much from her after that one song,but i sure wish i would have and sure don't understand how i didn't..

Such a strong powerful voice she has in that song..:smileysurprised:

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

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?

 

 

---

I guess my term sciency stuff was more on the path of things looking to make sense of things..

I always find those conversations very interesting..

The closest thing i come to religion nowadays would be Buddhist which really is not a religion or strangled by one..

no idols to worship,all the freedom in the world to explore,and can even become a Budahh if you reach it..

how cool is that lol

Science can put a cold hard edge on things where there is a calming education in those things i find from philosyphers of budism.

like death for instance or nothing..

Nothing gave us everything, so maybe it's not such an empty place after all..

black holes have lots of nothing in them..information that cannot be reached has been called nothing..

 

it makes me curious and this probably sounds silly because i really haven't put a lot of thought on it other than it sparking from this thread..

But,

some say the last thing in the universe will be a black hole that has all the nothing in it..

It makes me curious if the last black hole holding all the nothing would explode and start it all over again and if this hasn't just been going on time after time just like everything else in the universe that dies and is reborn in some way.

just a thought i kicked around while the flu has me relaxed and thinking hehehehe

 

i don't think i've posted so much in these forums in the last 6 months as i have today and yesterday lol

 

 

---

String Theory allows for what you're imagining to be happening all the time. There are several string theories, most of which have converged into Superstring Theory, which posits 10 spatial dimensions (Bosonic String Theory has 26!). We can sense only three of those. The remaining dimensions are so small, and would require such great energies to reveal (it's an irony of nature that the smaller things are, the greater the energy you need to see them), that we're potentially forever unable to prove their existence. This is a problem for many physicists. But it's out of and into those hidden dimensions that universes may sprout and vanish.

Last year, I read "The Quantum and the Lotus". I may have recommended that to you, I can't recall. It's an okay book, not something that set my imagination ablaze, but it does show Buddhism to be something I can get along with, just as you do. Your Native American ancestors had a similarly palatable understanding of things.

As for science putting a cold hard edge on things, give a listen to NPR's Radiolab. That show consistently gives me the warm fuzzies, and it's all about... curiosity.

And I know you're curious!

;-).

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

Just WOW,i never heard her do that song,In fact i really never heard much from her after that one song,but i sure wish i would have and sure don't understand how i didn't..

Such a strong powerful voice she has in that song..:smileysurprised:

---

Oh, then you'll like this. I'll let you figure out what story she's telling. I have my theory...

And here she is with Melissa Etheridge...

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

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..

---

My basic problem here is you use the phrase "absolute nothingness" when you mean, "nothing that we know of/comprehend", which isn't "absolute" and really shouldn't be described as "nothingness" at all because for your view to be correct there'd have to be something there - whatever created our "known" existence. There's an enormous difference between "nothing" and "not known." You'd be better off referring to it as "The Unknown" or something similar - it may actually be "The Unknowable" but, of course, we don't know that.

The idea of "The existence that we know of" and relying on our perspective is also problematic. In the time of Aristotle and Aquinas, the physical "existence that they knew of" was a system of nested spheres stretching from the earth at the center to the Sphere of Fixed Stars at the outside. Their entire physical universe was calculated to be of a size that would fit neatly inside Earth's orbit around the sun as we "know" it today. Wouldn't your argument mean that everything we now know of outside of the solar system didn't exist at the time because they didn't know about it, when it clearly did in an absolute sense?

The basic difference between "the existence that we know" and unmodified "existence" (i.e. everything, including creators and creators of creators) is our knowledge. In other words we created "the existence that we know" by learning about it.

[Ceka Cianci]

Just amazing voices,i love when two artists match so well together.:smileyhappy:

 

Here is one of my favorite philosophers.

Also forgive any typoes i may make in my attempts ,i'm heavily on theraflu and other oochie ouchie ache type preventative medicines the past few days hehehe

Anyways here is Alan Watts "What happens after death" which i found really eye opening in such a positive way.

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

Okay, here's my favorite philosopher...

Get well soon!

;-).

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

In other words

we

created "the existence that we know" by learning about it.

---

And I have a pet theory that the unknown is at least the square of the known.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

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..

---

My basic problem here is you use the phrase "absolute nothingness" when you mean, "nothing that we know of/comprehend"

I used the word 'nothingness' exactly as I described, both in this thread and in the previous one. If you've read all of this thread, you'll know that the word 'nothing' is actually better than 'nothingness' as I used it. You'll also know that I thought I'd coined the word 'nothingness' when I first used it in the previous thread, but it turns out that it was already a known word.

---

Now let me just say this. We went through it all in this forum not too long ago (you can find it if you want to), and I have no intention of going through it all again, just because one person wants to. If you don't like my statement into this thread, I can't help it. You are entitled to your view. I'll repeat the statement again because it's all I wanted to contribute to this thread. I certainly wasn't looking for a protracted discussion (again) or argument, and won't participate in one. Here it is:-

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.

You'll have to make do with that from me, Theresa.

[Ceka Cianci]

He is one of my favorites also thanks to you introducing me to him a couple of years ago..

He is awesome i think and i love how he explains things,always smiling it seems hehehe:smileyhappy:

[Phil Deakins]

Just one more thing - I feel I have to correct you on this.

By "the existance that we know" I don't mean, and never did mean, 'the existance that we know of'.  You added a word to what I said, which naturally changed the meaning, and then went on to debate the changed meaning. Therefore, what was known in Aristotle's time, and what we have learned/discovered since, are irrelevant. You didn't understand what was meant by the phrase, and you added a word to it to try and get some understanding. But that was unnecessary, and a mistake, because it led you where the phrase never went.

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

 

• 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?

---

No

---

Oh! :smileysurprised:  Well, I still don't know how you would define those words. :smileytongue:  

[Phil Deakins]

The definitions you provided are correct. 'Absolutely nothing' may be a better phrase than the one I used - 'absolute nothingness'.

The phrase doesn't need any discussion. It's just one person who wants to debate what I mean by the phrase. I think it's clear what is meant by 'absolute nothingness', especially since I included words to the effect of, 'not even a volume (generally visualised as space) for anything to exist in'.

If you undertsdand it as it appears to be, then you've got what I meant.

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

The definitions you provided are correct.

...

If you undertsdand it as it appears to be, then you've got what I meant.

---

Ok, understood now. Thanks for clarifying.  :smileyhappy:

[neopolaris]

God is the alpha and the omega.  The beginning and the end. He always was, and always will be.

People try to find understanding of such a God by themselves.  This is the first mistake.  Understanding God has little to do with mad-made philosophy or logic.  Logic is limited to the boundaries of a mans mind- period. Cherry picking scripture verses is another fatal error.  Choosing to see our perceived flaws in scripture is still choice.  Limited understanding confounds a person who is trying to figure it all out by themselves.  Mans nature is flawed and ripe for corruption, therefore, add poor choices with a closed mind and heart, and you will convince yourself that God does not exist.  You have had blinders on your eyes all your life. These are called scales in the Bible. Knowing Him, removes them so that you can see.  To know God, you first have to ask Him.  Talk to him, as yourself.  He promises to make himself known to you and He does not lie, but you have to have an open heart. 

Is the question valid?  Sure.  Does it lack understanding?  Yeah.  But with the right mindset, it's a start.  If I told you He wants to know you too, that would probably make you wonder.  But He really does.  He is not a punisher or the great equalizer in the sky...The world doesn't want you to believe or know Him, but many don't understand even what the world truly is either.  God, by definition, is supernatural, and there is a spiritual war going on right now.  If you were able to see the forces pitted against you, you would die of sheer hopelessness alone.

[Ceka Cianci]

Interesting philosophy.:smileywink:

[irihapeti]

about the dominion part

i was just taking the scripture literally. That God kicked them out of Eden. If all the animals were in Eden then they would of got kicked out as well

or can see it as I understand you meaning. As a astral plane thingy? Is the Earth plane with all the animals. Is the Eden plane with Adam and Eve

the planes being astral meaning that Adam and Eve can physically inhabit the same space as the animals. Which when I think about it a bit more makes more sense to me. Eden being a plane/state of wairua/soul/spirit/conciousness

+

about personal pos

i personal dont dismiss/reject the existence of God in the spirit/soul sense. Might be. might not be. dunno. When I die then I will find out only if is true. If is false then I wont have any conciousness to know is false. So no biggie really either way I think

and if true and the gatekeeper of Heaven determine that I am not good enough to join their gated community then I dont really care. Am not going to cry about it if rejected. I will just go on and find my own path in Hell if it turns out thats all there is for me. like they have demon levels in Hell apparently. so I will just try to level up as far as best as I can

[Bree Giffen]

Will god still exist after the sun goes supernova and burns the Earth to a cinder?

[Aethelwine]

---

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 am not sure that science is limited by our imagination, at least not, so much as it is limited by our perceptions and the tools we have at our disposal like grammar and logic to create sense of our sense experiences. We can and do imagine more than is real or is in nature, and that we have experienced. It is not so hard to imagine Russell's teapot, or any number of fantastic situations or creatures.

It seems more important to me to consider the limitations of our grammar and logic to describe things, where we have to reach for poetry to try express our reactions to situations and the extent to which our logic and mathematics can explain things we can't otherwise put in to words.

For me a sense of the spiritual derives from the sense of awe and wonder derived from how much sense our grammar and logic can make sense of our surroundings and make meaningful predictions. In my opinion Where John says in the begining was the Word, he is getting at a fundamental of religion. About the way we perceive the world and how we come to terms with that in a sense of order and harmony with it.

I would define myself as religious, but unlike someone else in this thread, I see nothing about god in it.

[Randall Ahren]

---

Bree Giffen wrote:

Will god still exist after the sun goes supernova and burns the Earth to a cinder?

---

Have you read The Last Question by Issac Asimov? You will find your answer there.

 

The last question was asked for the first time, half in jest, on May 21, 2061, at a time when humanity first stepped into the light. The question came about as a result of a five dollar bet over highballs, and it happened this way:

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Bree Giffen wrote:

Will god still exist after the sun goes supernova and burns the Earth to a cinder?

---

That entirely depends on the definition of God, doesn't it? You remind me of people who told the minister at the Unitarian-Universalist church I attended that they don't believe in God - he said in reply, "Tell me about the God you don't believe in. I probably don't believe in that God either."

[Ceka Cianci]

---

irihapeti wrote:

about the dominion part

i was just taking the scripture literally. That God kicked them out of Eden. If all the animals were in Eden then they would of got kicked out as well

or can see it as I understand you meaning. As a astral plane thingy? Is the Earth plane with all the animals. Is the Eden plane with Adam and Eve

the planes being astral meaning that Adam and Eve can physically inhabit the same space as the animals. Which when I think about it a bit more makes more sense to me. Eden being a plane/state of wairua/soul/spirit/conciousness

+

about personal pos

i personal dont dismiss/reject the existence of God in the spirit/soul sense. Might be. might not be. dunno. When I die then I will find out only if is true. If is false then I wont have any conciousness to know is false. So no biggie really either way I think

and if true and the gatekeeper of Heaven determine that I am not good enough to join their gated community then I dont really care. Am not going to cry about it if rejected. I will just go on and find my own path in Hell if it turns out thats all there is for me. like they have demon levels in Hell apparently. so I will just try to level up as far as best as I can

---

Ahh i see,yes i misunderstood the first part..

for some reason i read it as would they have been able to be making babies, rather than would they still be there today doing  that..

I was heavily under the influence of over the counter drugs :matte-motes-sick: hehehehe

 

on the second part here..

 Diablo skills FTW! \o/

Although i never did play that ever,but i seen pictures. hehehe