Where did God come from?

[iNow]

If you had bothered to follow the link you'd have seen that it takes you directly to the relevant sections.

I clicked your link from my handheld, but it only took me to the table of contents. I clicked it again from my laptop, and landed here:

 

[1] We have shown that there exists a first being, whom we call God. We must, accordingly, now investigate the properties of this being.

 

[2] Now, in considering the divine substance, we should especially make use of the method of remotion. For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not. Furthermore, we approach nearer to a knowledge of God according as through our intellect we are able to remove more and more things from Him. For we know each thing more perfectly the more fully we see its differences from other things; for each thing has within itself its own being, distinct from all other things. So, too, in the case of the things whose definitions we know. We locate them in a genus, through which we know in a general way what they are. Then we add differences to each thing, by which it may be distinguished from other things. In this way, a complete knowledge of a substance is built up.

 

[3] However, in the consideration of the divine substance we cannot take a what as a genus; nor can we derive the distinction of God from things by differences affirmed of God. For this reason, we must derive the distinction of God from other beings by means of negative differences. And just as among affirmative differences one contracts the other, so one negative difference is contracted by another that makes it to differ from many beings. For example, if we say that God is not an accident, we thereby distinguish Him from all accidents. Then, if we add that He is not a body, we shall further distinguish Him from certain substances. And thus, proceeding in order, by such negations God will be distinguished from all that He is not. Finally, there will then be a proper consideration of God’s substance when He will be known as distinct from all things. Yet, this knowledge will not be perfect, since it will not tell us what God is in Himself.

 

[4] As a principle of procedure in knowing God by way of remotion, therefore, let us adopt the proposition which, from what we have said, is now manifest, namely, that God is absolutely unmoved. The authority of Sacred Scripture also confirms this. For it is written: “I am the Lord and I change not” (Mal. 3:6); ...“with whom there is no change” (James 2:17). Again: “God is not man... that He should be changed (Num. 23:19).

So, you're using an assumption that "god is unmoved" as support of your comment that it's illogical to ask what created god, is that correct? Not that I accept the first premise quoted here, but I'm seeking a way to carry this forward.

 

From the next chapter:

[2] Everything that begins to be or ceases to be does so through motion or change. Since, however, we have shown that God is absolutely immutable, He is eternal, lacking all beginning or end.

Again... We seem to have a different version of evidence. This appears to be an empty assertion, not a source of evidence of your claim.

[chilehed]

So, you're using an assumption that "god is unmoved" as support of your comment that it's illogical to ask what created god, is that correct? Not that I accept the first premise quoted here, but I'm seeking a way to carry this forward.

 

From the next chapter:

 

Again... We seem to have a different version of evidence. This appears to be an empty assertion, not a source of evidence of your claim.

The link was to Chapter 14, which seemed most immediately relevant along with Chapter 15. Given that the first line is "We have shown that...", perhaps it would be good to go back and see how that was done.

[iNow]

And as for the rest of my comments?

[science4ever]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leda_Cosmides

she had an idea that where very similar. she named it Gaia.

She thought that it was basically self regulating

But I have no good link to her detailed views.

 

I did not get motivaed enough to trust it to be a good model.

[imatfaal]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leda_Cosmides

she had an idea that where very similar. she named it Gaia.

She thought that it was basically self regulating

But I have no good link to her detailed views.

 

I did not get motivaed enough to trust it to be a good model.

 

 

The Gaia Hypothesis is normally credited to James Lovelock and to an extent Lynn Margulis.

[dimreepr]

Also, fictionalised and explored by Issac Assimov.

[science4ever]

Yes sorry I most likely missremembered

Lynn Margulis. sounds more likely then.

I do apology for misleading those who

did not know about Lynn Margulis.

[Alyaarn]

The human mind.... God was created so it was easier to understand the things that we were once fearful of. Such examples include natural disasters, unexplainable phenomenae (eclipses)... etc. However, a belief in the supernatural may have also instilled hope in many of our ancestors... so in some way, belief in God may have functioned as an advantage in evolution, thus making us more prone to belief in a supernatural deity/deities. Now, this is just speculation on my part.

[john5746]

The human mind.... God was created so it was easier to understand the things that we were once fearful of. Such examples include natural disasters, unexplainable phenomenae (eclipses)... etc. However, a belief in the supernatural may have also instilled hope in many of our ancestors... so in some way, belief in God may have functioned as an advantage in evolution, thus making us more prone to belief in a supernatural deity/deities. Now, this is just speculation on my part.

to be genetic in nature, I think it would need to be more basic/general. Just thinking about a pack of wolves, not everyone can be the Alpha-male/female. If they all try to be constantly, the group would fail. There must be those willing to follow and a few willing to lead. To follow a leader is to outsource your judgement to another. God is just the ultimate leader, who of course has sub-leaders speaking for him.

 

On the individual level, the placebo effect can be effective even today, so imagine thousands of years ago when we basically had no medicine. This is again a trust issue. Trusting that something will work, even with evidence to the contrary.

 

But as far as understanding reality, I think it gets in the way. The more knowledge you acquire, the more thinking you do, I would think the less likely you will be lead. But, even if these speculations are correct, it doesn't mean that mythology is required.

[Semjase]

If God created the Universe,Who created God.

And does God have a beginning or an end.

 

This question actually depends on if God really does exist? First I'll give my best evidence for the existence

for a God or Creator. The existence of anything that has come into reality, that is proven to be impossible

under all known appliciable scientific properties, outside of an evolutionary process. The discovery of

Alien life throughout the universe that's based on DNA that has evolved independly of each other

would be strong evidence of a Creator. The fact that this universe is solely matter where is it's

antimatter components required under pair creation, that would indicate the creation of the universe is

not a naturally occuring event. Why is the world controlled by the law, why does a court of law

hold you accountable to God for the truthfulness of your testimony? Evidence for life after death,

how is the afterlife a natural thing?

 

It is proven in a scientific reality that you no matter how far you go back in time that will have

something or nothing, that gives you two possibilities for God, 1 he is a structure that

always has been here and can never be explained that even he could not explain, 2

he evolved out of the properties of nothing and came first. Believing purely in science

I will only accept the second explanation since everything here seems to orignate

from science.

 

If science allows it and the Creator is not self-destructive and no one is above him

who has evolved elsewhere in the vaccuum of nothing, then he will be here forever

Edited July 11, 2013 by Semjase

[Moontanman]

 

This question actually depends on if God really does exist? First I'll give my best evidence for the existence

for a God or Creator. The existence of anything that has come into reality, that is proven to be impossible

under all known appliciable scientific properties, outside of an evolutionary process. The discovery of

Alien life throughout the universe that's based on DNA that has evolved independly of each other

would be strong evidence of a creator. The fact that this universe is solely matter where is it's

antimatter components required under pair creation, would indicate the creation of the universe is

not a naturally occuring event. Why is the world controlled by that the law, why does a court of law

hold you accountable to God for the truthfulness of your testimony. Evidence for life after death,

how is the afterlife a natural thing.

 

It is proven in a scientific reality that you no matter how far you go back in time that will have

something or nothing, that gives you two possibilities for God, 1 he is a structure that

always has been here and can never be explained that even he could not explain, 2

he evolved out of the properties of nothing and came first. Believing purely in science

I will only accept the second explanation since everything here seems to orignate

from science.

 

If science allows it and the Creator is not self-destructive and no one is above him

then he will be here forever

 

 

There is at least one more possibility Semjase...

[Greylorn]

If God created the Universe,Who created God.

And does God have a beginning or an end.

Good question. There is an answer to it that has major implications for all religions, as for physics. This is detailed in my book, but here is an outline of the idea that might make sense to those who have kept up with pop-science concepts via magazines or documentary channels. For others, the darned book offers the requisite background.

 

Hypothesis 1: The recently discovered substance known as "dark energy" originally existed in an unformed state, subject to the original three laws of thermodynamics, at a temperature of Absolute Zero, containing neither form nor structure. This makes dark-energy a simple substance which according to its internal laws; manifests (1) a constant, non-created state of being; (2) a single, simple force; and (3) a simple boundary condition.

 

Hypothesis 2: There also existed, separately from dark energy, something tentatively named aeon, whose properties have never been investigated and thus are less well known than those of energy. One property it must have is the natural ability to act as a counterforce to dark energy.

 

Hypothesis 3: These two different spaces, or perhaps fields, existed in a larger space within which they collided, causing disruptions to the state of each. Unstructured but non-homogeneous forms occurred within dark energy space, and differentiated lumps of potential consciousness (beons) precipitated from aeon space.

 

Inevitable Conclusion 1: Some of these beons interacted with energy, and eventually with one another. A few used their ability to reverse the normal behavior of energy so as to create primitive information, and from this, became conscious.

 

The first beons to develop conscious self-awareness formed a group which eventually chose to invite all similar entities into consciousness. This consortium is a fair approximation of what religionists worship as "God."

 

Under this concept, "God," although neither almighty, omnipotent, nor singular, has a beginning, first in structure, subsequently in self-developed function.

 

Such gods could also have ends, if they became sufficiently bored with existence. The Buddha's original concept of soul as an epiphenomenon describes how.

 

Kindly note that this outline of concepts is not intended to be an explanation of those concepts, and that I will not offer detailed explanations on this forum, except to participants who have independently researched the ideas behind it.

 

Of course the complete theory goes into greater depth. This post was intended only to show that there is an answer to the OP. It is a simple but non-trivial answer, accessible only to conscientious students, not the least bit accessible to those who are trying to figure things out in the context of any current belief system.

[Lemastre]

If God created the Universe,Who created God.

And does God have a beginning or an end.

God began in the mind of man as an idea that has evolved in many cultures from polytheism to the monotheism promulgated by various religions. The idea of a "godlike" being was necessary in early societies to provide an author for otherwise unexplainable natural phenomena. Today, a great many people rely on the scientific method to analyze these things. I suspect the ultimate cause of the universe will never be known to anyone on this planet, although we may figure out the physical mechanisms involved in creating the solar systems.

[elanimal1234]

 

How is "without having any properties or qualities" a case for something existing?

 

If it has no properties and no qualities what is it?

i believe he means existing as an idea(or something like that)

[rbwinn]

What has to be answered is whether or not intelligence exists. So we consider the idea being presented here, that people who do not believe in God are more intelligent than people who do. This would presume that not all humans are equally intelligent. Then the most intelligent human would be one who says God does not exist. But if that is all it takes to be one of the most intelligent people, why doesn't it work better than it does?

Evidently, just saying you don't believe in God does not elevate you to any great degree or hold out any great reward.

Or we could look at intelligence from a religious standpoint. The person who denies the existence of God is regarded as lacking intelligence. Then there are varying degrees of intelligence until the intelligence of God is reached, which is the highest degree of intelligence and cannot be surpassed.

So we have two different definitions of intelligence, one being that the ability to be like God is intelligence and the other being that the ability to oppose belief in God is intelligence. But the problem with basing a definition of intelligence on the ability to oppose belief in God is that belief in God has to exist before intelligence can exist, so what good does it do to say God does not exist? It is a self-defeating premise.

[Moontanman]

What has to be answered is whether or not intelligence exists. So we consider the idea being presented here, that people who do not believe in God are more intelligent than people who do. This would presume that not all humans are equally intelligent. Then the most intelligent human would be one who says God does not exist. But if that is all it takes to be one of the most intelligent people, why doesn't it work better than it does?

No one as far as i know is suggesting that theists or atheists are more or less intelligent than each other or anyone else....

 

Evidently, just saying you don't believe in God does not elevate you to any great degree or hold out any great reward.

Again, no one has said it does...

 

Or we could look at intelligence from a religious standpoint. The person who denies the existence of God is regarded as lacking intelligence.

Opinions are just that opinions, unless you can back it up with evidence you are just making baseless assertions...

 

 

Then there are varying degrees of intelligence until the intelligence of God is reached, which is the highest degree of intelligence and cannot be surpassed.

Can you show some evidence this is true or that god as seen as a creator has any intelligence at all, it could just be a mindless force that creates things, much like a whale dying in the ocean creates a home for lesser creatures neither of which know anything about the other..

 

 

 

So we have two different definitions of intelligence, one being that the ability to be like God is intelligence and the other being that the ability to oppose belief in God is intelligence.

This is a false dichotomy, superior intelligence is not necessary for either...

 

 

But the problem with basing a definition of intelligence on the ability to oppose belief in God is that belief in God has to exist before intelligence can exist, so what good does it do to say God does not exist? It is a self-defeating premise.

Since intelligence is not necessary to disbelieve or believe in god this statement is self contradictory...

[kindheart]

As the sociologist Émile Durkheim said, God is a socially constructed concept, a reflection of societal structure and the morals, values, and hierarchies contained therein. This is evinced by the wide variety of deities worshiped in various human cultures, and the fact that they seem to follow societal structures: highly stratified cultures (such as traditional India) have vast hierarchies of gods, while more egalitarian societies (such as many Amazonian tribes) have a large number of equally powerful spirits. These are quite obviously human projections.

 

There is no evidence for the existence of any kind of superintelligence, and even if there was, it would still have no relevance to the universe. This is because it is logically impossible for a being that possesses no physical properties (such as the god of classical theism) to interact with the material world, because this being would have absolutely nothing with which to influence physical reality.

[pears]

Unless matter is somehow a part of God, one ultimate substance arranged in different ways to produce complexity?

[Rajdeep Chakraborty]

God....!!!! The concept helping to develop the civilization, develop the bonds among the people but vise verse the concept generate riots and took so many lives.. now the question,''is really God exits or not''...in earlier days in uncivilized society at time of thundering people thought it is God..but gradually when we discover the reason of that we changed our thinking...i feel the sunlight, the gravitation, the air, the universe and the process of it moving and expanding are the God...we human beings have always some limitations and fear, we like to surrender ourselves to supreme power thinking that will save us from obstacles and got the peace of mind.This attitude develop genetically since the ancient era.. God exists in he form of every molecule which make our life and livelihood continue from past to present to next....

[Rajdeep Chakraborty]

Unless matter is somehow a part of God, one ultimate substance arranged in different ways to produce complexity?

it depends how we observe..!!! everything is in God and God is in everything,,,,,

[Moontanman]

it depends how we observe..!!! everything is in God and God is in everything,,,,,

 

 

Care to back that up with something other than your baseless assertions?

[Rajdeep Chakraborty]

 

 

Care to back that up with something other than your baseless assertions?

''we are just advanced breeds of monkeys in a minor planet of a average star, but we can understand the universe..that make us something special''...Stephen Hawking...

To understand the concept of God we must need some concept regarding universe and impact of concept to our society..if we analyse the concept of God since the ancient era we find that the concept lead and mislead us in so many ways...actually there is no existence of God, it may be a subjective term but the concept the feel involve at DNA coding of 99% people....To make all square positive effect of this concept we must think God is one and present in every where in every molecule...God is not like that he/she is present in any form and juggling the universe...

and why this assertions is baseless?, if you can elaborate please then i will make a reply...

[Moontanman]

''we are just advanced breeds of monkeys in a minor planet of a average star, but we can understand the universe..that make us something special''...Stephen Hawking...

I don't think an appeal to authority means much but I will concede that we are something special to us but to the rest of the universe I don't think you can support that with anything but hopes and wishes..

 

To understand the concept of God we must need some concept regarding universe and impact of concept to our society..if we analyse the concept of God since the ancient era we find that the concept lead and mislead us in so many ways...actually there is no existence of God, it may be a subjective term but the concept the feel involve at DNA coding of 99% people....To make all square positive effect of this concept we must think God is one and present in every where in every molecule...God is not like that he/she is present in any form and juggling the universe...

and why this assertions is baseless?, if you can elaborate please then i will make a reply...

So no you cannot back up your claims with empirical evidence, just hopes, wishes, and wooo? I asked for evidence you gave me feelings and belief...

[Rajdeep Chakraborty]

 

I don't think an appeal to authority means much but I will concede that we are something special to us but to the rest of the universe I don't think you can support that with anything but hopes and wishes..

 

 

So no you cannot back up your claims with empirical evidence, just hopes, wishes, and wooo? I asked for evidence you gave me feelings and belief...

i am not backing up...and what evidence you want regarding feelings and belief?? is it the positive and negative effects of feeling and believing God? or evidence of his existence or non-existence? if its then i think you are more knowledgeable then me...concept of God is not like law of physics...its related with mind and emotions....like believing in love or hate.....

[Moontanman]

i am not backing up...and what evidence you want regarding feelings and belief?? is it the positive and negative effects of feeling and believing God? or evidence of his existence or non-existence? if its then i think you are more knowledgeable then me...concept of God is not like law of physics...its related with mind and emotions....like believing in love or hate.....

I asked for evidence, you, like everyone else, are welcome to your beliefs as long as they don't impinge on any one else but you are not welcome to your own facts.

 

 

Now again, you made a pretty hefty assertion here.

 

 

posted Yesterday, 04:25 PM

Rajdeep Chakraborty, on 16 Oct 2013 - 4:20 PM, said:

it depends how we observe..!!! everything is in God and God is in everything,,,,,

 

 

All I want to know is how do you know that... all I see is assertions about belief and feelings neither is acceptable as evidence..