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

This is just a theory that can't be tested or proved. Although it is still a plausible theory that allowed me to make sense of things.

For a pretty long time, I've been trying my best to understand what life actually is and how weird it is that I can only see through my eyes and I have no idea what goes on in other peoples minds(thoughts). It was then I realized that souls are perceivers but the body itself is a reactor. When I say reactor I mean whatever influences are surrounding us, we will respond to them one way or the other. If there was absolute nothing to react to, then we would be dormant/inactive.

Now there are different type of reactors/interactors. You have Type 1 interacter/reactors such as humans/animals that are souls(percievers) and make decisions. You have Type 2 interactor/reactors such as plants that aren't souls but are still considered living organisms because they need energy to keep going. Then you have your Type 3 interactor/reactors(inanimate objects) such which as steel and food (harvested plants or meat/flesh) that don't need energy but still react to environments and expire or get rusty/worn down.

Now the big bang says that the universe came from a single singularity until it suddenly expanded. Also nobody knows what exists outside of the universe. So hypothetically speaking, lets say that the universe contracted back to that singularity but our bodies became non-tangible so we wouldn't be compressed back into that singularity. Where exactly in this realm of nothingness would we be located? What would our coordinates be if there was nothing to measure by? Taking this a bit father would be, how long/far did this nothingness stretch out?

Everything in the universe is made of atoms and molecules so I'll use water as a demonstration. Water is made of 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom. Both are non-tangible until they are combined to become tangible water. Likewise the same could be said about the universe. Whatever created the physical universe must have had a non-tangible origin. But for an atheist the question might be when the big bang happened which came first? The neutron, proton, or electron ect.? Matter or anti-matter? Were these all chemical results of the big bang reaction or did these always exists within that singularity? If they did or didn't always exist, did, one come before the other and what came before that first atom?

So now we have established that prior to the physical universe's coming to be, there was absolute nothingness. The question I would have is what is exactly is nothing? If I was to touch this nothingness how would it feel? When you look up in the sky, the amount of space between you and the clouds isn't pure nothingness. It's filled with the gases of earth's atmosphere. This nothingness couldn't be properly comparable to outer-space since nothingness came before gravity. So there would be nothing holding you down and keeping you in place.

I think this can be compared to sleep, when we are not dreaming of course. When we sleep, time goes by quickly because our bodies are in shut down mode and our consciousness isn't perceiving anything. No time no nothing. So when you wake up, it's similar to that of a time machine. When I sleep, those who are awake are able to percieve time around them. So what would seem like 8 hours to an awake person, would seem like 5 minutes to a sleep person.

There is always/ a positive for a negative(opposites). There's matter and anti-matter. There's light and dark. One being the presense of light and the other being a absense of light. There's hot and cold. One being the presense of heat and the other being the absense of heat. There's carbon dioxide and there's oxygen. Even though I don't think they are exact opposites, they can be considered opposites since they are interchangable with one another. There's salty(sodium), and there's non-salty(no sodium). I don't think they are exact opposites, but can be comparable the same way.

Now let's say in the presense of nothingness, there came to be the opposite of nothing and there came to be something. That something would most likely be non-tangible since it is in the presense of nothing. That something would have the ability to percieve that there is nothing. In addition since there is no Universal Laws yet in existence. This something had the ability to do whatever. Literally whatever. This includes giving life and the ability to create.

This ties in with the meaning of the Biblical Gods name Yahweh/Jehovah/YHWH Which means He causes to become/To become/I will be what I will Be. Therefore it's reasonable to understand why his name is a verb/verb-like. So the cause of God's existence was the result of the exact opposite of complete nothing. Therefore being the true beginning of the cause of future events such as creation.

If you've watched videos about the Big Bang Theory/Creation of the universe, you would notice that they frequently mention how if x factor didn't happen the right way then x result wouldn't have occured. The Universe is finely tuned to function the way it does/did. Was this all coincidence or was something guiding it? All I know is factories don't build themselves. Even one of the scientists in the video I watched, compared creation of things in the universe to that of an assembly line.

Let's face it.The idea of having absolutely no beginning seems impossible to imagine. The same is with absolute nothingness. So we have to make sense of it somehow. After all we are existing this very moment. So it's possible to say that since there was absolute nothingness to start with, This "something" existed as the opposite to to counteract this nothingness or something along that line.

During this period of nothingness there would be no way to measure time the same way archaeologists measure how long something existed with forensics ect.
So God technically is timeless and "always existed". So the opposite of pure nothingness would be pure somethingness or better yet Almightyness/Wholeness.

edit on 26-3-2014 by deeezbeats because: (no reason given)

Yes I understand this completely. I hate to bring up Jainism again on ATS but it speaks of how everything has always been here, but has changed form over time. Even the Holy Vedas speaks of the Universal Egg.. Anyhow good job

I dont think there was ever nothing. I think the singularity was something. An object with no reference except to itself. Nothing was defined about it because it had nothing to compare itself to. It was the pure, unified subject. It didn't possess any objective quality. Even math did not exist. But despite having no objective existence, the singularity still existed. At some point, time, space, and internal observation came to be. This created so-called objectivity. The universe divided within itself and relative comparisons were able to be made. Laws were made. Mechanics of the pure subject came to exist. The whole universe, operating with mechanics, combined together to form again, the perfect subject that which, as a singularity, has none.

smithjustinb
I dont think there was ever nothing. I think the singularity was something. An object with no reference except to itself. Nothing was defined about it because it had nothing to compare itself to. It was the pure, unified subject. It didn't possess any objective quality. Even math did not exist. But despite having no objective existence, the singularity still existed. At some point, time, space, and internal observation came to be. This created so-called objectivity. The universe divided within itself and relative comparisons were able to be made. Laws were made. Mechanics of the pure subject came to exist. The whole universe, operating with mechanics, combined together to form again, the perfect subject that which, as a singularity, has none.

But then that would trigger the eternal question of how did the singularity achieve the ability to be there. Doesn't seem to answer the question of the motion/cause if it always was there and that it didn't appear/generate. The appearing being the beginning of causes.

deeezbeats

smithjustinb
I dont think there was ever nothing. I think the singularity was something. An object with no reference except to itself. Nothing was defined about it because it had nothing to compare itself to. It was the pure, unified subject. It didn't possess any objective quality. Even math did not exist. But despite having no objective existence, the singularity still existed. At some point, time, space, and internal observation came to be. This created so-called objectivity. The universe divided within itself and relative comparisons were able to be made. Laws were made. Mechanics of the pure subject came to exist. The whole universe, operating with mechanics, combined together to form again, the perfect subject that which, as a singularity, has none.

But then that would trigger the eternal question of how did the singularity achieve the ability to be there. Doesn't seem to answer the question of the motion/cause if it always was there and that it didn't appear/generate. The appearing being the beginning of causes.

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.

Me being an atheist I actually do accept that the universe has always been either in it's current state or a singularity, and that it will eventually end up back to that singularity once again, it'll just take a really, really, really long time. But as for a god who caused all this, I highly doubt it.
I mean, there could have been a thousand more universes before this one, and maybe along the way some uber race happened to be created and they survived the 'big crunch' but we may never ever know. Which is why I just accept the fact I was born into this world and I live day by day

Strayed

deeezbeats

smithjustinb
I dont think there was ever nothing. I think the singularity was something. An object with no reference except to itself. Nothing was defined about it because it had nothing to compare itself to. It was the pure, unified subject. It didn't possess any objective quality. Even math did not exist. But despite having no objective existence, the singularity still existed. At some point, time, space, and internal observation came to be. This created so-called objectivity. The universe divided within itself and relative comparisons were able to be made. Laws were made. Mechanics of the pure subject came to exist. The whole universe, operating with mechanics, combined together to form again, the perfect subject that which, as a singularity, has none.

But then that would trigger the eternal question of how did the singularity achieve the ability to be there. Doesn't seem to answer the question of the motion/cause if it always was there and that it didn't appear/generate. The appearing being the beginning of causes.

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)

It's said that matter/energy can't be destroyed, But anti-matter exists. So it's possible to take things out of existance.

deeezbeats

Strayed

deeezbeats

smithjustinb
I dont think there was ever nothing. I think the singularity was something. An object with no reference except to itself. Nothing was defined about it because it had nothing to compare itself to. It was the pure, unified subject. It didn't possess any objective quality. Even math did not exist. But despite having no objective existence, the singularity still existed. At some point, time, space, and internal observation came to be. This created so-called objectivity. The universe divided within itself and relative comparisons were able to be made. Laws were made. Mechanics of the pure subject came to exist. The whole universe, operating with mechanics, combined together to form again, the perfect subject that which, as a singularity, has none.

But then that would trigger the eternal question of how did the singularity achieve the ability to be there. Doesn't seem to answer the question of the motion/cause if it always was there and that it didn't appear/generate. The appearing being the beginning of causes.

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)

It's said that matter/energy can't be destroyed, But anti-matter exists. So it's possible to take things out of existance.

Do more research and try to open your mind to the possibility that energy has always been (as there is more (only?) proof by the nature of energy as we know it that it always was than wasn't.) The existence of antimatter doesn't do anything to dispel the notion that energy has always been. Antimatter -is- matter that simply reacts with it's counterpart that results in annihilation which in physics is not as it may sound to you. Annihilation is a energy reaction resulting in energy in various forms which further react with corresponding energy in various forms on the same scale/level.

You are forgetting that gas is also tangible. Its also mass. Cool hydrogen to 220 degrees celsius below and you'll see that along with everything else would be sucked into your singularity. And how would god think without a brain. And if he had a brain, he would be a creature like me and you - and exist on a planet... Not create the planets them selves. Unless he could manipulate gravity and mass that is. Keep on thinking though, it's good for you.

reply to post by deeezbeats


deeez --- good thread but your title is somewhat contradictory for how can God "came into existence" if He always existed - eternal?

Something that is Eternal means it has no Beginning and no end.

Hence God has no beginning and end.

br0ker
You are forgetting that gas is also tangible. Its also mass. Cool hydrogen to 220 degrees celsius below and you'll see

that along with everything else would be sucked into your singularity. And how would god think without a brain. And if he had a brain, he would be a creature like me and you - and exist on a planet... Not create the planets them selves. Unless he could manipulate gravity and mass that is. Keep on thinking though, it's good for you.

I know it wasn't addressed at me but: How do we think with a brain? We still aren't so sure of the root of consciousness for all we know the series of connections that forms our consciousness could spring from or be stored in a dimension we are not aware of. Also while we have a decent idea of some of the basic composition of the fabric of reality… we really don't know what reality/existence is/cannot be sure we aren't living in plato's cave.

The nature of existence/consciousness as we may know it gets twisted further if you've done research into persistence after death/without a body and found something that moves you to think there may be something to it.

reply to post by edmc^2

I don't accept the mainstream interpretation of The Eternal always existed God. I beleive that he is Eternal in the sense that there was absolutly nothing at the true beginning. while at the same time there was absolutly nothing existing, there came to be something as the opposite.
Isaiah 43:10" You are my witnesses, declares YHWH God.........Before me no God was formed,...

If there was nothing to measure time by the same way archaologists determine the date of things, then yes He is Eternal. You can't measure how long nothing existed before something did .Just like how can't Measure how long God existed if he is the creator of all things existing. I believe he is the start of timeand the end of pre-time. Is this a paradox? maybe. But nothing else makes sense so i'll just stick with this indefinite resolution.
Revelation 23:13"I am the Al′pha and the O·me′ga, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

br0ker
You are forgetting that gas is also tangible. Its also mass. Cool hydrogen to 220 degrees celsius below and you'll see

that along with everything else would be sucked into your singularity. And how would god think without a brain. And if he had a brain, he would be a creature like me and you - and exist on a planet... Not create the planets them selves. Unless he could manipulate gravity and mass that is. Keep on thinking though, it's good for you.

God doesn't need a human brain because he isn't human. He is the Complete Something. Hard to fathom complete nothing-ness right? How much more so with Complete something-ness. Keep in mind the sleep/awake anology mentioned in the Op.

Strayed

deeezbeats

Strayed

deeezbeats

smithjustinb
I dont think there was ever nothing. I think the singularity was something. An object with no reference except to itself. Nothing was defined about it because it had nothing to compare itself to. It was the pure, unified subject. It didn't possess any objective quality. Even math did not exist. But despite having no objective existence, the singularity still existed. At some point, time, space, and internal observation came to be. This created so-called objectivity. The universe divided within itself and relative comparisons were able to be made. Laws were made. Mechanics of the pure subject came to exist. The whole universe, operating with mechanics, combined together to form again, the perfect subject that which, as a singularity, has none.

But then that would trigger the eternal question of how did the singularity achieve the ability to be there. Doesn't seem to answer the question of the motion/cause if it always was there and that it didn't appear/generate. The appearing being the beginning of causes.

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)

It's said that matter/energy can't be destroyed, But anti-matter exists. So it's possible to take things out of existance.

Do more research and try to open your mind to the possibility that energy has always been (as there is more (only?) proof by the nature of energy as we know it that it always was than wasn't.) The existence of antimatter doesn't do anything to dispel the notion that energy has always been. Antimatter -is- matter that simply reacts with it's counterpart that results in annihilation which in physics is not as it may sound to you. Annihilation is a energy reaction resulting in energy in various forms which further react with corresponding energy in various forms on the same scale/level.

edit on 27-3-2014 by Strayed because: (no reason given)

I've tryed thinking about it. Energy always being doesn't sit well with me. The notion doesn't seem to answer what the first cause was. Energy=motion. So saying that energy always existed means there is no first cause and that the cause was already in motion without having a definite beginning of cause/reason.

deeezbeats

Strayed

deeezbeats

Strayed

deeezbeats

smithjustinb
I dont think there was ever nothing. I think the singularity was something. An object with no reference except to itself. Nothing was defined about it because it had nothing to compare itself to. It was the pure, unified subject. It didn't possess any objective quality. Even math did not exist. But despite having no objective existence, the singularity still existed. At some point, time, space, and internal observation came to be. This created so-called objectivity. The universe divided within itself and relative comparisons were able to be made. Laws were made. Mechanics of the pure subject came to exist. The whole universe, operating with mechanics, combined together to form again, the perfect subject that which, as a singularity, has none.

But then that would trigger the eternal question of how did the singularity achieve the ability to be there. Doesn't seem to answer the question of the motion/cause if it always was there and that it didn't appear/generate. The appearing being the beginning of causes.

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)

It's said that matter/energy can't be destroyed, But anti-matter exists. So it's possible to take things out of existance.

Do more research and try to open your mind to the possibility that energy has always been (as there is more (only?) proof by the nature of energy as we know it that it always was than wasn't.) The existence of antimatter doesn't do anything to dispel the notion that energy has always been. Antimatter -is- matter that simply reacts with it's counterpart that results in annihilation which in physics is not as it may sound to you. Annihilation is a energy reaction resulting in energy in various forms which further react with corresponding energy in various forms on the same scale/level.

edit on 27-3-2014 by Strayed because: (no reason given)

I've tryed thinking about it. Energy always being doesn't sit well with me. The notion doesn't seem to answer what the first cause was. Energy=motion. So saying that energy always existed means there is no first cause and that the cause was already in motion without having a definite beginning of cause/reason.

Energy = Energy (everything really in various states) which has many forms which reacts with energy differently in the various states. Energy always existing is pretty much what we can deduce from knowing to the best of our knowledge that it cannot be created or destroyed, just changes form. We know energy in various forms reacts with energy… for instance how what we label the negative and positive interacts… from knowing this we can hypothesize we don't need a first mover because of the very nature of the various forms of energy itself inspires a perpetual type of motion theoretically. Sorry if that's redundant but I hope that's as clear as I think it is, scotch and all that.

reply to post by deeezbeats


IMO
Nothing means no thing. It doesn’t mean absent of anything.
In other words a thing is a functional entity such as a car.

Before the car there was steel and other elements around that were collected and made into a car. Before that these items were NO THING…NOTHING

There is no such thing as something coming from literally nothing (absence of anything)

The thing about God is that he is beyond time and space and has no origin. Of course that is mysterious and inexplicable but it has to be accepted in theory for any logic to ensue out of the universe.
The other mystery about God is that he or she is everything except the developmental reality of the involution of himself.

That in which we don't define as God such as evil and ignorance is a developmental phenomenon caused by God...such as for example growth.

reply to post by Strayed


That's the problem with believing in energy always existing. I believe that certain things that seem unfathomable, can be fathomed depending on how you approach the matter. Since energy always existed, then there was always infinite motion. Infinite is just a way of describing something that lasts a long time while interpreting it indefinitly. But in the real unfathomable world. so I personally feel, that to say energy always existed doesn't make sense unless you were to say energy was the first cause. But that would mean that there was a time when moving energy/energy was not. So I would try to apply my God theory to something like this. Except of course Jehiovah is that energy.

reply to post by Willtell


I understand how you say that something comes out nothing doesn't making sense. But there's different categories of nothing. #1 is the atmosphere. Sure you would assume there's nothing there, but gases are. The Pure nothing I'm talking about is nothing like what can be experienced today, because there is always something. The nothing I'm talking about is an indefinite amount of space that contains no light/energy/gas/dust/atom within its given area. You either believe energy was always there(Including God or not) or you believe in a big bang. Big bang says the singularity came from nowhere so my idea of something coming from nothing isn't that crazy. As suppose to something that always been.

I don't want go too off the wall here, but recently I've been interested in fire. The base of the flame isn't what is hot. It's the top of the flame that exerts it's heating energy. So just like how when you start a flame, it automatically becomes a full flame with a not hot foundation but a very hot exertation.
But I haven't developed my fire/God comparison so I'll just leave you with heads up that it's not definite.

deeezbeats
reply to post by Strayed

 

That's the problem with believing in energy always existing. I believe that certain things that seem unfathomable, can be fathomed depending on how you approach the matter. Since energy always existed, then there was always infinite motion. Infinite is just a way of describing something that lasts a long time while interpreting it indefinitly. But in the real unfathomable world. so I personally feel, that to say energy always existed doesn't make sense unless you were to say energy was the first cause. But that would mean that there was a time when moving energy/energy was not. So I would try to apply my God theory to something like this. Except of course Jehiovah is that energy.

Actually infinite means infinite… boundless/limitless; You say you believe the unfathomable can be fathomed but instead of actually fathoming infinity you simply redefined it/limited it to understand it. In regard to this subject I can fathom infinity/without true beginning just fine because I'm not locked into the concept that "Nothing existing" is the natural/prior state of things (no evidence of this anywhere). It is to say the nature of energy would be your first cause (though I think "root cause" would be a better term aligning with infinite existence and motion) and it doesn't mean that it was ever not… it in fact means just the opposite but your locked into thinking there has to be a starting point/beginning of everything coming from nothing for some reason (despite not having a sturdy foundation for such a stance) which is fine but then it borders more on faith than on reason relating to what can be deduced empirically.

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.