The Origin of God

Originally posted by TerrierJack
I think a more interesting question is where did the concepts of beginning or ending come from? Aren't they an artifact of our existence? Can you perceive anything outside of your current existence? Can you imagine even the span of your own lifetime? 2,049,840,000 seconds (give or take) - so many but so few. Can you perceive less than a second? At a cert ...[text shortened]... that there is room for a lot more thinking about time and the universe - but so little time.

"...where did the concepts of beginning or ending come from?"

If you think about it, it must have come from the concept of eternity.

Time is a construct of the material universe and has no value when one thinks about eternity.

Time is used to measure space and matter, and when placed in association with the immeasurable, we say 'without beginning or end'.

Originally posted by amannion
My counter question is - why is the idea of an eternal universe so difficult to understand?

It's not.

In my original post I asked why is it difficult to understand how a being can exist eternally, but I asked it within the context of the question raised by some about the origin of God.

For one thing, the universe is material and subject to change, giving it an unstable quality.

But a being with an eternal value, must of necessity, be unchanging and stable, capable of possessing qualities not assigned to matter.

Originally posted by KellyJay
we know in this universe things begin and end

Our universe, KJ, our universe.
And don't use 'we', as in you included. You don't understand science and BigBang theory, so you don't actually know anything in the subject.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"...where did the concepts of beginning or ending come from?"

If you think about it, it must have come from the concept of eternity.

Time is a construct of the material universe and has no value when one thinks about eternity.

Time is used to measure space and matter, and when placed in association with the immeasurable, we say 'without beginning or end'.[/b]

"Eternal" only has meaning in relation to "Time." No time - no eternity. No time - no beginning - no end. Please think.

Originally posted by josephw
Basically because of the nature of the two. One being Spirit, the other material.

When I think about it, you know, picture the idea in my head that the physical universe has existed forever, I lose sight of it somehow. Probably because the material is ever changing.
On the other hand when I think of a being as eternal, I get the impression of something unchanging, in a steady state, something more in alignment with the idea of the infinite.

What is "existed forever?" Another thing bound up with your experience of time.

Likewise you posit the "spiritual" as just "that state outside of everything I have experience of." Don't you see that given that definition someone can (and many do) say anything they like about "that?" You are free to do so (and free to believe that you are not just another escaped asylum inmate) but please don't call it "thinking." Thinking involves reason - not just feelings.

Originally posted by josephw
I've heard the question asked many times, 'where did God come from', or 'who created God'?

The question assumes that God came from somewhere or had a beginning.

My question is this. Why is the concept or idea of an eternal being, without beginning or end, so difficult to understand?

The term origins implies a beginning. Of course, a beginning is dependent on the notion that time exists. Of course, time exists only because of the material universe. Time is simply a demension of that material universe. My answer is that God is independent of this and existed before the material universe, thus, he is eternal in this sense. Natrually, we have no point of reference to this existence simply because we have not experienced it nor have we been able to study it.

Originally posted by caissad4
If, as the Goddists profess, there was a time that there was God and nothing else, then it may be that God and the Universe are one and the same. Does this mean that "God" is expanding and we are just a tiny part of God ?

To say that god and the universe are one and the same is to make the term 'god' meaningless. The universe is what it is. If, by calling it 'god', no new information is conveyed, then the term is superfluous and can safely be dispensed with.

I suspect, however, that people who make the claim that the universe and god are one and the same do not really mean it. It always turns out that this 'universe=god' concept is not really identical to the plain old universe at all.

Originally posted by josephw
Basically because of the nature of the two. One being Spirit, the other material.

When I think about it, you know, picture the idea in my head that the physical universe has existed forever, I lose sight of it somehow. Probably because the material is ever changing.
On the other hand when I think of a being as eternal, I get the impression of something unchanging, in a steady state, something more in alignment with the idea of the infinite.

All you're doing here is simply restating the fact that you believe in god.

Originally posted by josephw
I've heard the question asked many times, 'where did God come from', or 'who created God'?

I think Peter Berger is correct in The Sacred Canopy, where he lays out God's origins in a process he calls alienation. I don't have time to explain his argument here; look it up for yourself.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I also believe many birds can fly that does not mean cows can, you are
comparing apples and oranges, you are comparing the creator to the
created, and saying one rule fits both and that isn't the case and there
isn't any reason to even compare the two.
Kelly

Birds? Cows? Apples? Oranges?

Creator? Created?

Your argument is irrational. It presupposes a "creator" and "created".

Evidently you are one of "those steeped in delusion because of a deeply vested interest in protecting their belief system. "

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"The answer is that it isn't. But then, neither is it difficult for the universe."

We're talking about two different things here. God, and the universe. They are not synonymous.

One is material, the other spiritual. Placing the value of eternal onto matter simultaneously with a living being is more difficult. imo[/b]

There is no assertion that God and the universe are synonymous.

The point is that it isn't difficult to imagine an "eternal" God. It also isn't difficult to imagine an "eternal" universe. Being able to imagine either does not constitute proof of anything. This seems to be lost on those who believe "God created the universe" and try to use "The universe must have come from somewhere, so God must be the creator" as proof of God's existence.

Originally posted by josephw
Certainly beyond our finite ability to know everything about such a being, but not that one exists, or some qualities of one.

Sorry, no. Beyond our finite ability know anything at all, not everything or something. You cannot have it both ways. Either he exists outside spatio-temporal constraints or he doesn't.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
There is no assertion that God and the universe are synonymous.

The point is that it isn't difficult to imagine an "eternal" God. It also isn't difficult to imagine an "eternal" universe. Being able to imagine either does not constitute proof of anything. This seems to be lost on those who believe "God created the universe" and try to use "The univers ...[text shortened]... st have come from somewhere, so God must be the creator" as proof of God's existence.

Did not Christ state that God created? Are you not a follower of the teachings of the Christ? well well, what have we here then? Denying the teachings, now what's the word for that again...mmmmm.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Did not Christ state that God created? Are you not a follower of the teachings of the Christ? well well, what have we here then? Denying the teachings, now what's the word for that again...mmmmm.

Are you familiar with the concept of non sequitur?

Are you really that desperate to take a shot?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
There is no assertion that God and the universe are synonymous.

The point is that it isn't difficult to imagine an "eternal" God. It also isn't difficult to imagine an "eternal" universe. Being able to imagine either does not constitute proof of anything. This seems to be lost on those who believe "God created the universe" and try to use "The univers ...[text shortened]... st have come from somewhere, so God must be the creator" as proof of God's existence.

"This seems to be lost on those who believe "God created the universe" and try to use "The universe must have come from somewhere, so God must be the creator" as proof of God's existence"
-------------------------------------TOne------------------------------------

So let's figure this one out now shall we? You really don't sound as if you actually believe in God at all. Certainly not the Father God of Jesus who is eternal. It's therefore very interesting that you quote Jesus so ferociously and seem to revere his words.

Maybe , I have misunderstood , if this is the case put me straight please.

Would you not like to pin your colours to the mast and say in public that you believe in the eternal Father of Jesus who created the world? If not , then I fear Jesus would have some strong words for you.................>>>>>>>>

John 8:42 -------> "Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies."