How and out of what did God create the universe?

[Nietzsche]

So you don't think he was explaining how G-d created the world, by drawing an analogy to our imagination creating images in our mind?
Hmm...

Even if just analogy, it still doesn't work for the same reasons. Information is not formless. You don't "make up" anything.

 

[McBell]

An appeal to ridicule isn't going to make his answer wrong. You can do better than that.

"appeal to ridicule"?
Is it your claim it is not a choir answer?
Or are you somehow offended by the pointing out it is a choir answer?

 

[Tumah]

Even if just analogy, it still doesn't work for the same reasons. Information is not formless. You don't "make up" anything.

Your brain doesn't make anything up. But your mind does.
Some reference material.

 

[Nietzsche]

Your brain doesn't make anything up. But your mind does.
Some reference material.

I want you to imagine an impossible colour. You can't. Because all ideas require frame of reference.

 

[Tumah]

"appeal to ridicule"?
Is it your claim it is not a choir answer?
Or are you somehow offended by the pointing out it is a choir answer?

Well to be honest, I didn't really understand what you meant when you called it a choir answer. Does that mean you think he's just repeating information that makes no sense, or giving textbook answer.
The point was that you weren't answering the points of the comment. You're just ridiculing them. That's not going to get anywhere.

 

[McBell]

Well to be honest, I didn't really understand what you meant when you called it a choir answer. Does that mean you think he's just repeating information that makes no sense, or giving textbook answer.
The point was that you weren't answering the points of the comment. You're just ridiculing them. That's not going to get anywhere.

Interesting.
You freely admit you have no idea what I am talking about, yet know I am ridiculing something.
So much for your credibility.

 

[Tumah]

I want you to imagine an impossible colour. You can't. Because all ideas require frame of reference.

That was not his analogy. His analogy was that just as your mind does need materials in order to create a mental image, G-d does not need previously existing materials in order to create existence.

You are now making the argument that even one's imagination requires already existing images in order to formulate the mental image. That is a good question, but it wasn't the question he was answering. He was explaining how we can understand the concept of G-d spontaneously causing something into existence without pre-existing material.

 

[Tumah]

Interesting.
You freely admit you have no idea what I am talking about, yet know I am ridiculing something.
So much for your credibility.

And you adamantly claim that you weren't ridiculing the answer, but were directly addressing its points.
My mistake then.

 

[McBell]

And you adamantly claim that you weren't ridiculing the answer, but were directly addressing its points.
My mistake then.

When did I make any such claims?

You should work on your reading comprehension skills.
Specifically by stop trying to read between the lines.

 

[OurCreed]

That...that isn't how thought works. Using that logic, if I were to lobotomize you, there should be no change in your ability to think. Ideas are physical, or rather they have a form in the brain. I think it's electricity(not unlike how information is transmitted through a wire, just far more effective). They are tangible, or else we wouldn't need the brain to begin with.

Also, there's no such thing as a truly original idea. You can only work with what you can comprehend.

Try again.

I think you went a bit too detailed into the subject as needed.

What I stated was an analogy, the analogy may not fully correlate with what I am explaining, rather, only the broad idea is meant to be expressed here. I am not arguing whether ideas and thoughts are tangible or physical, that's a different off-topic debate. What I am simply stating is that the entirety of all that exists is within the mind of the Creator/God. God can make things exist and make them not exist by simply willing it. He needs not anything to do whatever He wills.

So instead of refuting the analogy, comprehend what is being expressed through the analogy.

 

[Nietzsche]

I think you went a bit too detailed into the subject as needed.

What I stated was an analogy, the analogy may not fully correlate with what I am explaining, rather, only the broad idea is meant to be expressed here. I am not arguing whether ideas and thoughts are tangible or physical, that's a different off-topic debate. What I am simply stating is that the entirety of all that exists is within the mind of the Creator/God. God can make things exist and make them not exist by simply willing it. He needs not anything to do whatever He wills.

So instead of refuting the analogy, comprehend what is being expressed through the analogy.

That is a really wordy way to say "A wizard did it".

 

[OurCreed]

That is a really wordy way to say "A wizard did it".

That is if the questioner did not already assume that a Creator/God does not exist.

For the sake of the question, we are assuming that the Creator/God exists, so if He (no gender implied) exists, it logically follows that He has the ability to create without prerequisite existences.

 

[Nietzsche]

That is if the questioner did not already assume that a Creator/God does not exist.

For the sake of the question, we are assuming that the Creator/God exists, so if He (no gender implied) exists, it logically follows that He has the ability to create without prerequisite existences.

That renders it a pointless question, though. This is acting entirely outside every law that governs reality. An answer of "rainbows & gumdrop kittens" is equally valid as "willed into being".

I will grant that obviously if you believe this already, it's not hard. But for someone who simply can't, it's both puzzling and infuriating(not your fault mind) that "God willed it" is anything remotely like a satisfactory answer. It doesn't explain anything.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

...if He (no gender implied) exists, it logically follows that He has the ability to create without prerequisite existences.

I don't think it is logical to presume that God creates something from nothing. but He may create from preexisting universal essence, form. I say this as I think it is logical that the sum total of all that exists now, has always existed, and will always exist...

 

[Elusive Truth]

I don't think it is logical to presume that God creates something from nothing. but He may create from preexisting universal essence, form. I say this as I think it is logical that the sum total of all that exists now, has always existed, and will always exist...

Matter can not be created nor destroyed, it has always existed just like God has.

 

[OurCreed]

That renders it a pointless question, though. This is acting entirely outside every law that governs reality. An answer of "rainbows & gumdrop kittens" is equally valid as "willed into being".

I will grant that obviously if you believe this already, it's not hard. But for someone who simply can't, it's both puzzling and infuriating(not your fault mind) that "God willed it" is anything remotely like a satisfactory answer. It doesn't explain anything.

Neither can it. Everything that goes on outside the boundaries of this universe is completely undetectable by us. Science is limited by the scope of the universe, everything beyond it can only be understood by reasonable thinking.

If the debate is set that there is a Creator who created this universe, then this Creator must be all-powerful, as He created the entire universe and everything within it, detailed every object, designed every creation, etc. If He is all-powerful and created the entire universe, we can also logically assume that He knows everything, because He designed everything to begin with. If He knows everything about what He has created, then He sees and hears everything (in His own unique way). If He sees and hears everything, we logically assume He is near everything, (not physically).

We instantly assume all these things because of the first fallen domino, that there is a Creator who created the entire universe. Then we logically go on from there. So if this Creator exists, He exists outside of space and time. Existing outside of these boundaries means that when He creates, it is not creation that follows a linear history, where A will turn to B, and B will turn to C, because that requires change which can be measured, which is time.

God/The Creator exists outside of time, so God can create, destroy, create, destroy, with virtually nothing. Things will pop in and out of existence according to His will.

Time will just be an illusion for whatever He creates within the creation.

 

[OurCreed]

I don't think it is logical to presume that God creates something from nothing. but He may create from preexisting universal essence, form. I say this as I think it is logical that the sum total of all that exists now, has always existed, and will always exist...

Then the question arises, where did the sum total of all universal essence come from? And is the sum total of all universal essence a physical thing with an absolute limited number?

Logically speaking, it would be. So if it is already a physical and limited existence, how can we say it lasted eternally in the past?

Secondly, this physical and limited universal essence, if it has size, depth, volume, shape, etc., then God/The Creator must too have these attributes, and if God has dimensions like the universal essence, He can't be called God.

 

[Willamena]

God creates something and nothing.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Then the question arises, where did the sum total of all universal essence come from? And is the sum total of all universal essence a physical thing with an absolute limited number?

Logically speaking, it would be. So if it is already a physical and limited existence, how can we say it lasted eternally in the past?

Secondly, this physical and limited universal essence, if it has size, depth, volume, shape, etc., then God/The Creator must too have these attributes, and if God has dimensions like the universal essence, He can't be called God.

Logically, the reason why there was no beginning is because it couldn't be any other way. To suggest a beginning is an example of anthropomorphic finite thinking, because humans had a beginning and are finite, many think the universe likewise had a beginning and is finite. To suggests a beginning also raises the question is where was God before it happened, and what form did He take, and what space did He occupy, and what was He made of, and was He omnipresent at that time?

I say to you that the universe is not physical, nor is it limited...it is eternal and infinite. The physical part is only 5% of what contemporary science considers the whole. Big bang theory came into existence when science thought the 5% was 100%, now that they find it is only 5%, the theory has holes, and the infinite universe concept is gaining traction again with some scientists.

Thanks for the answers to my questions...

 

[OurCreed]

Logically, the reason why there was no beginning is because it couldn't be any other way. To suggest a beginning is an example of anthropomorphic finite thinking, because humans had a beginning and are finite, many think the universe likewise had a beginning and is finite. To suggests a beginning also raises the question is where was God before it happened, and what form did He take, and what space did He occupy, and what was He made of, and was He omnipresent at that time?

I say to you that the universe is not physical, nor is it limited...it is eternal and infinite. The physical part is only 5% of what contemporary science considers the whole. Big bang theory came into existence when science thought the 5% was 100%, now that they find it is only 5%, the theory has holes, and the infinite universe concept is gaining traction again with some scientists.

Thanks for the answers to my questions...

Have you heard of the fallacy of infinite regression? If we live in a universe that is constantly changing from one state to another, then we live within a framework of time. So if there are events that are happening right now as we speak, these events are proof that the universe had a beginning. If the universe had no beginning, meaning that the universe had an eternal and infinite past, then time as we know it would never get to where we are at.

There is an analogy for this. If there is a bird sitting in a tree and I was getting ready to shoot it, the only way for me to shoot it is if I ask permission to shoot it. So the person whom I ask permission to shoot it also needs to ask permission to someone else for him to give permission to the guy who will allow me to shoot. So this line of people keeps going down, with people asking the next person in line for permission.

If this line keeps going and going infinitely, will the time ever come where I will shoot the bird? It won't.

If a time comes where I am able to shoot the bird, that means that there was one guy all the way at the end of the line who did not need to ask anyone for permission. This means that the universe had a beginning.