Question for those who are willing to ponder the possibility that we and the universe were created

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

Okay but there's one small problem with that logic, and it's that you don't make the rules so you can't say "no that's not how it works" because you're just a mortal using a keyboard to argue theoretical divine physics with strangers on the internet. It's not like you have a college degree in the subject signed by the pope in angel's blood or whatever. Our guess is as good as yours.

Why would something that is not created, fall under the requirements for created things? I can't take credit for this logic, Plato was one of the early ones to claim that the apex Creator must have been unbegotten. It surpasses the paradox of something coming from nothing as well, since God always existed

originally posted by: cooperton
It surpasses the paradox of something coming from nothing as well, since God always existed

Once you propose that this is a possibility it opens up the door to the universe always existing and not needing a creator.

When part of your argument is "something can't come from nothing" you undo it by saying god (something) came from nothing.

It ain't that hard to grasp.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

Okay but there's one small problem with that logic, and it's that you don't make the rules so you can't say "no that's not how it works" because you're just a mortal using a keyboard to argue theoretical divine physics with strangers on the internet. It's not like you have a college degree in the subject signed by the pope in angel's blood or whatever. Our guess is as good as yours.

Why would something that is not created, fall under the requirements for created things? I can't take credit for this logic, Plato was one of the early ones to claim that the apex Creator must have been unbegotten. It surpasses the paradox of something coming from nothing as well, since God always existed

And that's the purpose of "unbegotten magic" , not answering a question but defeating its necessity with a non sequitur that neither coheres to context nor illuminates the solution. It is the reasoning equivalent of cutting a knot in half, as the legend goes. In a word, lazy. Science doesn't do lazy.

a reply to: TzarChasm

The founders pledge is certain about "Death and Taxes" in their "meaning of life" stance and philosophy. For a stable running society to continue to function.

ANYTHING "new" they feel uncertain about? They go back to it.

What you're speaking of means death and an increase and or penalty as a "death" tax. Dead on the floor or dead on arrival means they have already made the killing in both places.

When they were "wrong" they know it beyond a shadow of a doubt and ask for a "continuance".

originally posted by: daskakik


When part of your argument is "something can't come from nothing" you undo it by saying god (something) came from nothing.

It ain't that hard to grasp.

No God didn't come from nothing. God never had to come to be because He is eternal. Do you understand this distinction?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

And that's the purpose of "unbegotten magic" , not answering a question but defeating its necessity with a non sequitur that neither coheres to context nor illuminates the solution. It is the reasoning equivalent of cutting a knot in half, as the legend goes. In a word, lazy. Science doesn't do lazy.

It absolutely coheres to the context. Intelligible things that are created require a creator... things that are not created (God) do not require such a thing.

a reply to: daskakik
God isn't something......

There are no 'things'. 'Things' are thought forms (wording). Without thought no 'thing' can be.
All there is, is this, this eternal now. And now, this moment, is not a 'thing'..... it's everything......the whole shebang.
Without this 'now', which is not a 'thing', where would anything appear?

It is only a human mind that makes 'things' out of nothing.

'This' is another term for 'God'.

This, this, this...... eternally.

Naming is the origin of all particular things. Tao te Ching.

a reply to: Itisnowagain
Now this sounds like the Itisnowagain that I remember.

Problem is that this idea doesn't actually fit the biblical description of god.

originally posted by: cooperton
No God didn't come from nothing. God never had to come to be because He is eternal. Do you understand this distinction?

What you seem to be unable to grasp is that if you use this logic regarding god it opens the door to it being applied to other things, like the universe.

It isn't a question of understanding the distinction but rather calling out your reasoning for applying it to your idea of god but not other things, which would be assuming that the universe isn't also eternal.

a reply to: daskakik

I thought the thread was about something creating something?

The illusion of two.

originally posted by: daskakik

What you seem to be unable to grasp is that if you use this logic regarding god it opens the door to it being applied to other things, like the universe.

If the universe did not have a beginning (i.e. was not created) then it would be open to the same logic.

It isn't a question of understanding the distinction but rather calling out your reasoning for applying it to your idea of god but not other things, which would be assuming that the universe isn't also eternal.

Do you know other things that had no beginning?

a reply to: cooperton

It absolutely coheres to the context. Intelligible things that are created require a creator... things that are not created (God) do not require such a thing.

You haven't explained how he isn't created, only that you can say a thing and we have to take your word for it regardless of the math involved.

originally posted by: cooperton
Do you know other things that had no beginning?

Maybe the universe?

I don't even know if your god exists so I can't say I know, with certainty, of anything that had no beginning.

a reply to: Itisnowagain
Technically it is about why the creator would not tell the creation how and why they were created, with the addition that the god of bible did that through the bible.

Not really about any illusion of two, as you like to propose, unless you would like to explain why we wouldn't tell ourselves how and why we created ourselves, I think.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

You haven't explained how he isn't created, only that you can say a thing and we have to take your word for it regardless of the math involved.

It's logic. Easy logic if you remove your bias.

Since something cannot come from nothing, then something must have always existed. This always-existent Being is what I refer to as God, and since God has no beginning, He never needed to be created

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

You haven't explained how he isn't created, only that you can say a thing and we have to take your word for it regardless of the math involved.

It's logic. Easy logic if you remove your bias.

Since something cannot come from nothing, then something must have always existed. This always-existent Being is what I refer to as God, and since God has no beginning, He never needed to be created

Trading one illogical premise for another illogical premise is not a logical premise.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Trading one illogical premise for another illogical premise is not a logical premise.

Where is my logic flawed?

1) Something cannot come from nothing
2) Something exists
3) Therefore, since 'Something' exists, and it could not have come from nothing, Something must have always existed.

This primordial unbegotten "Something" would inherently be the source of all things.

a reply to: whereislogic



" by someone "


Ah , Can you be More Specific ? Someone Could be Anyone , No ?

a reply to: Itisnowagain



like that cup you only know the taste and can fill and empty yourself with it.

Cup alone and self forgotten how sweet it is!

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: whereislogic



" by someone "


Ah , Can you be More Specific ? Someone Could be Anyone , No ?

I was trying to keep the question more general, allowing views regarding different individuals than the one I think did it. I did specify "by someone who knew what he* was doing and why in this specific way". The bolded part is referring to a certain level and type of intelligence, knowledge, technological know-how, foresight, will and purpose or intentionality (all requirements for the production of machinery and technology, which is what life is made up of). *: To make it more general I could have put "he/she/it" there as well, but I didn't want to make my sentence too long there. Later on I indicated this could also be more than 1 individual by saying "And you are willing to ponder the possibility ... that we and the other things I mentioned were created for a purpose by at least 1 individual who knew what he was doing and why (so regardless if this individual was eternal, or an alien, or whatever; that what is argued the evidence is pointing towards in these sort of articles and books, and in my past commentary in this forum)."

I did this so that the question can also be considered from a panspermia perspective (or in that scenario), as in the movie Prometheus, in case you're unfamiliar with that term (i.e. aliens from another planet did it, or intelligent mice as in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy).

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Trading one illogical premise for another illogical premise is not a logical premise.

Where is my logic flawed?

1) Something cannot come from nothing
2) Something exists
3) Therefore, since 'Something' exists, and it could not have come from nothing, Something must have always existed.

This primordial unbegotten "Something" would inherently be the source of all things.

1. Life does not occur without design
2. God is alive
3. Who is God's daddy?

The point here being, you have only the answers that are useful to you, and that's why we aren't getting anywhere.