The Beginning & The Origin of God

[Etritonakin]

In biblical scripture, we are instructed to "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good".
It is also stated that it is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and the glory of kings to seek out a matter. Furthermore, we are told to be prepared to give answer for our faith.
Therefore, seeking to understand the origin or nature of God should not be something a believer is afraid to do.
It is also understandable for scientific minds to want answers from a scientific perspective -and the existence of God should definitely have a scientific explanation, even if direct evidence is presently unavailable.
In words from God passed on to Daniel about the future, it is stated that many would travel to and fro -and that knowledge would increase -so any increased knowledge ought to give greater understanding of God.

(Herein, I refer only to the God of the bible)

Why VS.?

Why is there presently a controversy between scientific and religious minds?
The reasons for opposing beliefs are numerous, but the reasons for controversy are usually an unwillingness to consider another viewpoint, and an unwillingness to examine one's own viewpoint -and though not in agreement, everyone usually has a good point somewhere, coupled with incomplete information.
There is only one overall reality, and only one set of events which have happened thus far -so agreement is possible.

Common Ground.

It seems to me that there are some basic truths which should be easily acceptable to all... The most basic being that something cannot come from absolute nothing. Therefore, it should be acceptable to all that "everything" is eternal -has "always" existed -even if it has changed form and function.
It is believed by some that time began with the Big Bang -essentially because it is believed that the Big Bang was the beginning of interrelationships which could be referenced. If there were interrelationships before the Big Bang -whether the activities of a creator or purely "natural" processes -the idea would still be valid, but would reference those previous interrelationships.

Another such truth is the fact that both evolution and creation are happening all around us -and are interrelated. The scientific mind may think that creation is a product of evolution, and the religious mind may believe that any evolution which may happen or actually has happened is the product of creation -and both ideas are reasonable given both available and absent evidence.

The scientific mind does not KNOW that DNA-based evolution (or the entire universe, for that matter) was not designed by a self-aware creator.
The religious mind does not KNOW that God is not -by his nature -something/someone akin to evolution (though not DNA-based).

In His Image.

We are said to be made in the image and likeness of God.
From a scientific perspective, we are composed of a small part of the whole of that which has always existed -and came to exist as individuals in specific (though changing) forms by a process of interrelationships -which include even our own activities. God would then be the whole of that which has always existed having -or having developed -similar attributes before reproducing those attributes -as God would necessarily be the whole in order to have power over the whole -and we, being part, have power over a part.
From a religious perspective, we are the result of the creative activities of a creator who is similar to -but greater than -ourselves -whose history we do not know.
Assuming the existence of an all-powerful and eternal God able to say "I AM THAT AM", a logical question would be whether God was ALWAYS able to say "I AM THAT AM".
If you think about it..... We, as developing humans, have all sorts of experiences and do all sorts of things before we are able to say the same. In other words... We are ourselves before we realize it.
Is that part of us similar to God?
If part can be/become us, might all be/become God?
Is God composed of that which has always existed -but became increasingly self-aware as God became more of which to be aware by increasingly complex configuration?
Assuming the existence of God, either he always existed in a complex form as an extremely capable self-aware creator -or he developed into such.
What -if anything -does scripture ACTUALLY say about it?

What Does God Say About Himself -and what does it mean?

 

[buddhist]

Are you saying there is no other choices besides these two - creationism as taught by the Bible, and evolution?

 

[Skwim]

Why VS.?

Why is there presently a controversy between scientific and religious minds?

The controversy isn't so much between scientific and religious minds as it is between Christian fundies and the conclusions of science, which are seen as a threat to their beliefs. So it's the fundies who have started and continue to fan the fires of discord, which is actually a very one-sided affair. While Christian fundies continue to rile against science, science couldn't care less what the fundies think and do, unless it amounts to an injustice to the public, as in the fundie attempt to get creationism into the public school science curriculum.

The reasons for opposing beliefs are numerous, but the reasons for controversy are usually an unwillingness to consider another viewpoint, and an unwillingness to examine one's own viewpoint -and though not in agreement, everyone usually has a good point somewhere, coupled with incomplete information.

As I suggested, science couldn't care less about religious beliefs. Any actual controversy is the doings of fearful believers. Those fearful of the impact science may have on their beliefs.

It seems to me that there are some basic truths which should be easily acceptable to all... The most basic being that something cannot come from absolute nothing. Therefore, it should be acceptable to all that "everything" is eternal -has "always" existed -even if it has changed form and function.
It is believed by some that time began with the Big Bang -essentially because it is believed that the Big Bang was the beginning of interrelationships which could be referenced. If there were interrelationships before the Big Bang -whether the activities of a creator or purely "natural" processes -the idea would still be valid, but would reference those previous interrelationships.

Understood and accepted.

Another such truth is the fact that both evolution and creation are happening all around us -and are interrelated. The scientific mind may think that creation is a product of evolution, and the religious mind may believe that any evolution which may happen or actually has happened is the product of creation -and both ideas are reasonable given both available and absent evidence.

Because of the on-going creationism vs. evolution issues, one has to be very careful when using the word "creation." To science "creation" is only meaningful in the sense of "creating a cake," or such. To creationists "creation" almost always signifies god bringing something into being.

The scientific mind does not KNOW that DNA-based evolution (or the entire universe, for that matter) was not designed by a self-aware creator.

KNOWING in science is a slippery word. While it typically signifies a recognition of fact, fact itself is always provisional. As Stephen Jay Gould once said, "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." Science's attitude toward DNA and its roll in evolution is that it doesn't require a self-aware creator to explain, so god is therefore an irrelevancy.

The religious mind does not KNOW that God is not -by his nature -something/someone akin to evolution (though not DNA-based).

From what I've seen, KNOWING in its religious sense is no more than faith elevated to the level of fact. Fact based not on impartial, objective evidence but on subjective confirmation. So knowledge about god and his workings is a very private affair. One which can only be asserted and not demonstrated.

We are said to be made in the image and likeness of God.
From a scientific perspective, we are composed of a small part of the whole of that which has always existed -and came to exist as individuals in specific (though changing) forms by a process of interrelationships -which include even our own activities. God would then be the whole of that which has always existed having -or having developed -similar attributes before reproducing those attributes -as God would necessarily be the whole in order to have power over the whole -and we, being part, have power over a part.

Keep in mind that any conclusions about god are not scientific or based on science. So it's an unjustified jump in logic to say "God would then be the whole of that which . . . " The nature of god is completely dependent on religious proclamations, and I see no reason for science to leap to the conclusion that "God would then be the whole of that which has always existed." At most it would be philosophical issue.

From a religious perspective, we are the result of the creative activities of a creator who is similar to -but greater than -ourselves -whose history we do not know.

Okay . . . .

Assuming the existence of an all-powerful and eternal God able to say "I AM THAT AM", a logical question would be whether God was ALWAYS able to say "I AM THAT AM".

A situation entirely up to the theology of the believer.

If you think about it..... We, as developing humans, have all sorts of experiences and do all sorts of things before we are able to say the same. In other words... We are ourselves before we realize it.

Which, I assume, you're suggesting is a function of maturation.

Is that part of us similar to God?
If part can be/become us, might all be/become God?
Is God composed of that which has always existed -but became increasingly self-aware as God became more of which to be aware by increasingly complex configuration?

All questions whose answers depend on one's notion of god.

Assuming the existence of God, either he always existed in a complex form as an extremely capable self-aware creator -or he developed into such.
What -if anything -does scripture ACTUALLY say about it?

What Does God Say About Himself -and what does it mean?

These I leave to the believers to fight over.


.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In biblical scripture, we are instructed to "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good".
It is also stated that it is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and the glory of kings to seek out a matter. Furthermore, we are told to be prepared to give answer for our faith.
Therefore, seeking to understand the origin or nature of God should not be something a believer is afraid to do.
It is also understandable for scientific minds to want answers from a scientific perspective -and the existence of God should definitely have a scientific explanation, even if direct evidence is presently unavailable.
In words from God passed on to Daniel about the future, it is stated that many would travel to and fro -and that knowledge would increase -so any increased knowledge ought to give greater understanding of God.

(Herein, I refer only to the God of the bible)

Why VS.?

Why is there presently a controversy between scientific and religious minds?
The reasons for opposing beliefs are numerous, but the reasons for controversy are usually an unwillingness to consider another viewpoint, and an unwillingness to examine one's own viewpoint -and though not in agreement, everyone usually has a good point somewhere, coupled with incomplete information.
There is only one overall reality, and only one set of events which have happened thus far -so agreement is possible.

Common Ground.

It seems to me that there are some basic truths which should be easily acceptable to all... The most basic being that something cannot come from absolute nothing. Therefore, it should be acceptable to all that "everything" is eternal -has "always" existed -even if it has changed form and function.
It is believed by some that time began with the Big Bang -essentially because it is believed that the Big Bang was the beginning of interrelationships which could be referenced. If there were interrelationships before the Big Bang -whether the activities of a creator or purely "natural" processes -the idea would still be valid, but would reference those previous interrelationships.

Another such truth is the fact that both evolution and creation are happening all around us -and are interrelated. The scientific mind may think that creation is a product of evolution, and the religious mind may believe that any evolution which may happen or actually has happened is the product of creation -and both ideas are reasonable given both available and absent evidence.

The scientific mind does not KNOW that DNA-based evolution (or the entire universe, for that matter) was not designed by a self-aware creator.
The religious mind does not KNOW that God is not -by his nature -something/someone akin to evolution (though not DNA-based).

In His Image.

We are said to be made in the image and likeness of God.
From a scientific perspective, we are composed of a small part of the whole of that which has always existed -and came to exist as individuals in specific (though changing) forms by a process of interrelationships -which include even our own activities. God would then be the whole of that which has always existed having -or having developed -similar attributes before reproducing those attributes -as God would necessarily be the whole in order to have power over the whole -and we, being part, have power over a part.
From a religious perspective, we are the result of the creative activities of a creator who is similar to -but greater than -ourselves -whose history we do not know.
Assuming the existence of an all-powerful and eternal God able to say "I AM THAT AM", a logical question would be whether God was ALWAYS able to say "I AM THAT AM".
If you think about it..... We, as developing humans, have all sorts of experiences and do all sorts of things before we are able to say the same. In other words... We are ourselves before we realize it.
Is that part of us similar to God?
If part can be/become us, might all be/become God?
Is God composed of that which has always existed -but became increasingly self-aware as God became more of which to be aware by increasingly complex configuration?
Assuming the existence of God, either he always existed in a complex form as an extremely capable self-aware creator -or he developed into such.
What -if anything -does scripture ACTUALLY say about it?

What Does God Say About Himself -and what does it mean?

Can we just solve the problem by taking out the Faith in god ans the Theory of science and be thankful in and of itself for the life you Have without looking for an origin and waiting for a happy destination?

Can we solve the problem by not analyzing life as if it has meaning and trying to place our definitions on what, by nature, does not define itself?

 

[Skwim]

Can we just solve the problem by taking out the Faith in god ans the Theory of science and be thankful in and of itself for the life you Have without looking for an origin and waiting for a happy destination?

The unexamined life is not worth living
-Socrates-



.​

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The unexamined life is not worth living
-Socrates-



.​

 

[Skwim]

Ain't that the truth.


.

 

[Etritonakin]

Can we just solve the problem by taking out the Faith in god ans the Theory of science and be thankful in and of itself for the life you Have without looking for an origin and waiting for a happy destination?

Can we solve the problem by not analyzing life as if it has meaning and trying to place our definitions on what, by nature, does not define itself?

Individuals might be able to do that, yes -and they can even be happy and peaceful while seeking knowledge or God -but we cannot literally solve the greatest problems of the world because not everyone is even willing to do so -and many who are willing do not know how, etc.

If everyone instinctively realized that a happy life is as simple as having enough to live well, good company and something interesting to do, -and made such possible for all -things would be great -but that is not the case, and we cannot make others do so.

 

[Etritonakin]

Are you saying there is no other choices besides these two - creationism as taught by the Bible, and evolution?

No -but the controversy involving them are the subject of this section.

However... Feel free to post any thoughts you may have which even remotely relate to my initial post -even if in opposition.

Whatever is actually "the truth" about the origin of everything would be consistent with that which is actually known now -so if you have any thoughts about that, feel free to share them as well.

 

[Etritonakin]

The controversy isn't so much between scientific and religious minds as it is between Christian fundies and the conclusions of science, which are seen as a threat to their beliefs. So it's the fundies who have started and continue to fan the fires of discord, which is actually a very one-sided affair. While Christian fundies continue to rile against science, science couldn't care less what the fundies think and do, unless it amounts to an injustice to the public, as in the fundie attempt to get creationism into the public school science curriculum.

As I suggested, science couldn't care less about religious beliefs. Any actual controversy is the doings of fearful believers. Those fearful of the impact science may have on their beliefs.

Understood and accepted.

Because of the on-going creationism vs. evolution issues, one has to be very careful when using the word "creation." To science "creation" is only meaningful in the sense of "creating a cake," or such. To creationists "creation" almost always signifies god bringing something into being.

KNOWING in science is a slippery word. While it typically signifies a recognition of fact, fact itself is always provisional. As Stephen Jay Gould once said, "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." Science's attitude toward DNA and its roll in evolution is that it doesn't require a self-aware creator to explain, so god is therefore an irrelevancy.

From what I've seen, KNOWING in its religious sense is no more than faith elevated to the level of fact. Fact based not on impartial, objective evidence but on subjective confirmation. So knowledge about god and his workings is a very private affair. One which can only be asserted and not demonstrated.


Keep in mind that any conclusions about god are not scientific or based on science. So it's an unjustified jump in logic to say "God would then be the whole of that which . . . " The nature of god is completely dependent on religious proclamations, and I see no reason for science to leap to the conclusion that "God would then be the whole of that which has always existed." At most it would be philosophical issue.

Okay . . . .

A situation entirely up to the theology of the believer.

Which, I assume, you're suggesting is a function of maturation.

All questions whose answers depend on one's notion of god.

These I leave to the believers to fight over.


.

Many valid points -though there are fearful believers on all sides of the controversy.
Science itself may not be concerned one way or another, but individuals are a different matter.

What do you think about the possibility of the whole of everything having or developing a self-awareness -as is true of parts of the whole?

Many scientific minds scoff at the idea of a "man in the sky" simply existing forever and creating everything -and many religious minds automatically reject any explanation for life remotely resembling evolution.

Evolution obviously happens -and I see it not only as DNA-based evolution, but all that preceded it.
I also see much reason to believe that the reality which now exists was preceded by self-aware creativity/intelligence. Something must have preceded the Big Bang which was able to produce the Big Bang and that which followed -and a capable intelligence is much more likely than simply nothing. The singularity was not nothing -it was essentially the most complex program ever executed -and is extremely indicative of intelligence, forethought, intent, etc..... and is far too complex to be the very beginning of complexity. Believing the Big Bang to be the very beginning is, IMO, no different than believing in a man in the sky.
It simply is not logical.

However, it is logical that such an intelligence would have first developed to the point of being able to package and execute the Big Bang.

My point was that if (I say "if" for argument's sake) an overall self-aware intelligence exists, it is logical that it would have developed into that which it now is.

Someone made a joke about my butt hurting from sitting on the fence, but I actually see that both sides have valid points.

An overall intelligence developing into that which could package and execute the Big Bang and all that followed fits. It makes sense, and is a reasonable answer for the most basic questions.

It is also not against anything I have actually read in biblical scripture -and not against any scientific knowledge.

Science may not be able to accept as fact that which has not been verified, but it often benefits one way or another from reasonable consideration of the unknown -and even from wild imaginations and leaps.

 

[Acim]

In biblical scripture, we are instructed to "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good".
It is also stated that it is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and the glory of kings to seek out a matter. Furthermore, we are told to be prepared to give answer for our faith.
Therefore, seeking to understand the origin or nature of God should not be something a believer is afraid to do.
It is also understandable for scientific minds to want answers from a scientific perspective -and the existence of God should definitely have a scientific explanation, even if direct evidence is presently unavailable.
In words from God passed on to Daniel about the future, it is stated that many would travel to and fro -and that knowledge would increase -so any increased knowledge ought to give greater understanding of God.

(Herein, I refer only to the God of the bible)

I honestly don't know what you (much less anyone, anymore) means by "scientific." I get that you want to filter God through the bible, and thinking that is mostly to only through orthodox interpretation(s), rather than say Gnostic, but to not specify what is meant by scientific and assume we all get what that means, is for me a wee bit of a problem. But since it comes up in further inquiry of OP, I'll respond accordingly (vagueness and all).

Why VS.?

Why is there presently a controversy between scientific and religious minds?
The reasons for opposing beliefs are numerous, but the reasons for controversy are usually an unwillingness to consider another viewpoint, and an unwillingness to examine one's own viewpoint -and though not in agreement, everyone usually has a good point somewhere, coupled with incomplete information.
There is only one overall reality, and only one set of events which have happened thus far -so agreement is possible.

I see scientific perspective as the side of incomplete information, and taking pride in that, while also having adherents that arrogantly assume science has gone beyond scope of religion/spirituality. Now, what I mean by "scientific" is (in sound bite form) the human discipline of studying nature as if the scope needs to be intentionally limited to what is physical phenomenon and explained via (correlations that rest on) physical 'causes.' That's (I think) obviously going to pose a problem / controversy with any other human discipline that studies or seeks to explain nature via metaphysical assertions, especially if those assertions are framing Cause (causation) in another way.

Common Ground.

It seems to me that there are some basic truths which should be easily acceptable to all... The most basic being that something cannot come from absolute nothing. Therefore, it should be acceptable to all that "everything" is eternal -has "always" existed -even if it has changed form and function.

This counters what is said in first line of OP: prove all things. I've yet to come across a philosophical paradigm (of which both science and religion/spirituality are) that doesn't insist on axioms being in place from which all other understanding is said to proceed. That's mostly okay by me, but if the axiom itself is questionable, then what? Like above, you claim "something cannot come from absolute nothing" but follow that with "everything has always existed." Not sure what the axiom is here (exactly), but it reads as contradictory, in that it seems plausible to suggest "everything cannot come absolute nothing." And in a thread titled "The Beginning & The Origin of God," I honestly thought that was what the debate would be.

For me, "everything has always existed" would be the axiom. While the "something cannot come from absolute nothing" would be the item to prove/disprove.

I'd also just note the "should be acceptable to all" is tough row to hoe, intellectually. The "should" doesn't help IMO, as in 'you should stop using the word should' to validate your points. But the acceptable to all is the part which is part of the ongoing intellectual debate. I see ways around that, though it does have to do with not relying on intellect when it comes to acceptance. I actually kind of believe (perhaps mostly believe) "acceptable to all" happens often/always, though individual (own self) may not be accepting of that.

It is believed by some that time began with the Big Bang -essentially because it is believed that the Big Bang was the beginning of interrelationships which could be referenced. If there were interrelationships before the Big Bang -whether the activities of a creator or purely "natural" processes -the idea would still be valid, but would reference those previous interrelationships.

Here is where I struggle, intellectually, with why/how this matters, especially with notions of "everything has always existed" and "acceptable to all" are on the table. The words in this item I quoted are conveying an interpretation of "time and space." That's a huge thing to grasp, and yet very simplistic. Even the words I'm using in this paragraph (such as "Here" and "huge") are representative of the symbolic understandings of this. Part of the reason I struggle is I don't think it is necessary to go backwards (to alleged origins) to go forward (either for predictions or for growth/greater understanding). That time and space as studied in this moment (however that appears) will provide whatever understanding is deemed 'necessary' for whatever purpose 'going forward.' And that by going backwards, we are introducing a whole 'window of opportunity' for disagreement/controversy, based on interpretation of what technically doesn't exist. Yesterday doesn't technically exist. The past is unreal. Those sort of assertions, is why I struggle intellectually with this, and I believe I am not the only individual that struggles in such a way, though seemingly, I often feel like I'm one of very few that taps into this and expresses it.

Another such truth is the fact that both evolution and creation are happening all around us -and are interrelated. The scientific mind may think that creation is a product of evolution, and the religious mind may believe that any evolution which may happen or actually has happened is the product of creation -and both ideas are reasonable given both available and absent evidence.

Must...put...aside....my....Gnostic understandings to address this in the way I think is being called forth. I think from 'scientific' perspective, the idea that creation is happening (now) is not acceptable. I think the scope is such that creation is said to have occurred in our collective past, and that it contains assertions which are not verifiable, and therefore are not things which science can plausibly study. I somewhat think that if science (more like popular scientific perspective) is being generous, it would possibly allow for creation principle in our collective past, and say that's where it needs to stay, while evolution has taken over and will take the reins from here.

The scientific mind does not KNOW that DNA-based evolution (or the entire universe, for that matter) was not designed by a self-aware creator.
The religious mind does not KNOW that God is not -by his nature -something/someone akin to evolution (though not DNA-based).

Which is all funny to the Gnostic Mind that does KNOW.

In His Image.

We are said to be made in the image and likeness of God.
From a scientific perspective, we are composed of a small part of the whole of that which has always existed -and came to exist as individuals in specific (though changing) forms by a process of interrelationships -which include even our own activities. God would then be the whole of that which has always existed having -or having developed -similar attributes before reproducing those attributes -as God would necessarily be the whole in order to have power over the whole -and we, being part, have power over a part.
From a religious perspective, we are the result of the creative activities of a creator who is similar to -but greater than -ourselves -whose history we do not know.

The "history" part is, as I think I've already explained it, where the window for controversy emerges. It's a fairly vast assumption to think history is reality/real. I personally think/understand history to be magnificent assumption as it relates to own self (as in, I have memories of yesterday, and therefore can speak of that day as if it is real, at least to me). Yet goes beyond that magnificence, IMO, when (or where) same self is accounting for events not in own experience. All based on inductive/deductive rationalizations. All of which, I see opening window to controversy when comparing notes with other individuals who may be held up on things such as "no we don't call that this, we call it this other thing, which is the right way to call it." And as much as that is semantical, it is just a part of how disagreement may work in comparing notes about things that intellect truly believes it is grasping, yet philosophically may be determined to be unreal/not actually existing. Yet, because it is collectively (by 2 or more individuals) thought to exist, in some fashion, then there will be at least some people who are in the vein of "of course history exists and of course we can find agreement on how that transpired. In fact, it is our duty to do so."

I think my paragraph preceding this one is seen as possibly only dealing with religious/spiritual perspective, but to me, it applies to both science and religion perspective. So, in a thread aiming to square the ongoing debate and put forth idea (as I interpret general disposition of thread) that we need not fight over that which is different interpretations of our collective history, I think it prudent to point out that our history is plausibly (I would say factually) unreal.

Assuming the existence of an all-powerful and eternal God able to say "I AM THAT AM", a logical question would be whether God was ALWAYS able to say "I AM THAT AM".
If you think about it..... We, as developing humans, have all sorts of experiences and do all sorts of things before we are able to say the same. In other words... We are ourselves before we realize it.
Is that part of us similar to God?
If part can be/become us, might all be/become God?
Is God composed of that which has always existed -but became increasingly self-aware as God became more of which to be aware by increasingly complex configuration?
Assuming the existence of God, either he always existed in a complex form as an extremely capable self-aware creator -or he developed into such.
What -if anything -does scripture ACTUALLY say about it?

What Does God Say About Himself -and what does it mean?

All very interesting considerations in this quote. Yet, as I understand it, well outside scope of current study/scope of evolution understanding. I think generous scientific perspective would say this is possibly what we are evolving to, but I am/we are not there yet. Utilizing the "I am" assertion and yet missing the forest from the trees in that very assertion. For quite plausible we are there right now (with complete understanding of God), yet if the personal assertion, nay conviction, is "I am not," then ponder that for a moment.

 

[Skwim]

What do you think about the possibility of the whole of everything having or developing a self-awareness -as is true of parts of the whole?

It smacks of science fantasy and New Age spirituality, which leaves me quite cold.

Many scientific minds scoff at the idea of a "man in the sky" simply existing forever and creating everything -and many religious minds automatically reject any explanation for life remotely resembling evolution.

That they do, as well as the many non-scientific minds that reject a "man in the sky," and religious minds that accept evolution.

Evolution obviously happens -and I see it not only as DNA-based evolution, but all that preceded it.
I also see much reason to believe that the reality which now exists was preceded by self-aware creativity/intelligence. Something must have preceded the Big Bang which was able to produce the Big Bang and that which followed -and a capable intelligence is much more likely than simply nothing. The singularity was not nothing -it was essentially the most complex program ever executed -and is extremely indicative of intelligence, forethought, intent, etc..... and is far too complex to be the very beginning of complexity. Believing the Big Bang to be the very beginning is, IMO, no different than believing in a man in the sky.
It simply is not logical.

Keep in mind that science doesn't consider the BB to be the ultimate possible first existence---that nothing preceded it---but that it's simply as far back as they're able to go, constructivly. It only speaks to the nature of the present universe and nothing else. This isn't to say that there aren't speculations as to what came before the BB or what caused it, because there are. Here's a short video that mentions several

My point was that if (I say "if" for argument's sake) an overall self-aware intelligence exists, it is logical that it would have developed into that which it now is.

I don't understand your "have" as in your implication that it couldn't "have" developed differently. It's obvious that it did what it has done, but I fail to see any necessity in it as you appear to imply.

An overall intelligence developing into that which could package and execute the Big Bang and all that followed fits. It makes sense, and is a reasonable answer for the most basic questions.

I don't know what reasoning you used to come to this conclusion, but I see it as coming from no place else other than one's imagination, to me it's not at all convincing or edifying.

It is also not against anything I have actually read in biblical scripture -and not against any scientific knowledge.

Scientifically, it lacks adequate evidence. There's nothing in science that suggests an overall intelligence doing or having done anything. That said, it is true that such an intelligence is not against any scientific knowledge, it's simply outside of it. As are dancing faeries and Santa Clause.

Science may not be able to accept as fact that which has not been verified, but it often benefits one way or another from reasonable consideration of the unknown -and even from wild imaginations and leaps.

Wild leaps of the imagination can indeed be valuable tools, however, they are not necessarily valid conclusions in of themselves.

A request: if you reply to any of this please use the individual quote function so I know which of my statements you're addressing. Thanks.

.

.

 

[Etritonakin]

I honestly don't know what you (much less anyone, anymore) means by "scientific." I get that you want to filter God through the bible, and thinking that is mostly to only through orthodox interpretation(s), rather than say Gnostic, but to not specify what is meant by scientific and assume we all get what that means, is for me a wee bit of a problem. But since it comes up in further inquiry of OP, I'll respond accordingly (vagueness and all).



I see scientific perspective as the side of incomplete information, and taking pride in that, while also having adherents that arrogantly assume science has gone beyond scope of religion/spirituality. Now, what I mean by "scientific" is (in sound bite form) the human discipline of studying nature as if the scope needs to be intentionally limited to what is physical phenomenon and explained via (correlations that rest on) physical 'causes.' That's (I think) obviously going to pose a problem / controversy with any other human discipline that studies or seeks to explain nature via metaphysical assertions, especially if those assertions are framing Cause (causation) in another way.



This counters what is said in first line of OP: prove all things. I've yet to come across a philosophical paradigm (of which both science and religion/spirituality are) that doesn't insist on axioms being in place from which all other understanding is said to proceed. That's mostly okay by me, but if the axiom itself is questionable, then what? Like above, you claim "something cannot come from absolute nothing" but follow that with "everything has always existed." Not sure what the axiom is here (exactly), but it reads as contradictory, in that it seems plausible to suggest "everything cannot come absolute nothing." And in a thread titled "The Beginning & The Origin of God," I honestly thought that was what the debate would be.

For me, "everything has always existed" would be the axiom. While the "something cannot come from absolute nothing" would be the item to prove/disprove.

I'd also just note the "should be acceptable to all" is tough row to hoe, intellectually. The "should" doesn't help IMO, as in 'you should stop using the word should' to validate your points. But the acceptable to all is the part which is part of the ongoing intellectual debate. I see ways around that, though it does have to do with not relying on intellect when it comes to acceptance. I actually kind of believe (perhaps mostly believe) "acceptable to all" happens often/always, though individual (own self) may not be accepting of that.



Here is where I struggle, intellectually, with why/how this matters, especially with notions of "everything has always existed" and "acceptable to all" are on the table. The words in this item I quoted are conveying an interpretation of "time and space." That's a huge thing to grasp, and yet very simplistic. Even the words I'm using in this paragraph (such as "Here" and "huge") are representative of the symbolic understandings of this. Part of the reason I struggle is I don't think it is necessary to go backwards (to alleged origins) to go forward (either for predictions or for growth/greater understanding). That time and space as studied in this moment (however that appears) will provide whatever understanding is deemed 'necessary' for whatever purpose 'going forward.' And that by going backwards, we are introducing a whole 'window of opportunity' for disagreement/controversy, based on interpretation of what technically doesn't exist. Yesterday doesn't technically exist. The past is unreal. Those sort of assertions, is why I struggle intellectually with this, and I believe I am not the only individual that struggles in such a way, though seemingly, I often feel like I'm one of very few that taps into this and expresses it.



Must...put...aside....my....Gnostic understandings to address this in the way I think is being called forth. I think from 'scientific' perspective, the idea that creation is happening (now) is not acceptable. I think the scope is such that creation is said to have occurred in our collective past, and that it contains assertions which are not verifiable, and therefore are not things which science can plausibly study. I somewhat think that if science (more like popular scientific perspective) is being generous, it would possibly allow for creation principle in our collective past, and say that's where it needs to stay, while evolution has taken over and will take the reins from here.



Which is all funny to the Gnostic Mind that does KNOW.



The "history" part is, as I think I've already explained it, where the window for controversy emerges. It's a fairly vast assumption to think history is reality/real. I personally think/understand history to be magnificent assumption as it relates to own self (as in, I have memories of yesterday, and therefore can speak of that day as if it is real, at least to me). Yet goes beyond that magnificence, IMO, when (or where) same self is accounting for events not in own experience. All based on inductive/deductive rationalizations. All of which, I see opening window to controversy when comparing notes with other individuals who may be held up on things such as "no we don't call that this, we call it this other thing, which is the right way to call it." And as much as that is semantical, it is just a part of how disagreement may work in comparing notes about things that intellect truly believes it is grasping, yet philosophically may be determined to be unreal/not actually existing. Yet, because it is collectively (by 2 or more individuals) thought to exist, in some fashion, then there will be at least some people who are in the vein of "of course history exists and of course we can find agreement on how that transpired. In fact, it is our duty to do so."

I think my paragraph preceding this one is seen as possibly only dealing with religious/spiritual perspective, but to me, it applies to both science and religion perspective. So, in a thread aiming to square the ongoing debate and put forth idea (as I interpret general disposition of thread) that we need not fight over that which is different interpretations of our collective history, I think it prudent to point out that our history is plausibly (I would say factually) unreal.



All very interesting considerations in this quote. Yet, as I understand it, well outside scope of current study/scope of evolution understanding. I think generous scientific perspective would say this is possibly what we are evolving to, but I am/we are not there yet. Utilizing the "I am" assertion and yet missing the forest from the trees in that very assertion. For quite plausible we are there right now (with complete understanding of God), yet if the personal assertion, nay conviction, is "I am not," then ponder that for a moment.

Presently, intelligent, self-aware humans create -and also observe evidence of evolution -that was my point there. They are parts of the same whole -even interdependent if one considers the big picture. To believe that such creativity must be preceded by some sort of evolution is logical -but that may apply to an all-powerful creator which necessarily self-developed and developed itself prior to causing our universe. As I like to put it, it is a good point, but pointed the wrong way.

Though we were not present for the very "beginning", it is still true to say that something cannot come from absolute nothing. It is an impossibility. Not all will accept it, even though it is absolutely true. A truth should be acceptable, even if it is not accepted. We need not be present for every event to understand some basic truths. There was never absolutely nothing in existence -that is absolutely true as evidenced by the fact that something now exists -otherwise, nothing could ever exist.
The problem of first cause or first existence must have an answer -and can only logically be answered by "it just was" -by accepting that it is not a problem, but something that is difficult to accept.
Even so, it is more logical from the human perspective that simple interrelationships preceded complex interrelationships -and so that any "creator" which may exist developed into such.
Using beginning, origin and eternal together may seem contradictory, but as time requires referencing interrelationships rather than existence alone, they are not actually contradictory.

 

[Etritonakin]

It smacks of science fantasy and New Age spirituality, which leaves me quite cold.

That they do, as well as the many non-scientific minds that reject a "man in the sky," and religious minds that accept evolution.

Keep in mind that science doesn't consider the BB to be the ultimate possible first existence---that nothing preceded it---but that it's simply as far back as they're able to go, constructivly. It only speaks to the nature of the present universe and nothing else. This isn't to say that there aren't speculations as to what came before the BB or what caused it, because there are. Here's a short video that mentions several

I don't understand your "have" as in your implication that it couldn't "have" developed differently. It's obvious that it did what it has done, but I fail to see any necessity in it as you appear to imply.

I don't know what reasoning you used to come to this conclusion, but I see it as coming from no place else other than one's imagination, to me it's not at all convincing or edifying.

Scientifically, it lacks adequate evidence. There's nothing in science that suggests an overall intelligence doing or having done anything. That said, it is true that such an intelligence is not against any scientific knowledge, it's simply outside of it. As are dancing faeries and Santa Clause.

Wild leaps of the imagination can indeed be valuable tools, however, they are not necessarily valid conclusions in of themselves.

A request: if you reply to any of this please use the individual quote function so I know which of my statements you're addressing. Thanks.

.

.

As soon as I figure out how to use the individual quote thingy, I will try to respond

 

[Etritonakin]

Keep in mind that science doesn't consider the BB to be the ultimate possible first existence

From what I have read, at least some scientists have considered it might have been.
I understand scientific thought and consideration changes -ideally based primarily on knowns. After all -it once did not even consider "The Big Bang" at all.

Scientifically, it lacks adequate evidence. There's nothing in science that suggests an overall intelligence doing or having done anything.

I'd agree that evidence is lacking which would allow a conclusion by science, but I disagree that nothing in known science suggests an overall intelligence having done anything.
Some scientists would also disagree. There is much that suggests or even indicates an overall -or at least much greater -intelligence -and some scientists are just as closed-minded to that idea as some religious are to evolution.

I'm aware that science would basically require God producing himself for examination in a very personal way (and believe that will happen quite soon) to make any conclusion -and also that it would require further proof of any claim he might make. That is completely understandable.

I don't see that it is necessary -or even possible -to prove God to anyone, but considering all sides of this particular controversy (regardless of fault) and the valid points of each has been very beneficial. I hope others are able to do the same. I haven't actually reach any conclusions -but that which now seems likely to me make a great deal of sense, and answers all of the big questions very reasonably.

Thus far -that would be all of whatever existed developing into an overall awareness, self-awareness, intelligence and creative self capable of producing that which followed -which, at the very least -suggests to me a preexisting intelligence. If we can accept that it naturally happens in microcosm, it is logically possible that it could have happened in macrocosm.
I can honestly say I know God exists (but for argument's sake I believe it 100 percent) -but that is not to say i understand the nature of God -and I do not believe it logical that God would not have developed even prior to development similar to that described in scripture.
An initial creator would have to be composed of something -and have a specific complex arrangement.

As that which now exists is a rearrangement of that which has always existed, I believe we can draw some accurate conclusions by isolating that which exists as much as possible from the rearrangement process now in motion -one being that certain things require intelligence, intent, forethought, etc. to set them in motion -another being that something more simple must have already been in motion to allow that intelligence, etc., to develop in the first place. Also, that intelligence, etc., and that which it can act upon are interdependent.

It may seem like I am suggesting that God had a beginning -and so is not eternal -but the true definition of eternal is based on an accurate understanding of time.
God said he IS the beginning AND the end -everything that has happened and will happen -everything that is and will be.

(Considering how an overall intelligence might exist and function could be an extremely valuable scientific tool -regardless of current beliefs.)

 

[Skwim]

As soon as I figure out how to use the individual quote thingy, I will try to respond

Just put a [quote before your selection and a [/quote] after it (but use the bracket "]" after the beginning"[quote" )

EXAMPLE:

[quote Though we were not present for the very "beginning", it is still true to say that something cannot come from absolute nothing. It is an impossibility. Not all will accept it, even though it is absolutely true. A truth should be acceptable, even if it is not accepted. We need not be present for every event to understand some basic truths. There was never absolutely nothing in existence -that is absolutely true as evidenced by the fact that something now exists -otherwise, nothing could ever exist.[/quote]
Blah blah blah reply

[quote The problem of first cause or first existence must have an answer -and can only logically be answered by "it just was" -by accepting that it is not a problem, but something that is difficult to accept.[/quote]
Blah blah blah reply

[quote Even so, it is more logical from the human perspective that simple interrelationships preceded complex interrelationships -and so that any "creator" which may exist developed into such.
Using beginning, origin and eternal together may seem contradictory, but as time requires referencing interrelationships rather than existence alone, they are not actually contradictory.[/quote]
Blah blah blah reply

 

[viole]

What Does God Say About Himself -

Nothing. Or thousands contradicting things.

and what does it mean?

That He Is the product of human imagination.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Etritonakin]

Nothing. Or thousands contradicting things.



That He Is the product of human imagination.

Ciao

- viole

Given all things historically associated with "God", that is an understandable position -and many ideas about God are indeed products of the human imagination -but I see no contradictions in what he is quoted as saying in scripture.

 

[Etritonakin]

Nothing. Or thousands contradicting things.



That He Is the product of human imagination.

Ciao

- viole

Unfortunately, however, the fact that just hearing the word "God" now understandably slams many minds shut -and even causes some feel physically ill -may blind people to the realization of the greatest scientific discoveries and understanding of the most basic realities -one of which is quite logically and possibly that not a whole hell of a lot else could have happened until a creative intelligence developed.

(Considering that possibility might, in turn, lead to understanding how to interface with and manipulate a greater part of our environment in new and extremely powerful ways. As capable as our bodies are -they are also limited.)

Science cannot simply assume such -and that is understandable -but short of God revealing himself, perhaps increasing understanding of the composition of our selves and our universe will reveal that to be true.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

In biblical scripture, we are instructed to "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good".
It is also stated that it is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and the glory of kings to seek out a matter. Furthermore, we are told to be prepared to give answer for our faith.
Therefore, seeking to understand the origin or nature of God should not be something a believer is afraid to do.
It is also understandable for scientific minds to want answers from a scientific perspective -and the existence of God should definitely have a scientific explanation, even if direct evidence is presently unavailable.
In words from God passed on to Daniel about the future, it is stated that many would travel to and fro -and that knowledge would increase -so any increased knowledge ought to give greater understanding of God.

(Herein, I refer only to the God of the bible)

Why VS.?

Why is there presently a controversy between scientific and religious minds?
The reasons for opposing beliefs are numerous, but the reasons for controversy are usually an unwillingness to consider another viewpoint, and an unwillingness to examine one's own viewpoint -and though not in agreement, everyone usually has a good point somewhere, coupled with incomplete information.
There is only one overall reality, and only one set of events which have happened thus far -so agreement is possible.

Common Ground.

It seems to me that there are some basic truths which should be easily acceptable to all... The most basic being that something cannot come from absolute nothing. Therefore, it should be acceptable to all that "everything" is eternal -has "always" existed -even if it has changed form and function.
It is believed by some that time began with the Big Bang -essentially because it is believed that the Big Bang was the beginning of interrelationships which could be referenced. If there were interrelationships before the Big Bang -whether the activities of a creator or purely "natural" processes -the idea would still be valid, but would reference those previous interrelationships.

Another such truth is the fact that both evolution and creation are happening all around us -and are interrelated. The scientific mind may think that creation is a product of evolution, and the religious mind may believe that any evolution which may happen or actually has happened is the product of creation -and both ideas are reasonable given both available and absent evidence.

The scientific mind does not KNOW that DNA-based evolution (or the entire universe, for that matter) was not designed by a self-aware creator.
The religious mind does not KNOW that God is not -by his nature -something/someone akin to evolution (though not DNA-based).

In His Image.

We are said to be made in the image and likeness of God.
From a scientific perspective, we are composed of a small part of the whole of that which has always existed -and came to exist as individuals in specific (though changing) forms by a process of interrelationships -which include even our own activities. God would then be the whole of that which has always existed having -or having developed -similar attributes before reproducing those attributes -as God would necessarily be the whole in order to have power over the whole -and we, being part, have power over a part.
From a religious perspective, we are the result of the creative activities of a creator who is similar to -but greater than -ourselves -whose history we do not know.
Assuming the existence of an all-powerful and eternal God able to say "I AM THAT AM", a logical question would be whether God was ALWAYS able to say "I AM THAT AM".
If you think about it..... We, as developing humans, have all sorts of experiences and do all sorts of things before we are able to say the same. In other words... We are ourselves before we realize it.
Is that part of us similar to God?
If part can be/become us, might all be/become God?
Is God composed of that which has always existed -but became increasingly self-aware as God became more of which to be aware by increasingly complex configuration?
Assuming the existence of God, either he always existed in a complex form as an extremely capable self-aware creator -or he developed into such.
What -if anything -does scripture ACTUALLY say about it?

What Does God Say About Himself -and what does it mean?

I'd say historically, the conflict has been very much between science and atheism.

Atheism constantly looks to put up road blocks to science, declaring 'settled science' with the simplest possible 'god refuting'' explanation, be it static, steady state universe models, classical physics, or Darwinism.

A scientist who is skeptical of atheism- e.g. George Lemaitre or Max Planck, has no such reservations to investigate beyond the superficial, whatever the implications.