The Million Dollar Question

[Ryantology]

Well obviously I won't consider everything to be eternal or even two things. Then it wouldn't make sense since why are two things eternal, there must be a first. Only a single thing can be eternal.

Why can only one thing be eternal? Why can't the whole of existence, and all of the stuff within, be eternal? That seems far likelier, to me, then all of it being magicked out of nothing, because if there was just God, he's a special exception that can't be justified.

The universe as in the one we are in does have a beginning, or no? This is why I called it created, because its existence is as a result of an action of the eternal entity. Thus its created

The universe as we know it has a beginning. We have absolutely zero idea what sort of state it was all in 'before' that. The stuff that makes up our universe was already there, as far as we can tell. It didn't just blink into existence out of nothing one day.

Furthermore, tossing an 'eternal entity' into the mix lacks explanatory power, and merely adds an unnecessary roadblock to understanding. It is a sign reading "don't bother trying to figure this out".

Since nobody has any actual knowledge on the subject, guessing that it was all the work of some invisible monster who exists alone, outside of space and time is, to put it very mildly, going out on one thin fucker of a limb.

[lordofgemini]

---

@confusedape

Intresting views but we aren't talking about religion here. We are talking about God.

The question in the opening post is "What is a God?". Maybe a better way of putting it would be "What is a deity?" because that covers everything - the God of Judaism/Christianity/Islam is a deity along with all the gods and goddesses humans have ever believed in.

Use you logic and understanding, it takes alots of intellect to grasp the concept of God and even higher to understand God.

It really depends on whose concept of God you're talking about - Brahman - The Universal Self - The Highest God Of Hindusim

Brahman is the indescribable, inexhaustible, omniscient, omnipresent, original, first, eternal and absolute principle who is without a beginning, without an end , who is hidden in all and who is the cause, source, material and effect of all creation known, unknown and yet to happen in the entire universe.

He is the incomprehensible, unapproachable radiant being whom the ordinary senses and ordinary intellect cannot fathom grasp or able to describe even with partial success. He is the mysterious Being totally out of the reach of all sensory activity, rationale effort and mere intellectual, decorative and pompous endeavor.

According to that humans aren't going to understand Brahman through using logic and intellect.

Those religions just follow blindly what ever God they are told of be it fire/idol/or some old ancient man/cow/elephant/sun.

Gods and Goddesses of Hinduism

All the numerous gods and goddesses are the eyes, ears, hands and feet of Brahman only. In their individual aspects they represent diversity and His numerous duties (dharmas); but in their unified and highest aspect they represent Brahman, the Supreme Self.

So, it seems that they can be regarded as aspects of the Universal Self by people who want to interpret them like that.

This doesn't mean all of them are god. Religion has nothing to do with the concept of God. Be it any religion.

There wouldn't have been any religions if people hadn't come up with some concept of deity in the first place. Nobody knows how and why religion got started or what the earliest modern humans believed in.

There's a mysterious cave painting known as the Sorcerer of Trois-Frères and it's been dated to approximately 13,000 BC.

[hide]

---

Is this the root of the figure depicted on a seal which was found at Mohenjo-daro, a settlement which was built around 2,600 BC?

---

---

Did this image of whatever it was supposed to be bear any relation to the figure on the Gundestrup Cauldron which has been dated between 200 BC and 300 AD

---

---

Humans have always wandered around and borrowed ideas from other groups of humans. There is evidence that people can have a subjective experience of God/Supreme Reality or whatever you want to call it. It's likely that some early modern humans had the same experience but there's no way of knowing how they interpreted it.

These days there's a New Age tendency to think of God as having something to do with quantum physics. I think we can safely say that early modern humans didn't come up with this concept.

Very informative post.
Yes Brahman fit the description of God. But the point it that yes many religion describe God in different ways. But in actuallity there is just One God. That is the reason for the existence of eeverything. And that One God is the true God.

---

---

You say you don't know if the universe wasn't eternal or not. Well when I think which you clearly aren't doing.

"Think"? You mean "imagine." They are different things; don't ever confuse what seems good in your mind with what's actually true.

I can seem to find a start, my imagination keeps going and and going.

So, because you imagine something and then can't figure out any other way to resolve the problem that you have fantasized into existence, suddenly something needs to be eternal?

Well, to begin with, what you imagine isn't necessarily reality...

It puts my mind into a logical loop. Thus to get out of the loop I take something to be eternal that is beyond time.

... And what you're doing here is an argument from ignorance and personal incredulity; just because you can't think of another solution (for the problem you have imagined into existence) doesn't mean the one you've decided on is correct....

And everything else is created.

... And this is an unjustified assertion. Where's your evidence?

Thus I came to a conclusion that there is something eternal, which is unlike anything. There is no other way about it. What do you reckon.

I reckon you've got an argument from ignorance. Not hugely compelling: when you reach the point where you can't figure out a solution the position should become "I don't know," not "I know something eternal is out there." How do you test that?

This is what I call logical evidence.

There's no such thing as logical evidence. Evidence is something you feed into logic to arrive at properly justified conclusions. But the claim you've made has no evidence, and cannot be tested, and thus you have nothing beyond your preferences to feed into logic to output your conclusion.

And what you prefer isn't the dictator of reality.

---

Fine I want you to give me any literally any other possible justification of the existence of the eternal universe.

Like i said there must be a first, that first must be eternal. And the next thing is the because of the first. I.e. created.

[Esquilax]

Fine I want you to give me any literally any other possible justification of the existence of the eternal universe.

Again, this is the argument from ignorance fallacy, since even if I could provide no answer, it doesn't make yours correct.

That said, who says this is an eternal universe?

Like i said there must be a first, that first must be eternal. And the next thing is the because of the first. I.e. created.

So, this is just another set of assertions, since you've not demonstrated any of your musts. Do that, and maybe we'll talk. But simply strenuously telling me something must be a certain way doesn't make it so.

I must be a billionaire.

Oh look, I didn't suddenly become flooded with money. Crazy how that works.

[lordofgemini]

---

Well obviously I won't consider everything to be eternal or even two things. Then it wouldn't make sense since why are two things eternal, there must be a first. Only a single thing can be eternal.

Why can only one thing be eternal? Why can't the whole of existence, and all of the stuff within, be eternal? That seems far likelier, to me, then all of it being magicked out of nothing, because if there was just God, he's a special exception that can't be justified.

The universe as in the one we are in does have a beginning, or no? This is why I called it created, because its existence is as a result of an action of the eternal entity. Thus its created

The universe as we know it has a beginning. We have absolutely zero idea what sort of state it was all in 'before' that. The stuff that makes up our universe was already there, as far as we can tell. It didn't just blink into existence out of nothing one day.

Furthermore, tossing an 'eternal entity' into the mix lacks explanatory power, and merely adds an unnecessary roadblock to understanding. It is a sign reading "don't bother trying to figure this out".

Since nobody has any actual knowledge on the subject, guessing that it was all the work of some invisible monster who exists alone, outside of space and time is, to put it very mildly, going out on one thin fucker of a limb.

---

Do you agree eternity is a must?

You said everything to be eternal is more likelier to be possible. Now that is totally absurd and fallacious. You want everything to be eternal. That is like you saying everything thing just was there forever without reason. Or a cause. Logically there must be a first.

Yes so it was created like I said becuase it has a beginning.

---

Fine I want you to give me any literally any other possible justification of the existence of the eternal universe.

Again, this is the argument from ignorance fallacy, since even if I could provide no answer, it doesn't make yours correct.

That said, who says this is an eternal universe?

Like i said there must be a first, that first must be eternal. And the next thing is the because of the first. I.e. created.

So, this is just another set of assertions, since you've not demonstrated any of your musts. Do that, and maybe we'll talk. But simply strenuously telling me something must be a certain way doesn't make it so.

I must be a billionaire.

Oh look, I didn't suddenly become flooded with money. Crazy how that works.

Yes because there is no other way around. Every single person will come to the Same conclusion. Provided he can think.
Universe as is existence. And existence is eternal. Or do you say otherwise.

You want me to give you a silly simple analogy. Although there is no possible analogy that fits. Because nothing is the first except God.

Imagine a house. Everything perfectly set., the doors of wood, windows, table chairs, beds everything, In the middle of a desert. Both of us see it. I say what a beutiful house made by X. U say no it just there I can't give you any possible answer because I am refraining to think out of ignorance . While is say there 'must' be a builder it didn't just pop out for no reason. Its obvious.
And then u start blaming me that I am asserting things without evidence and that it just there no need to think about it.

[Confused Ape]

Yes Brahman fit the description of God. But the point it that yes many religion describe God in different ways. But in actuallity there is just One God. That is the reason for the existence of eeverything. And that One God is the true God.

A subjective experience which is interpreted as God doesn't prove that God actually exists, though. Some people have scary subjective experiences which they interpret as being abducted by aliens. Is this proof that alien abductions really happen?

[lordofgemini]

A subjective experience which is interpreted as God doesn't prove that God actually exists, though. Some people have scary subjective experiences which they interpret as being abducted by aliens. Is this proof that alien abductions really happen?

I didn't even mention subjective experience ever. You don't understand what is God. Forget about all religions for a moment. Then think with a free mind.

[Ryantology]

Do you agree eternity is a must?

I don't agree it is a 'must'. I think it is likely to be true.

You said everything to be eternal is more likelier to be possible. Now that is totally absurd and fallacious. You want everything to be eternal. That is like you saying everything thing just was there forever without reason. Or a cause. Logically there must be a first.

You can't go and say "logically, there must be a first" when the underlying logic of that statement is "every effect has a cause". It is self-contradictory. The idea of a conscious, thinking creator being an 'uncaused cause' does nothing but justify the idea that conscious, thinking humans required no creator.

Yes so it was created like I said becuase it has a beginning.

Is that a fact? Then, you'll have no problem telling us the precise moment everything began. Science would greatly appreciate your insight.

Also, a first cause doesn't make a conscious creator necessary, sorry to say.

[Crossless2.0]

You want me to give you a silly simple analogy. Although there is no possible analogy that fits. Because nothing is the first except God.

Imagine a house. Everything perfectly set., the doors of wood, windows, table chairs, beds everything, In the middle of a desert. Both of us see it. I say what a beutiful house made by X. U say no it just there I can't give you any possible answer because I am refraining to think out of ignorance . While is say there 'must' be a builder it didn't just pop out for no reason. Its obvious.
And then u start blaming me that I am asserting things without evidence and that it just there no need to think about it.

Some analogies are better than others, and this one stinks. We know from experience that houses and furniture are designed, manufactured objects. What evidence -- aside from your baseless insistence that it is so -- do we have that the universe is a designed thing? We intuit design by contrasting designed objects with naturally occurring objects. On what basis do you decide that nature itself is designed? What are you contrasting it with?

[Lemonvariable72]

Somehow lord Gemini you remind me of the people of krikket from hitch hikers guide to the galaxy. They were a kind and charming people that lived on a planet in a dust cloud on the edge of the galaxy. They had idea the universe existed until a space ship crash landed on their world and they through reverse engineering discovered the universe. How do you think they reacted?

[Bad Writer]

Welcome back, Stat! I hope you're fully recovered; this forum has been lacking in heavy YEC arguments since you went on hiatus, not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.

Creating the universe seems like a small and pitiful thing compared to a being that can supposedly do anything/everything.

I find it rather impressive myself.

Impressive in retrospect, especially since you've claimed that there had to be a creator for something that very well may have been natural. It's a shame nothing on so grand a scale occurs much as of late. All your god sees fit to do nowadays is bestow us with his esteemed visage from time to time.



Damn, I want some of this water here turned to wine! Jesus has gotten really lame over the last 2000 years since he hung out with his groupies in Jerusalem.

That’s my point; so as an atheist you do not believe that anything actually exists?

Anything? Do you really think that we believe nothing exists?

Since everything can be defined as a god and you do not believe in the existence of any gods you therefore do not believe that any one thing exists right?

Why do you make these straw men? You're better than this. Our pal here "lordofgemini" actually thinks that everything, a.k.a., our universe, is god. Discarding his definition of god, does not mean we discard everything with it.

You said that the definition of the term “god” is determined by those who believe in it, so if you believe cats exist and as long as one person believes cats are gods according to your reasoning you would now be a theist and not an atheist.

Straw man again. The real answer is that we are not theists because a person believes cats are gods (e.g. the ancient Egyptians did worship cats). Most people have their own views of cats as simply animals with no supernatural abilities.

By this same token, we understand that you believe there was a man named Jesus. The fact that you worship this man does not also make us theists if we also acknowledge a belief that there was a man named Jesus.

So stop sitting there equating our belief in a thing with someone else's belief in the deistic nature of said thing. You don't have to create straw man arguments just so that you can have a debate with a group of people for which it appears you hold some disdain.

Also, please stop trying to convince us that we don't know the actual definition of "atheist". How hard is it to acknowledge that we have this term applied to us because we simply lack a belief in just one more deity than you?