It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

My Theory of how God came into Existence [Long Read]

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   

deeezbeats
reply to post by Strayed
 

My theory is based on reason. Nothing wrong with trying to frame a concept in a way that can make possible undestand. No different than someone explaining a concept while admiring they can't even understand it. You say you can fathom inifinity, but you know it can't be explained to make sense. There has to be a starting point. If you rewind time all the way to the distant past and never stop, you're bound too come to a stop somewhere.
edit on 28-3-2014 by deeezbeats because: (no reason given)


Err I can fathom infinity, and it's explained easily by the very definition of the word. In relation to the topic I gave a strong foundation supporting that energy simply always existed, as well as the mechanism that pushes continual movement rooted in the nature of energy itself which explained it in a logical way that very clearly makes sense. The reason it cannot be explained to make sense to you is because you seem to personally have a hard time understanding infinity, insisting there has to be a starting point just because you cannot wrap your mind around there not. If you were to rewind time (rewind each moment to it's previous state) and never stop… well with what we know of energy you would never stop. The "You're bound to come to a stop somewhere." isn't rooted in anything we have evidence of so much as your mind being unwilling to comprehend infinity (as evidenced by your redefinition of infinite and insisting there has to be a starting point despite nothing indicating such which isn't which isn't framing a concept based on what is known but more so framing a concept around what you seem to subjectively understand/comprehend atm).
edit on 28-3-2014 by Strayed because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by deeezbeats
 


You are trying to figure out what happened "before" the Big Bang and which came first, right? That may be your problem. You are thinking in a linear fashion where things in our universe have a beginning and and an end. It doesn't follow that "before" the Big Bang to us is anything other than a place to us in time. That is from our set of physical laws that encompass this Universe. Ever wonder how our universe could expand from something very tiny to something very huge in less than second? It's because time didn't exist until the universe formed. That "split second" of expansion was not confined by time. I'm guessing the multiverse has no beginning or end. It just "is." I'm also guessing other laws of physics may apply in other universes. If you insist a "God" had to start everything going because something can't just always be there, I would ask you how did God get there then? If he can always be, with no beginning and no end, then nature can do the same thing.

As for a precise set of things needing to happen in order to make this Universe the way it is, you are correct. But if another universe didn't have that precise set of things happen then it wouldn't exist so there would be no one in that universe to write about it. In other words, you are only able to make that observation because "this" universe came into being. If you had an infinite set of the stuff that starts universes, wouldn't it follow that only one or few would randomly achieve that precise set of things needed to keep the universe going? If you could toss a multi-faceted object with a number on each facet in the air and not know if it didn't land 42 (for example), then you'd only know when it landed on 42. If you did it again and didn't know of any misses (there'd be plenty) and you saw when it landed on 42 again, you'd think it ALWAYS lands on 42. To put it another way, a slot machine sometimes comes up all cherries. Most of the time it doesn't. Because it comes up all cherries doesn't mean that a supreme being was involved in making it happen.
edit on 28-3-2014 by LeeHarris because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 07:23 PM
link   

LeeHarris
reply to post by deeezbeats
 


You are trying to figure out what happened "before" the Big Bang and which came first, right? That may be your problem. You are thinking in a linear fashion where things in our universe have a beginning and and an end. It doesn't follow that "before" the Big Bang to us is anything other than a place to us in time. That is from our set of physical laws that encompass this Universe. Ever wonder how our universe could expand from something very tiny to something very huge in less than second? It's because time didn't exist until the universe formed. That "split second" of expansion was not confined by time. I'm guessing the multiverse has no beginning or end. It just "is." I'm also guessing other laws of physics may apply in other universes. If you insist a "God" had to start everything going because something can't just always be there, I would ask you how did God get there then? If he can always be, with no beginning and no end, then nature can do the same thing.

As for a precise set of things needing to happen in order to make this Universe the way it is, you are correct. But if another universe didn't have that precise set of things happen then it wouldn't exist so there would be no one in that universe to write about it. In other words, you are only able to make that observation because "this" universe came into being. If you had an infinite set of the stuff that starts universes, wouldn't it follow that only one or few would randomly achieve that precise set of things needed to keep the universe going? If you could toss a multi-faceted object with a number on each facet in the air and not know if it didn't land 42 (for example), then you'd only know when it landed on 42. If you did it again and didn't know of any misses (there'd be plenty) and you saw when it landed on 42 again, you'd think it ALWAYS lands on 42. To put it another way, a slot machine sometimes comes up all cherries. Most of the time it doesn't. Because it comes up all cherries doesn't mean that a supreme being was involved in making it happen.
edit on 28-3-2014 by LeeHarris because: (no reason given)
I'm not insisting that I don't know how we got here therefore God. I'm insisting that the first thing to ever have exist, is what caused everything else. Already gave my explanation as to how I understand his existence.
I don't understand your anology to well. The fact is the universe is finely tuned. If any other hypothetical universes before this one couldn't even finely tune itself to function like a well oiled factory, then I don't see how it can tell itself to auto-start over.
edit on 28-3-2014 by deeezbeats because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-3-2014 by deeezbeats because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 08:01 PM
link   

deeezbeatsSo the cause of God's existence was the result of the exact opposite of complete nothing.


Good to see you have been thinking about existence [of God], but if you base your entire premise on the above, you are assuming that 'the exact opposite of nothing is God (or something)' is true. Mathematicians believe that the opposite of negative value is a positive one (eg. +5 and -5) while 0 (ie. nothing) is neutral.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Kurius

deeezbeatsSo the cause of God's existence was the result of the exact opposite of complete nothing.


Good to see you have been thinking about existence [of God], but if you base your entire premise on the above, you are assuming that 'the exact opposite of nothing is God (or something)' is true. Mathematicians believe that the opposite of negative value is a positive one (eg. +5 and -5) while 0 (ie. nothing) is neutral.

well if we play along with the idea of the hard to fathom complete nothing which is the absense of a thing, then its natural that to have a presence of a thing would be of equal unfathomabilty. Instead of using the word God in this case, think of it as the first/source of life.(ref. See the sleep/awake anology in op) I believe the first consciously aware thing had to be there at the beginning/is the beginning. Life spontaneously appearing from non living matter seems doubtful seeing how living intelligent creatures can't successfully replicate what an impersonal/non living force did.
edit on 28-3-2014 by deeezbeats because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-3-2014 by deeezbeats because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-3-2014 by deeezbeats because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 08:38 PM
link   

deeezbeats I believe the first consciously aware thing had to be there at the beginning/is the beginning. Life spontaneously appear what from non living matter seems doubtful seeing how living intelligent creatures can't successfully replicate what an impersonal/non living force did.


Ok, let's say we accept that...then we should/could be asking which came first...Something or nothing? If you choose one over the other, then the entire argument falters too, doesn't it since one cannot exist without the other? And let's say both existed the same time. What is the opposite of this concurrent existence of nothing+something then? That too had to come into being at the moment this combination existed. And so on...

Btw, I just posted a thread to suggest a short-cut way of seeking the answer to the existence of God...among other things. You might be interested to read.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Kurius

deeezbeats I believe the first consciously aware thing had to be there at the beginning/is the beginning. Life spontaneously appear what from non living matter seems doubtful seeing how living intelligent creatures can't successfully replicate what an impersonal/non living force did.


Ok, let's say we accept that...then we should/could be asking which came first...Something or nothing? If you choose one over the other, then the entire argument falters too, doesn't it since one cannot exist without the other? And let's say both existed the same time. What is the opposite of this concurrent existence of nothing+something then? That too had to come into being at the moment this combination existed. And so on...

Btw, I just posted a thread to suggest a short-cut way of seeking the answer to the existence of God...among other things. You might be interested to read.
I believe that they existed at the same time. Can't go into much detail since this is one of the hard parts to grasp. But it still seems possible. There's is no opposite of the simultaneous combo. Just the combo itself. You have your complete something that exists within the presence of complete nothing. When you spark a flame, you automatically see the hot part of the flame(the reddish/yellow), even though the base/foundation is not hot. Although absolute something causation probably wasn't as fast as sparking a flame, the I think the same standard can apply in relative to the respective circumstance. Feel free to link me to your post.
edit on 28-3-2014 by deeezbeats because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Speaking of a related matter regarding God does anyone ever think where cold came from.

It was and is the original weather pattern in the background radiation.

So is cold the default condition of the universe?

Is God a transcendent ice sickle?

Cause believe me its cold way out there in the beginning



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 10:56 PM
link   
To my mind there’s only one way to get around the basic question.
Well then if God created everything then who created God?

Cleary nothing could have created God and things like “creation” and “existence” is a creation of God itself. Life and death are creations of the Transcendent eternal and infinite God.

Creation though only exists in a matrix of creation, such as this world, not in any independent reality.

That’s the only thing that holds logic, imo.

Metaphysically, I believe this universe is one of many and is of the nature of a creative matrix, that’s why we experience death.

Other universes or worlds or dimensions are not of a creative matrix so beings are immortal inside those worlds.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Willtell
Speaking of a related matter regarding God does anyone ever think where cold came from.

It was and is the original weather pattern in the background radiation.

So is cold the default condition of the universe?

Is God a transcendent ice sickle?

Cause believe me its cold way out there in the beginning

cold is the automatic reaction when heat isnt present. Certain topics like this are hard to give definite answers.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Willtell
To my mind there’s only one way to get around the basic question.
Well then if God created everything then who created God?

Cleary nothing could have created God and things like “creation” and “existence” is a creation of God itself. Life and death are creations of the Transcendent eternal and infinite God.

Creation though only exists in a matrix of creation, such as this world, not in any independent reality.

That’s the only thing that holds logic, imo.

Metaphysically, I believe this universe is one of many and is of the nature of a creative matrix, that’s why we experience death.

Other universes or worlds or dimensions are not of a creative matrix so beings are immortal inside those worlds.
God created God. And what I mean by that is given the circumstance of things (the way I view it), His coming into existence was something that had no other choice but to happen. Your theory of a non-creation.important seems strange. How does a non-creative matrix induce automatic immortality. Immortality could only be achieved through a succession of the right circumstances. In a Christian world view, our Kingdom of God bodies will be immortal because our bodies will be made perfect and the lifestyle we will live will be in harmony with how we were made to be. No defects interfering.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Strayed
Your perceptions seem to be stuck in thinking that "something" isn't the natural state of things. We know to the best of our knowledge energy cannot be created or destroyed… therefore it stands to reason that energy (what we and everything else is made of) has -always- been in various forms with various reactions relating to the various states (motion/cause). Instead of in the beginning there being nothing… I think it's more like in the beginning there was chaos (energy without perceived order). This isn't a new idea as the greeks though personified it a bit had it in mind that existance as we know it came from Chaos as well.
edit on 27-3-2014 by Strayed because: (no reason given)



BUT what does the law of entropy have to say about an infinitely-old universe? Existence prior to the creation of the universe must have been pretty bleak, so maybe a quick read of Philip Mainlander's explanation would provide a more satisfying (after a fashion) explanation of how it started and why it must end in disorder.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sch0penhauerPauer9001

Strayed
Your perceptions seem to be stuck in thinking that "something" isn't the natural state of things. We know to the best of our knowledge energy cannot be created or destroyed… therefore it stands to reason that energy (what we and everything else is made of) has -always- been in various forms with various reactions relating to the various states (motion/cause). Instead of in the beginning there being nothing… I think it's more like in the beginning there was chaos (energy without perceived order). This isn't a new idea as the greeks though personified it a bit had it in mind that existance as we know it came from Chaos as well.



BUT what does the law of entropy have to say about an infinitely-old universe? Existence prior to the creation of the universe must have been pretty bleak, so maybe a quick read of Philip Mainlander's explanation would provide a more satisfying (after a fashion) explanation of how it started and why it must end in disorder.


I think we don't know enough about existence and the origins of it to cause the observation of apparent entropy to be called a universal law… It's not usually me to say something like that but it's what I subjectively feel about the subject in relation to entropy.

Regarding the bleakness of it… I don't look at it as bleak.. I look at it if one was to consider the origins as what I mentioned as amazing… and makes us all the more amazing for existing as the things that we are. Thanks for the reply and it's noted that Philip Mainlander might prove to provide some interesting thoughts in the matter. I arrived at my position individually and stumbled onto the greek things much later but found it refreshing. The bleak thing was more in reference to a contrast to when people hold beliefs that say things like we are all individual snowflakes crafted by hand by a all caring all loving supernatural being, a perfect parent of parents if you will.

-Thanks again for pointing me in the direction of something that might be interesting.
edit on 17-4-2014 by Strayed because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: deeezbeats
So God technically is timeless and "always existed". So the opposite of pure nothingness would be pure somethingness or better yet Almightyness/Wholeness.


It's been a while since I seen a thread like this. One of my favorite topics and i must say, you've done a really good job explaining things. That last line is crucial. 'Pure Wholeness' is equal to what the Hermeticist call "The All". Truly a fascinating outlook.

One point to make. There are universal laws, according to the hermetic principles.

Read 'The Kybalion'. Especially since you like stuff like this. You'll find them there and you will find much much confirmation in your thoughts. It's an old, short, cheap book that you probably can find online for free (PDF).

Thanks for this post. It was worth logging in for after like 6 months lol.

S&F




edit on 17-4-2014 by Mizzijr because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 09:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: deeezbeats
God created God. And what I mean by that is given the circumstance of things (the way I view it), His coming into existence was something that had no other choice but to happen. Your theory of a non-creation.important seems strange. How does a non-creative matrix induce automatic immortality. Immortality could only be achieved through a succession of the right circumstances. In a Christian world view, our Kingdom of God bodies will be immortal because our bodies will be made perfect and the lifestyle we will live will be in harmony with how we were made to be. No defects interfering.


Your ultimatum is right (in the OP). The thing is though. If you look at God, Yahweh as an external source, the progression will not fit. There is no external God.

There is only the 'pure wholesomeness' you speak of. You are apart of God and God is apart of you. All is one and the one is all.

It seems like you've come to that conclusion, but it's apparent you are holding on to the Christian/religious values that is causing your theoretical progression to fall short.




top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join