God, Eternity, and Existence

@Neil D,

Neil;140777 wrote:

Supposing there is a God. By God i mean something fundamental from which everything comes, and it itself came from nothing, but has always existed in eternity. Nothing More is implied by this use of the word "God".

Do you think that anything this God creates would have already been created an infinite number of times? Since it exists in eternity.

Neil

Nein! Nein! Nein! Nein! Very Happy

Your premise is faulty. An infinite God cannot exist.[1] And if an infinite God did exist, it wouldn't be the fundamental cause for all things. Time screws that up.

If you didn't need time for something to exist, you need time for something to change state. The states are nonexistence to existence, So for a creator to create anything, she would need to create time first and foremost. But any attempt to create anything would be impossible unless time existed. If time existed without needing to be created, then whatever may have created anything else, is not and cannot, be the basic reason for everything.

Since this being can't even create anything, much less be infinite, I'd say no.

But, assuming that this being is infinite, she could create something an infinite number of times, but it isn't necessarily required of her.

Perhaps I am being presumptuous, but are you hinting at alternate universes?

[1] http://www.philosophyforum.com/religion/abrahamic-religions/christianity/8103-god-disproved.html

@Theologikos,

Theologikos;144402 wrote:

Nein! Nein! Nein! Nein!
Your premise is faulty. An infinite God cannot exist.[1] And if an infinite God did exist, it wouldn't be the fundamental cause for all things. Time screws that up.

I didnt say God was infinite. I said God was eternal. I think there is a difference in that the latter says that God AND time have existed forever. Forwards and backwards(linear), or circular, or something. I guess infinite could be used to describe God, but i prefer eternal.

@Neil D,

Here is a suggestion to contemplate

There is only boundless light: the infinite supreme, the all, the one, the everything including nothing. Boundless light is the infinite supreme and the infinite supreme is good.
It should be understood that the boundless light is not that which we can recognize from our senses, for the boundless light has no limitations like sensations. It is neither a thing to touch, nor taste, nor smell, nor see, nor that which can be heard. Of the boundless light there is no i, no me, no you, no we, no us, no them, no him, no her. There is only the infinite good, supreme, boundless light: the perfection of everything including nothing.
The infinite supreme requires nothing, wants nothing, needs nothing, lacks nothing, and is everything. Thus, as the infinite supreme is wholly good, singular, and perfect, so too is the will of the infinite supreme perfect, singular, and good.. The infinite supreme is indeed everything including nothing.
It is by the will of the infinitie supreme that nothing shall ever be separated from everything: the birth of love.
For everything is everywhere, nothing shall have its own place, so it is by the will of the infinite supreme that there be nothing in addition to the light.

The birth of darkness

From the infinite supreme, the darkness descends. The darkness differs from the light in that it is only and merely nothing. Nothing changes and change is nothing, merely an absence of good, for good is everything including nothing. The darkness requires only good to exist and its only aspect is change. So it is that everything that changes is within the darkness.
As boundless light is constant and yet cannot be defined, the bounds of darkness are well defined and constantly changing. As the only aspect and therefore also the nature of darkness is change, so it is that, the light which fills the darkness is changed. The first change of the light within darkness is love.
It is only for the sake of love, the first and immediate aspect of the infinite supreme, that change occurs.
Following love is the aspect of mind. It is the mind of the infinite supreme that recognizes love and in turn loves its own goodness. The next aspect of the light is the spirit of the infinte supreme. It is through the spirit that the mind is swayed by love to create.
The fourth aspect of the light within darkness is matter. The movement of matter by spirit allows mind to create from love.
It is by the will of the infinite supreme alone that of the light within the darkness, it is mind that ponders the darkness, matter, which gives it substance; love holds it together, and through spirit the will is carried out. As one, this light of the infinite supreme within the darkness is god: the first breath.

Being of mind, matter, love and spirit, god, the light within, is of the will of the infinite supreme alone. Formed first from love, god is the first breath of the infinite supreme and the cause and creator of every subsequent thing.
Every 'thing' should be distinguished from 'everything'. Everything is good and only the infinite supreme is good. Every thing is all that is created from the good but are not in themselves good, as every thing requires creation from something else.
Creation is the work of god within darkness. By the changes of mind through the pondering of darkenss and the substances of matter, god fills creation with ideas and objects from which the universe is fashioned.

The universe is the manifestation of the ideas and objects of god's creation cast by the light of man within the darkness of creation.

On eternity

Eternity is an aspect of the boundless light, the good, and infinite supreme. God, the light within, the ideas and objects of creation, and man are all eternal aspects of the boundless light of the good and infinite supreme.
Time begins in darkness with the manifestation of the universe and exists wholly within the darkness of the universe and yet the light that penetrates is eternal. The light alone eternally enters the darkness. The eternal light, the microcosmic good, is god, the creator.
By the will of the infinite supreme man was brought forth to witness creation from within and through mans love of the eternal harmony of god's creation and the of all the ideas and objects within, brought forth the universe in celebration.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;141162 wrote:

Forgive me if I was being a little facetious. I do suppose that it is a fair question now I consider it again. This intuition might actually be similar to the idea in the ancient world of 'the eternal return'. It is really rather a chilling thought in some ways. There is an interesting title on it by Mircea Eliade, called the Myth of the Eternal Return. The idea is mentioned briefly in Wikipedia Eternal return - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

@Theologikos,

Theologikos;144402 wrote:

Nein! Nein! Nein! Nein!

Your premise is faulty. An infinite God cannot exist.[1] And if an infinite God did exist, it wouldn't be the fundamental cause for all things. Time screws that up.

If you didn't need time for something to exist, you need time for something to change state. The states are nonexistence to existence, So for a creator to create anything, she would need to create time first and foremost. But any attempt to create anything would be impossible unless time existed. If time existed without needing to be created, then whatever may have created anything else, is not and cannot, be the basic reason for everything.

Since this being can't even create anything, much less be infinite, I'd say no.

But, assuming that this being is infinite, she could create something an infinite number of times, but it isn't necessarily required of her.

Perhaps I am being presumptuous, but are you hinting at alternate universes?

[1] http://www.philosophyforum.com/religion/abrahamic-religions/christianity/8103-god-disproved.html

My good Theologikos, you speak with such absolute certainty, as if you knew things first hand, which you don't. Everything you "know" is only theory, assumptions which are imo very flawed.

A good philosopher should always know his thesis, oppinions ..etc are subject for faults, that one can be mistaken ..that's why some humility should be in order.

@HexHammer,

HexHammer;145109 wrote:

My good Theologikos, you speak with such absolute certainty, as if you knew things first hand, which you don't. Everything you "know" is only theory, assumptions which are imo very flawed.

A good philosopher should always know his thesis, oppinions ..etc are subject for faults, that one can be mistaken ..that's why some humility should be in order.

[CENTER]:bigsmile:
Old Age comes with Un-Certainty

Have to get Pill's now to stay Sane.
\
PepI Sweep
M^M Laughing

[/CENTER]

@Pepijn Sweep,

Pepijn Sweep;145094 wrote:

I think more Boeddhist. Agree Time is not lineair, can't be Spatial so has to be a bit more complex. My vision of afterlife is that we have to make up for what we did wrong by doing good in an-other life. I never occured to me people want their old bodies back.

If I try to imagine God existing in an infinite timeline(forwards and backwards infinitely). Then I realize I have an infinite past, from which time can never move forward. I also wonder how time can move in any direction if there is no point from which it starts. Which there wouldnt be if it were infinite in both directions. There could be a beginning to time where it could progress infinitely into the future, but then I wouldnt see God and time as being eternal. Perhaps God does exist in infinite time, but with no beginning and no end(which by definition is eternity), then I would see God as existing in ALL time, at the same time, or existing outside of time somehow.

@Neil D,

god is actually the end of eternity and existence for Humanity

@north,

north;145370 wrote:

god is actually the end of eternity and existence for Humanity

What does that even mean?

The universe existed for billions of years before humans showed up, and I am pretty certain that it will continue to exist long after humans are gone. So if god only exists because humans do, then I would agree because god is nothing more than a human construct.

@Neil D,

I think he means 'first principle and cause of all existence'. If 'God' is simply a human invention, then it has no meaning, and religion was simply always a delusion from the outset. In which case, it is rather suprising that human society survived at all, you would think if they were so terminally delusional from the outset, they wouldn't have even been able to figure out how to grow a wheat crop or make an artefact.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;145374 wrote:

I think he means 'first principle and cause of all existence'. If 'God' is simply a human invention, then it has no meaning, and religion was simply always a delusion from the outset. In which case, it is rather suprising that human society survived at all, you would think if they were so terminally delusional from the outset, they wouldn't have even been able to figure out how to grow a wheat crop or make an artefact.

From your perspective maybe, but perhaps it is your theology that insists that humans are incapable of doing anything rational. That humans would require or need some influence from another entity?

Why can you not see it from a possible perspective? If god does not exist and it has always been delusional then everything we have done is all done by us. Is that so hard to imagine?

The problem of evil actually makes more sense without the existence of a god. Because we are left to our own motivations. We create the bad as well as the good. Some people grow, others do not. Some like to be constructive and supportive, while others want to tear us down. While others try to give all this credit off to some imaginary entity.

@Neil D,

You're assuming I have a theology. I don't, actually. It is just hard to see how something which until very recently was at the centre of the social consensus, was all just a big mistake. I mean, if, collectively, humanity could have been so wrong about a matter of such importance, it is a wonder how we succeeded in doing anything at all. Also, the nature of religion is such that it provides a relationship - rightly or wrongly - with 'source of all that is'. So when this is dissolved, it is very easy to feel that humans are just contingent, accidental, and so on. Very short step from there to nihilism, I would have thought.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;145374 wrote:

I think he means 'first principle and cause of all existence'. If 'God' is simply a human invention, then it has no meaning, and religion was simply always a delusion from the outset. In which case, it is rather suprising that human society survived at all, you would think if they were so terminally delusional from the outset, they wouldn't have even been able to figure out how to grow a wheat crop or make an artefact.

to add ;

god is more important than their own Humanity , troubling

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;145382 wrote:

You're assuming I have a theology. I don't, actually. It is just hard to see how something which until very recently was at the centre of the social consensus, was all just a big mistake.

Call it early science of trying to understand the things in which we could not explain. This is only one purpose of what religion tried to do. The other is control. People do not obey other people, but if you place a god behind the law then people can not protest the law. This gives religion power and those who are good at religion, control the masses. It is just as flawed if we never had such a structure because it falls victim to the same corruption.

jeeprs;145382 wrote:

I mean, if, collectively, humanity could have been so wrong about a matter of such importance, it is a wonder how we succeeded in doing anything at all.

This is our adaptation ability. We have group cohesion when we can sympathize with others. When this is abandoned then you get neglect and loss. It happens at all levels of the social chain. Good people are not born from religion, they are born of themselves because they see themselves in others. A truly good person does not need religion at all. Only those who require suppression need religion.

jeeprs;145382 wrote:

Also, the nature of religion is such that it provides a relationship - rightly or wrongly - with 'source of all that is'.

There is no source that is. What you are talking about is just an aspect of mind that you can not grasp fully or put into words. There is nothing behind life, life just is. It is chaotic and it is docile. It does not follow any one rule. It springs up and goes extinct. Those who are attached to life feel it is something more magical.

jeeprs;145382 wrote:

So when this is dissolved, it is very easy to feel that humans are just contingent, accidental, and so on. Very short step from there to nihilism, I would have thought.

It doesn't have to be nihilistic. I mean the creation of a snow flake is completely random and where that snow flake lands is completely random. How long it remains a snow flake is completely random. How is a snow flake any different than a person?

@north,

north;145384 wrote:

to add ;

god is more important than their own Humanity , troubling

Believe in God m/f is more important than your humilty,

Humanity is the aim of Being God and re-D-sign.

Retire before your Kids will Eat you.

P.S. Laughing

O.X
:bigsmile:

@Krumple,

Krumple;145385 wrote:

Call it early science of trying to understand the things in which we could not explain. This is only one purpose of what religion tried to do. The other is control. People do not obey other people, but if you place a god behind the law then people can not protest the law. This gives religion power and those who are good at religion, control the masses. It is just as flawed if we never had such a structure because it falls victim to the same corruption.

Well that is one aspect of it. It is not the only aspect. It is of course true that religion has provided a means to control the masses. But it is impossible to deny that there is a strong demand for religion from those very same masses. Where does that come from? Why do the impoverished and downtrodden try and form prayer groups and read Bibles? Why does the Chinese Communist Party have to keep monitoring and breaking up Christian movements. What do you think drives that?

Mind you I don't want to give the impression that I am standing up for the Vatican. I am not. But I am interested in understanding the human need that drives religion. I think your specific approach of simply saying that it is all a delusion and enslavement does not do anything to answer that question. Believers have had to deal with a lot worse, and they keep coming back.

Krumple;145385 wrote:

A truly good person does not need religion at all.

And Wittgenstein said that philosophy is only a ladder, which is used, and then discarded. This does not mean that philosophy doesn't have a place, or a use. Same goes for religion. It is a way of imagining the human situation. What need is it meeting? Why is it always around? that is what you need to consider.

Krumple;145385 wrote:

There is no source that is.

So you say. Why should anyone accept that? it is a simple assertion, based on what? Even if it is the case that the universe has no first cause, it will be natural for people to imagine one. After all, everything seems to have a cause. Proving that the universe 'just happens' would seem pretty pointless. If you win the argument, so what? The lack of significance of the universe can't be regarded as something very significant. Nihilism looms again. (Maybe not for you, but how is it going to play in Peoria?)

Krumple;145385 wrote:

How is a snow flake any different than a person?

by being inanimate, small, cold, white, made entirely of water, and melting at anything above zero degrees celsius. And also not having to worry about it.

@Neil D,

actually I am not much of a fan of religion but I think hardheaded atheism is a lot worse. At least religion leaves some room for the imagination and a sense of possibility. The Dawkinsian atheism leaves me completely cold. If I had to choose, I would choose the former.

Fortunately, we don't.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;146327 wrote:

actually I am not much of a fan of religion but I think hardheaded atheism is a lot worse. At least religion leaves some room for the imagination and a sense of possibility. The Dawkinsian atheism leaves me completely cold. If I had to choose, I would choose the former.

Fortunately, we don't.

Sure "Dawkinsian" atheism is annoying, and I don't have any problems with spiritual or religious people, but I am not happy when this kind of $hit happens:
Global Implications of Sharia Law Speak Truth 2 Power

Sharia UK: What exactly does it mean? | Mail Online

In God's Name: Genocide and Religion in the Twentieth Century | Christian Century | Find Articles at BNET

How Sharia Law Punishes Raped Women

I don't know exactly what you mean by "hard-headed atheism" but I am completely open to the possibility of a God. It's organized and subsidized religion that I have a problem with. I mean the business of religion that is hiding behind the facade of "just a gathering."
When religion becomes political, I have a problem. When religion creates an us vs. them mentality, I have a problem. When religion makes people want to kill each other, I have a problem. Other than that, I'm cool with religion. Sure, I get pissed when my freedoms are being threatened, but my little personal freedoms are secondary when it comes to what Sharia Law takes. I'm not going to just sit and say "well at least it's not happening to me!" when some girl is being executed because she got raped. (okay, I sound angry, but I am not angry at you)

I'm being off topic, so to add to the discussion I will say that Neil, you have a great point. 5*'s from me on this thread.

Oh and HexHammer, I haven't been on this thread in a while and I just saw your post. Thank you for putting me in my place; I was being haughty and I really needed that.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;146327 wrote:

actually I am not much of a fan of religion but I think hardheaded atheism is a lot worse. At least religion leaves some room for the imagination and a sense of possibility. The Dawkinsian atheism leaves me completely cold. If I had to choose, I would choose the former.

Fortunately, we don't.

I have no use for either one of those. I, in no way associate God(if there is one) with religion. To me, God is ambiguous. It could be some sort of eternal being, or some fundamental cosmological constants. It could be a Unifield Field that divided itself to cause the Big Bang and create the Universe. Or maybe God could be hiding in Gravity. Gravity is the force they say extends beyond this Universe into the "Bulk", making it infinite...an attribute of God. And one of my favorites, God could be the Quantum Electrodynamic Field. Last but not least, the Higgs Boson. Seem to have an obsession with trying desperately to find God through science and theoretical Physics. I dont have any great knowledge of any of these, maybe if I did I wouldnt even consider them.

@Neil D,

The whole picture of the cosmos is infinitely more mysterious now than it was in 1500, if you ask me. Every cubic centimetre contains massive amounts of energy, and so on. Very fascinating really. I recommend some of Paul Davies books (I might have mentioned him before.)

Philosophy Forum

God, Eternity, and Existence

Quick Links

My Account

able2know