Who is Gods creator?

page: 7
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Actually you have it all backwards. The Persians just copied the monotheistic idea of Alahym from the Hebrews. Sumerians made their own religion based on demons and visions they got from doing their own religious practices. Abraham already knew of Yahuwah, he did not invent his belief.

Noahs flood is a explanation of what happened by Noah's account. There is almost 300 flood legends that deal with 8 persons in a giant boat. And this story of the flood could have only come from Noah and his family cause the were the only people to survive it. Greeks stole ideas from other religions and made their own 'gods' after fallen Malak or demons that existed and they influenced the religion of the Romans, and the Hebrews and blended it into Catholicism which is Christianity today.

And you take other religious stories as fact like Gilgamesh and the Sumerians? Who said they are right?

Hebrews had their own religion and language, and of course the Egyptians spoke their own. Hebrew language stems back before the flood, thats why their is only 1 account of anything before the flood, the only information that survived came on the ark with Noah, in the Hebrew tongue the Scriptures. Books like Genesis, Enoch, some of the forbidden books of Eden and others. There is no other account of someone living before the flood but from those books.

How can you say the bible and Jews have nothing unique? Even in Hebrew the word Qadash means 'set apart'. Sounds to me the Hebrews are the only chosen people of the whole world to be different. Do you even know what your talking about or just quoting from scholars notes and wikipedia? Obviously you don't know. You speak like a theologian with a bunch of useless information about nothing.

And we evolved millions of years ago too right........that one always makes me laugh
edit on 2-11-2012 by Seektruthalways1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Seektruthalways1
 


I take all mythologies, including the biblical myths, with a grain of salt.

BTW, the Sanskit Vedic Scriptures have been proven to provide details of pre-flood city life. The Bible does not.


A vast number of statements and materials presented in the ancient Vedic literatures can be shown to agree with modern scientific findings and they also reveal a highly developed scientific content in these literatures. The great cultural wealth of this knowledge is highly relevant in the modern world.

Techniques used to show this agreement include:

• Marine Archaeology of underwater sites (such as Dvaraka)

• Satellite imagery of the Indus-Sarasvata River system,

• Carbon and Thermoluminiscence Dating of archaeological artifacts

• Scientific Verification of Scriptural statements

• Linguistic analysis of scripts found on archaeological artifacts

• A Study of cultural continuity in all these categories.

www.archaeologyonline.net...

• There are more than 2,500 Archaeological sites, two-thirds of which are along the recently discovered dried up Sarasvati River bed. These sites show a cultural continuity with the Vedic literature from the early Harrapan civilization up to the present day India.

• The significance of establishing this date for the drying up of the Sarasvati River is, that it pushes the date for the composition of the Rig Veda back to approximately 3,000 B.C.E., as enunciated by the Vedic tradition itself.

"Pure in her course from the mountains to the ocean, alone of streams Sarasvati hath listened."

The mighty Sarasvati River and it's civilization are referred to in the Rig Veda more than fifty times, proving that the drying up of the Sarasvati River was subsequent to the origin of the Rig Veda




This is my favorite creation story, from the Rig Veda


Who really knows, and who can swear,
How creation came, when or where!
Even gods came after creation’s day,
Who really knows, who can truly say
When and how did creation start?
Did He do it? Or did He not?
Only He, up there, knows, maybe;
Or perhaps, not even He.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Why is it a 'he', anyway? Why is there a gender at all?



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   


TexSo take a seat in the chair of the greatest mystery of all and ponder.t
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


I read your post and pondered. Have really been pondering this for a number of years without a solution.
Even though I have not reached the solution, there are some things that have emerged from my thinking about a God.

I finally realized that I have been in a different substance than God is in and that may be one of the reasons that I am not satisfied. This particular creation in which I exist only applies to this particular pattern which we call a universe. It is a common belief that all of the material in the universe is of a common substance. I can't really prove that but the evidence that we have does favor that belief. If that is true then this creation or happening exists in uniform matter. In other words dirt is dirt and water is water throughout the entire universe

Now suppose that this universe is a creation of God. I can't prove that either but I would rather believe that it is a creation rather than a happening. If that is true then God created (brought forth) all of this visible and invisible universe and put it in the order that suited Him. It is commonly believed that most of this universe is invisible to our understanding and that is why I said visible and invisible. This being true to my mind is the reason that I call this universe a creation.

Why then, I thought, would the invisible matter of this universe be so different to believe than would any other invisible pattern outside of this universe? After all, doesn't science tell us that this universe has invisible force called dark matter? I can't prove this invisibility, which we call dark energy or dark matter, but what if there were more than one force of invisibility and several avenues of understanding these forces of invisibility?

Why is it difficult to believe that there is an outside containment for this universe? Doesn't science teach this themselves as they teach that the universe is expanding? How can the universe expand without space to expand into? Either the universe is the creator and creates its own space to expand into or there is space already created for the universe to expand into. In either case there must be an invisibility to show the expansion.

This is why I came to the conclusion that there is a infinite celestial realm outside of this universe. i simply call this celestial in order to differentiate it from the universe. This celestial realm must be of a different substance than this universe simply because the universe expands into this celestial invisibility. If the universe expanded into like force then naturally there would be a collision of forces. Now this is accepted science at its best because it is accepted in this scientific world that the universe is expanding.

Now if the celestial realm is the existence of God or if God is the infinite celestial realm itself then this universe is contained in this celestial vessel in which it is expanding. What would be the odds of the infinite celestial realm also be a happening?? Not very comprehensive is it?

If one would say that the infinite celestial realm is also a happening then that one would have to delve further into their mind to conclude that the celestial realm also has a containment and another happening. You do understand that the odds are more fantastic the further that one denies a Creator? Or for that matter we could not call the celestial realm infinite could we? If it were infinite then it would not have a container. How much further could we go into this without going insane?

After all of this pondering. I came to no proof whatsoever in trying to reason with this problem and so I found it much less taxing to simply believe in a Creator. After all, I can't stop the universe from expanding and neither can I prove what the ancients have already said. By using the tools of modern science I have to accept the so called fact that this universe is expanding into another substance and if I believe that as a fact then I must conclude that there is something outside of this universe for it to expand into. That, in my mind, would teach me that the universe is not self contained and is influenced by the outside force in which it is expanding into.

Now what have I shown? Simply more confusion but one thing to consider. There must be at least two distinct substances that exist in our understanding. Maybe even more than two. We know that our existence as is shown in the terrestrial body does indeed change. That is an observable fact, but we do not know anything more than that. If we could understand the invisibility force then perhaps we could understand the universe.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


I used to have a problem with that too.

I think that we refer to GOD as being a male energy because it is the spirit that impregnates inert matter. The spirit animates the body and it's intention, applied science, can change or alter matter.




posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 




I think that we refer to GOD as being a male energy because it is the spirit that impregnates inert matter. The spirit animates the body and it's intention, applied science, can change or alter matter.


No, it's because we're used to thinking of males as dominant. And what is a god, if not dominant?



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Yeah!

I should have added that there are a number of creation myths that have the creator being female.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


My personal observation is that the Law exhibits both male and female traits. There is no predominant gender to be seen. Balance. Should either black or white grow more powerful or more influential, it would eventually throw the system off balance, causing the region or plane to slide into chaos until the balance is corrected.

Fortunately, it is also my observation that the Law naturally corrects itself as part of a "learning process" - or more precisely, a growing process. The Law motivates the energy of the universe to build and rebuild itself through destruction and rebirth in an infinite series of cycles, which means that order inevitably sinks into chaos before rising into an even greater order.

In this sense, you could say that "God" - or as I call it, the Law - wasn't created in the generic sense. It actually engendered itself, and continues to recreate itself.
edit on 3-11-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


This of course is the argument against an argument for God vis-a-vis first cause. Kant thought we were justified in knowing God as a first cause of nature. But arguments for God as a necessary first cause Kant showed to be fallacious. Hard not to sympathize with the great man. At least I think so.

plato.stanford.edu...



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Bumping a great little thread. I think were very limited in our understanding of life and the universe because all weve ever known is linear time, and chickens and eggs. Everything has to have a creator in our view, but does it? does it really? seriously, what REALLY do we know?
Why cant the universe have always been here?



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by thedoctorswife
 


Because that defies the laws of physics...AS WE KNOW THEM.

But again, that brings us back to your question: what do we REALLY know? All too often, we mistake perception for knowledge. I mean, all knowledge is perception, but our perception is limited by our understanding, which results in incomplete knowledge. But we're unwilling to admit that we can take nothing for granted, because that would mean we can trust nothing.

And who really wants to live a paranoid life where you're not even sure if you, yourself, are real?



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


ignorance created God; through out history when we could not explain something we said it was a god or gods ( which ever one you prefer) but as soon as we could prove something scientifically you take "God" out of the picture



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jed001
 


I'm tired of people saying, "We know god and he hates you!" and people saying, "There is no god and we hate you!".

There is a universal principle that we are applying anthropomorphic characteristics to. Both parties are being silly with their drawings, and are too proud to admit it.
edit on 5-11-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by thedoctorswife
 


Because that defies the laws of physics...AS WE KNOW THEM.

But again, that brings us back to your question: what do we REALLY know? All too often, we mistake perception for knowledge. I mean, all knowledge is perception, but our perception is limited by our understanding, which results in incomplete knowledge. But we're unwilling to admit that we can take nothing for granted, because that would mean we can trust nothing.

And who really wants to live a paranoid life where you're not even sure if you, yourself, are real?


I was pondering these exaxt words in my mind a few days ago...

I was thinking that way but couldnt find a way to put it into words.

Thank you



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   
The original refence of this post of the argument of who created god is appealling to a logical hueristic of Occams Razor. The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Philosophers point out also that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced. Moreover this argument is usually used to shift the burden of proof. I dont believe this argument valid in supernatural explanatory potential. While i agree that the simplest theory is the best theory concerning the origins of the universe, these are observations of natural properties. To extend the argument to the super natural is to assert that logical principles apply to the supernatural. Anything including logic that is natural cannot be applied to somthing supernatural, as nothing about it is natural.

There are 3 proposed truths
Subjective
Objective
Absolute

If human perception and fallibility prevent us in our mental capacity to observe any absolute truth, then objective truth seeks out the anwser least susceptable to human fallibility. Subjective truth therefore is the most susceptable to human fallibility. One could say that because claims of supernatural events causing natural events is the product of the natural it can be observed, while this is true the mechanisms of the supernatural dont have the requirement to leave any sort of evidence of intervention. Its supernatural and no natural explaination exists that could present any objective truth, meaning any truth would be subjective in nature.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by weston19
 



There are 3 proposed truths
Subjective
Objective
Absolute


I wanted to respond to this in particular, as related to human understanding. Obviously, human understand and human experience are both limited. As such, we are capable of very few absolute truths. However, we do not reach nearly as many objective truths as we should, simply because we feel more comfortable with subjective truths - due to the vanity complex that has been instilled in us as a species for corporate and mass manipulative purposes.

Therefore, it's quite safe to speculate that at least 50% of what we think we know, is actually incomplete and/or erroneous, unless we have physical proof that supports logical theory which is statistically more likely to be accurate than the other possibilities.

We are biased, and we are emotional. That alone...objective is difficult enough, let alone absolute. Most absolutes only apply under conditions, as well.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


While im in agreement that objective truth is elusive due to human nature, and that subjective truth is emotionally fullfilling, is has no bearing on what we can percieve as true. Pursuit of objective truth is paramount regardless of its elusivity, or the difficulty in human understanding in percieving and establishing objective truth that isnt subjected to fallibility. I could further elaborate my position, however i feel as though its a discussion in itself and would be detrimental to the subject of this thread. I think we are in agreement for the most part, from my subjective interpretation of your reply.

Back to my initial point, because anything supernatural has no adherence to logical laws or natural ones, this disscussion is mute in point. The argument of the thiest will immovable be that a supernatural being is not subjected to natural law. Trying to subject said supernatural being to natural anything is committing intellectual dishonesty, as by definition, god is supernatural and the argument seeks special pleading that a god would be subjected to natural law or anything natural in origin. Athiests, you are commiting a logical fallicy to assert that god has any grounding in the natural. There is no reason to shift the burden of proof. If Thiest find the statement that the universe came from nothing objectional, there still is no argument. As an Athiest you reject anyhing supernatural as it is unobservable, making any objective truth statements impossible. Thiest can assert that the universe was indeed created, but by the same context as i said before, have no way to find objective truth in that statement, as nothing about the supernatural is observable objectively. The thiests argument both works for the assertion that god is supernatural and undefinable by natural law or logic, but also presents the argument that observable truth cannot be presented about the existance of god to begin with. ( this is not to discredit anyones single subjective position of a god, as if you state the evidence for the argument from a subjective position, nobody can in any capacity prove you wrong once youve accepted a subjective truth, altough aspects of objective truth could tilt positions as we are compelled to further our understanding by our own human nature)

To validate my point, i point to the sum of subjective positions of a deity existing and the objective position that said diety not being within the realm of objective truth, as its supernatural in nature, rejecting said claim on the premise of unlimited sources of fallibility.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by weston19
 



While im in agreement that objective truth is elusive due to human nature, and that subjective truth is emotionally fullfilling, is has no bearing on what we can percieve as true.


I have to disagree with that. Considering our society encourages us to chase our greed, caterto our gluttony, entertain our wrath, bolster our pride, indulge our lust, and reinvent sloth, our emotions control the majority of our behavior. Fear, lust, greed, pride, spite, all these things play a predominant role in our lives.

As such, we find it increasingly difficult to consider anything other than a subjective view, because we only care about how WE feel about something. 'Good' and 'evil' are prime examples, as we use these words all the time, never realizing we're just describing ourselves. Every time we label something, that label adds a definition to who we are and how we think. Otherwise, we would never use such a label for such a thing. It reveals how we look at it, how we feel about it, what we'd rather have, all that stuff - especially when someone else wanders along and slaps a completely different label on it.


Pursuit of objective truth is paramount regardless of its elusivity, or the difficulty in human understanding in percieving and establishing objective truth that isnt subjected to fallibility.


That's easy to say. Objective truth is only objective insofar as you are able to consider many points of view. Considering how many perspectives we are encouraged to consider, and for what reasons, we never really know if we're actually seeing it as it is, or if we're biased on somelevel and simply unwilling to admit it even to ourselves.

And the limitations of the human mind only underline this fact.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


I respectfully disagree. It seems your appealing to metaphysical idealism. I agree to a great deal of certainty, that we can never paint a complete picture based on limitation of the nature of information and how it is percieved. However consider this. Slavery at one time, even in the eyes of god, was morally acceptable. Men used subjective justifications to in concert to justify slavery. However, i will assert that the exploitation of human nature to this end is objectively immoral.

Because life is preferable to death, by human nature, and it has been exploited, for subjectivly justifiable reasons, but cannot be objectively justified. I understand im using subjective and objective in its simplist form, and is a debate upon itself, that good things can come from subjectivity, but it must be measured to the stick of objectivity, or else we once again create the dillemma of being able to justify any action subjectivly. It would do the world alot of good to hold themselves responsible for there own fallibility, and pursue a truth that has as little subjectivity as humanly possible and strive for objectivity.

Its the same argument as political correctness. Nobody can be right, which also means nobody can be wrong. To appeal to objectivity is to euchre this immoral assertion that there is no right or wrong. The objective truth may latter be found with new evidence to be subjective in nature, but i appeal to veracity of science to weigh this. To change positions based on new evidence is in no way subjective and purely objective. Once again creating the moral dillemma and further confusing everybody as to whats true. For example homosexuality is immoral, in no way can subjectivity overcome this obstacle. Whatever your position is, its irrelevent. It must be objectively justified, as the nature of moral and ethics must be.

Clearly nobody can tell you how to live your life, which is subjective. Objectivity offers suggestions based on veracity. Im sorry, but no higher authority can trump this logic, as is the nature of information. That higher authority cannot present this argument objectively, and can only do so subjectively. The evidence presents itself, as so many people are snookered by the presentation of information, and the inherent nature of it. In no capacity can the argument of fallibility within objectivity trump it, as very clearly occam has proposed the position that offers the simplest theory until one with greater explainatory power is presented. Objectivity inherently has more explainatory power, in which subjectivity should never be chosen over the objective. To do so results in justifications in appeals to emotion and are inherently illogical until a better solution presents itself.

Based upon the nature of god, supernatural in existance, believers should not be presented with logical arguments to either prove or disprove the existance. The logical arguments must be applied to the believers themselves, as they are human, and inherently natural. Occams razor could be applied to justify non belief, in that presented with multiple theories (religions), to determine one based on veracity is not possible. Non offer better explaination than the other, and to take a simpler position of non belief, is the logical conclusion. If they simply wish to believe based on appeals to emotion, we cannot objectivly justify expecting them to further logically justify said position. This is not to say that it isnt done, lots of apologetics will create logical arguments to present the existance of god, however the premise of the argument is loaded.

Assertion of existance is implied, and using occams razor once again, they slide the burden of proof back to the atheist, comming full circle over and over and over. Its simply exhanging a burden of evidence that is not objectively available, and subjective. Once again the athiest is snookered back into a subjective arguement that nobody can win, because if its subjective you assert nobody can tell you your wrong, due to the lack of objectivity. As an atheist myself, i fully support in all my capacity that you the believer has every right to believe your sect. I will also assert that its immoral to tell sombody subjectively they are wrong. As we cannot determine objectively wether or not a god exists, the argument is over. This arguement is entirely out of frustration to the lack of objectivity in other matters, trying to provide a kick to the teeth of the thiests. Simply put, thiest claims earth is 6000 years old, asserts that evolution is debunked, and the universe cannot come from nothing. In every regard these positions are subjective and hold no veracity. However because of the subjective nature everyone is left bashing there heads through the walls at lack of objectivity. Retaliation? Definatly. Illogical? Definatly.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   
I will propose, that the very foundations of good and evil are ultimatly derived from subjective and objective truth. Without going into detail, simply to every extent most heros have some objective justification while the villian has some subjective justification. Not always the case but somthing to consider as an emergent property of the mind. Also why heros seeking retribution are always dubbed "anti-heros". The subjective justifications may be more reasonable than the villian however the lack of objectivity discredits his cause to subjective.





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum