Assuming god is an entity is its own right, instead of a figment of the human imagination I believe it to be, how was it created? The answer, 'god was always there', is not logical, especially as many Biblical literalists state that there is an intelligent designer behind everything that exists.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How was god created?
- Thread starter JJ50
- Start date
ajay0
Well-Known Member
Here is what Dharmic philosophy has to say on the creation of God ..
As per the ancient Rig Veda...
Prajñānam brahma - Brahman is pure consciousness (Aitareya Upanishad 3.3 of the Rig Veda)
This implies that Brahman or Spirit is of the nature of pure consciousness.
Nirguna Brahman is pure consciousness of an impersonal nature.
Saguna Brahman is pure consciousness of a personal nature.
Paramahansa Yogananda states thus: "The word 'God' means the manifested, transcendental Being beyond creation, but existing in relation to creation. Spirit existed before God. God is the Creator of the universe, but Spirit is the Creator of God."
Here Spirit stands for Nirguna Brahman, while God stands for Saguna Brahman. Nirguna means attributeless , formless and impersonal. Saguna means with attributes, qualities, form and personalized nature.
Nirguna Brahman is pure consciousness of an impersonal nature, while God as Saguna Brahman and the jivatman or soul are pure consciousness of a personalised nature, with the Jivatman in bondage due to karma. This bondage, when hacked off through spiritual exercises and meditation, results in the soul or jivatman being purified of karma and regaining its original state as pure consciousness.
In the yogic philosophy, the Shivalingam as Saguna Brahman is considered the first form to arise when creation occurs, and also the last form before the dissolution of creation.
The Shivalingam is considered as the greatest personification of Saguna Brahman, and was worshipped by the likes of the Avatars Rama and Krishna themselves.
An oval shaped stone is worshipped as a symbol of God or Shivalingam in Shaivite temples. The Vedas and Shaivite scriptures consider the Shivalingam to a be a cosmic pillar or point of light. Another name for the Shivalingam is Jyotirlingam with Jyoti meaning light.
As per the monotheistic religious sect called the Prajapita Brahmakumaris, the form of the Shiva lingam denotes God as a point of light.
The Prajapita Brahmakumaris consider the Shivalingam to be the same as Jehovah, Allah, Ahura Mazda in other monotheistic world religions.
I have created a thread in this regard showing the correlation between God and light in various world religions.
Interesting correlation between God and light in major world religions...
As per the ancient Rig Veda...
Prajñānam brahma - Brahman is pure consciousness (Aitareya Upanishad 3.3 of the Rig Veda)
This implies that Brahman or Spirit is of the nature of pure consciousness.
Nirguna Brahman is pure consciousness of an impersonal nature.
Saguna Brahman is pure consciousness of a personal nature.
Paramahansa Yogananda states thus: "The word 'God' means the manifested, transcendental Being beyond creation, but existing in relation to creation. Spirit existed before God. God is the Creator of the universe, but Spirit is the Creator of God."
Here Spirit stands for Nirguna Brahman, while God stands for Saguna Brahman. Nirguna means attributeless , formless and impersonal. Saguna means with attributes, qualities, form and personalized nature.
Nirguna Brahman is pure consciousness of an impersonal nature, while God as Saguna Brahman and the jivatman or soul are pure consciousness of a personalised nature, with the Jivatman in bondage due to karma. This bondage, when hacked off through spiritual exercises and meditation, results in the soul or jivatman being purified of karma and regaining its original state as pure consciousness.
In the yogic philosophy, the Shivalingam as Saguna Brahman is considered the first form to arise when creation occurs, and also the last form before the dissolution of creation.
The Shivalingam is considered as the greatest personification of Saguna Brahman, and was worshipped by the likes of the Avatars Rama and Krishna themselves.
An oval shaped stone is worshipped as a symbol of God or Shivalingam in Shaivite temples. The Vedas and Shaivite scriptures consider the Shivalingam to a be a cosmic pillar or point of light. Another name for the Shivalingam is Jyotirlingam with Jyoti meaning light.
As per the monotheistic religious sect called the Prajapita Brahmakumaris, the form of the Shiva lingam denotes God as a point of light.
The Prajapita Brahmakumaris consider the Shivalingam to be the same as Jehovah, Allah, Ahura Mazda in other monotheistic world religions.
I have created a thread in this regard showing the correlation between God and light in various world religions.
Interesting correlation between God and light in major world religions...
Last edited:
Nimos
Well-Known Member
Where did our Universe come from?
Even if one think that a multiverse is possible, it still doesn't explain where it came from, where did the first energy, particle or whatever that made any of it possible come from?
To me that is just as logic as saying that "God was always there", not a huge difference I think
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
No, God is self created. The idea that something else created deity, is theoretical. As such, [theory, no reason to speculate.
I understand the idea, it just isn't evidenced.
I understand the idea, it just isn't evidenced.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
What they're doing, sometimes, is making an arbitrary theory, that isn't necessitated by anything.
It's like a mistaken idea of necessitated difference.
It's like a mistaken idea of necessitated difference.
That doesn't make any sense.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
One way to begin to approach this question is with Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity. In this theory, velocity (motion) will cause your time reference to slow and your distance reference to contract; space-time contracts. At the speed of light, which is the limit of these equations, your space-time reference would slow and contract to where the universe would appear as a point-instant.
Conceptually, what a point-instant reference means is space-time, as we know it, breaks down. If the universe, that we assume is 15 billion years old, was seen in an instant of time, the normal sequence time; past present and future, would all occur, simultaneously in that instant. From that time reference, with all occurring together, one could know everything, that has or will occur in time; omniscience. While with size of our huge universe, being seen as a point, would imply one could be everywhere and anywhere in the universe, simultaneously; omnipresent, since all points in space overlap.
Instead of space-time, the universe would be governed by separated vectors of space and vectors of time, where one could move in a space line apart from time and move in time line apart from space. In many ways, this is how imagination works. We can use the imagination to travel to the moon in our mind faster than light and normal time. Or we can go back into time, to empathize with the past, all while remaining in the present.
Consciousness is limited to space-time, because it is connected to the brain and brain is based on our chemistry and biology. This is all part of space-time. But imagination, which is more like software than hardware, can transcend space-time similar to separated vectors of space and time.
The Creation of the universe was a way to go from the eternal imagination of the point-instant reference where all is possible, to a more limited temporal and physical expression, This is where the vectors of space and time, intersected, and stabilized as space-time; let there be light!
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Physicists have a few ideas. Some of them promising, others less. Essentially, the answer is that we don't know.
True. It would only explain where our universe came from.
These questions might not be valid, actually.
For example, there's this hypothesis of the zero-energy universe, where the "positive" energy of matter is canceled out by the "negative" energy of gravity.
There's a huge difference. One has scientific motivation and the other hasn't.To me that is just as logic as saying that "God was always there", not a huge difference I think
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You make no sense. Imagination is just as much connected to your brain as consciousness is. Imagination is part of your consciousness, in fact. It's not something that exists by itself.
This is indistinguishable from mere imagination. ;-)
It may be difficult to understand, but God had really always been there.
God Himself claims this title in the Old Testament: "The First and the Last." (Isaiaj 44:6)
To be the First means to be the origin of everything, so God has no beginning.
To be the Last means to be the goal, so God has no end.
Also in Islam this title is one of the 99 names of Allah.
73, The First, al-awwal, الأوّل. 74, The Last, al-aachir, الآخر.
What, specifically, is not logical?
Such assumptions do not represent a belief in God. IF God exists God is simply the eternal infinite 'Source' of all of existence that some call God(s).
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I know it from the scriptures and yes the scriptures are true.
Before everything was created, God already existed. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit always existed. God has no beginning and no end, for he is the first and the last, the origin and the goal.
Heyo
Veteran Member
You should retake your course on Special Relativity. While you described time dilation and length contraction correct, you drew some false conclusions from it. E.g. a space-time line through all points in space-time.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
You wanna speculate about the nature of the universe/cosmos? Knock yourself out. But "starting" with Einstein's SRT is a loser of an idea. God is an anti-relativist.
Heyo
Veteran Member
You can do the same thought experiment with the universe. However you turn it you run into a paradox. Either you get to an infinite regress of "creators" or creation events or you get to infinite existence and have to explain why, for an infinite time, the universe didn't exist and at the point of the Big Bang it started to exist / god choose to create it.
The only way to come to a conclusion is to stop thinking at some point before the paradoxon.
Good-Ole-Rebel
Well-Known Member
Intelligent design behind the Creation. But not God.
How can God have always existed? I don't know. It is too much, too deep to take in. And, He didn't bother to inform us. It is just stated. "In the beginning God". (Gen. 1:1)
Good-Ole-Rebel