IMAliyu:


I've been following the development and research of Artificial Intelligence, and this thing is as real as real can be and may infact posse a danger.

To know just how far things have gotten, you may want to look up GPT-3 a new ai language model. Which can write and respond on a near indistinguishable level to a person.

And robotics as well, you can see how far Boston dynamics has gotten.

We know people can be malicious and war mongering. All that needs to happen is for someone to bring these technologies together, to say for example create artificial soldiers, weapons.

And we will have a cause of people being killed by their own creations.

And don't get me started on bioweapons.

They are All Puppets! And you are not looking at the Puppet Master but at his puppets.

The Puppet Master has created it to do anything the puppet master has set it to do.

Humans created God.

DeusXmachina:


To no. 1
Seemingly yes. There are things called virtual particles in physics. Two opposing pairs, seemingly pop into existence from nowhere and cancel each other out continuously in a vacuum.

You seem to just bag your degree in Quantum physics!
LOL!

Particle and its Anti-particle may collide and disappear, releasing energy but the converse destroys the law of conservation of energy.
Your postulate above just said that: from zero energy, two opposing pairs just magically pops up and their recombination releases energy.

DeusXmachina:

2. Really depends on what you define as God, but I'm assuming you're going with the Christian presupposition. My answer don't know, however I hold a more flexible view of "God".
"God" could had been the right conditions and rules that gave birth to our universe, which would mean God doesn't really have to be a physical things, but a set of phenomenon, and "God" doesn't need to be a sentient intelligence, but something more akin to cellular automatons.
Einstein asked this question of "did God have a say in creating the universe?"
For all we know God could just be a set primordial rules that all work independently, like termites that individually are simple, but together can form a large complex structure giving rise to we call the universe, similar to a termite hill/colony formed from the simple actions of all an individual termites combined.
The thing that negates inexistence.
(Research Cellular Automata for further clarification.)
Anyway most of what I have said are nothing but speculation, and without experiments or evidence, will just remain like that, so it should be taken as such.

Lets look at your propositions carefully. At least, it seems you are not of those like brute animals who bleat that God is just a fairy tale idea like santa clause: lets hope you can logically wade through the concept/idea/personality called God.

The fact that the Universe exist at all proves that the universe was NEVER at anypoint void: for if the universe/multiverse was completely empty, then nothing will exist as something can never come out of nothing .

If we project back to the infinite past, we must arrive at the Primary Source and Origin of every other things in the universe. At least, we know that our universe (consisting of everything that obeys the law of Physics) has an origin of about 13.6 billion years ago. LEts call this Source/Origin the UNCAUSED-FIRST-CAUSE of everything.

This Uncaused-First-Cause of Everything could either be a THING or CONSCIOUSNESS/PERSONALITY


Now, looking at your argument: you've mentioned things like
Right conditions
Rules
A set of phenomenon
1. If the Uncaused First Cause was a THING, because it had existed infinite number of trillions of years before the big bang, common sense should tell us that it must be a CONSTANT. If it is a constant, then it remains a constant forever.
2. Conditions never act by themselves: conditions need objects to act upon. Can there exist electromagnetic waves without a source? Can there exist a temperature gradient without a source? etc. Without objects of creation, conditions are meaningless!
3. Rules are logical set of instructions: which is akin to how a computer works. Do you think it is possible for a computer to write a single line of meaningful code without an intelligence behind it?

It is amazing that some people are willing to believe the scientific impossibility that SOMETHING can come out of NOTHING instead of acknowledging that there must be something out there which DO NOT obey the laws of Physics and Chemistry that set up the physical realm.

If you know anything about the law of ENTROPY, you will understand that everything in the universe is tending towards a state of disorderliness. If you can only project backwards for infinite number of trillions of years before the big bang, you will arrive at a point of minimum entropy. A question is why didnt that state exist perpetually? Why would the big bang or the inflation theory seem to create order out of disorder without an external constraining ordering force?

So many things beyond the physical laws as the laws of physics and chemistry are not older than 13.6 billion years ago. Using such laws to unravel God is simply an exercise in futility.

sonmvayina:


So he created us and gave us the ability to make choices, and some people like you have made a choice to believe absurdities like God impregnating the wife of one of his creation to sire a son..what will happen to people like you at the end ?

I hope you can see how silly your rebuttal is?

Since you are coming from the assumption that God exists but you are only questioning his ability:
You just said that God gave us the ability to make choices to believe the absurdity that God made a woman pregnant: Is this an IMPOSSIBILITY for the Creator of Everything?

MuttleyLaff:


"²⁶Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness,
to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock,
and over all the earth itself and every creature that crawls upon it.
²⁷So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him;
male and female He created them"
- Genesis 1:26-27

I like red, as the colour, exudes an air of love, romance, boldness, courage, danger etcetera to me. We, human beings, are physical image representation of different attributes of God. God is incorporeal, but created human beings, to physically project different aspect, different visual imagery and likeness of the Godhead.

Image is instant, while likeness is continuum. The latter, is evident in Genesis 1:27, as seen above. Notice that the mention of "likeness" is left unsaid, in Genesis 1:27. Why? Its because its continuum.

The failure to comply with an expressed command resulted into bad products. Not acting in accordance to God's wish is where the bad products came from.

The failure of personal choice/volition to comply with an expressed command resulted into people becoming bad products. Choosing not to act in accordance to God's wish is what turns the human being into a bad product.

Unfit products are fit only for God's refuse dump!

shadeyinka:
The failure of personal choice/volition to comply with an expressed command resulted into people becoming bad products. Choosing not to act in accordance to God's wish is what turns the human being into a bad product.

Unfit products are fit only for God's refuse dump!

Exactamundo, only that Martian has just only a "kitchen heaven" and nothing whatsoever, at all, even when food goes off, end up in the dustbin or go into the trashcan, lmso

budaatum:

First, thanks for the compliment, since you describe Paul as "eloquence of a gifted lawyer", which I'm certain you'd agree requires much effort.

First of all, that was not a compliment but an example of a reasonable description compared to your "tongue of angels". Second, why would you thank me for complimenting Paul

budaatum:

I agree that "God's are figments of man's imagination", though not necessarily "fear", at least not for everyone, but human understanding, as limited as it is often. If you search through my posts you'd see me call the understanding of some "the crap they create inside of their heads and believe is true", which is the only place that Gods exist.

They could say the same about you and they'd be right.

budaatum:

Please allow me:

The bible is combination of jewish pseudohistory (as there really is little in it that can accurately be called history as research has shown), legends, and mythology with graeco-roman and Babylonian and Egyptian, and the philosophy of all that surrounded them of which the Bible is syncretised from, and which is what makes it a rather valuable book.

A valuable book to those that have monetized it. Seriously, it does have cultural value due to the influence of it's stories and literature.

budaatum:

Then forgive me for ascribing knowledge to you that you lack.

I can only forgive you if I take offence and you can't offend me given what you are passing off as intellect.

budaatum:

Perhaps go study some Plato to learn how Paul dumbed down Plato for the masses and you'd see why Jesus is described as a form of Logos.

Logos as used in ancient greek philosophy could mean a number of things that's needless to get into here. Some ancient Greeks believed logos was the active reason pervading and animating the Universe. All Paul did was call it Jesus. What's some profound about that?
Philo did the same. Philo used logos to mean an intermediary divine being or demiurge, the so called first born of God.

budaatum:

You may also come to understand why it is said "In the beginning was the Logos" which became flesh in Jesus. After all, it would be rather ridiculous, I would think, to claim the Bible is not a book written in words, and both, the Bible and the words in it, do obviously exist.

What is this non sequitur word salad

budaatum:

There is not an ideal form of justice, Martian, or at least humans have not yet found one despite all the assertions of proponents. Justice, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder which is why it varies according to location.

Of course know there no ideal form of justice or beauty. My statement was to show the absurdity of the so called theory of forms and your valued logos.

budaatum:

An example is homosexuality. Police will arrest you for being gay in Nigeria, but you will be arrested for insulting a gay person in UK, which shows that what is just varies wherever you are.

Yes, moral norms are subjective and dependent on individuals and society. So what?

budaatum:

Some things are clearly just or not though. If you shoot me dead without a justifiable reason like self defense, you'd go to jail almost everywhere.

Not if I plan the murder well, leave no witnesses, and get a great lawyer if I happen to get arrested. Then I'll kill you and be free like O.J. all day!!!

budaatum:

That said, just as there is an ideal Fruits of the Spirit, is there also its opposite called the Works of the Flesh as described in [url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%205%3A19-21&version=KJV]Galatians 5:19-21[/url]

19. The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; - What is sexual immorality?

20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions - Apart from the sillinesss of the first two, all of these are human emotions that can be resolved in the normal course of human interactions. I would think your God would be concerned about slavery, rape, and charlatans exploiting people.

21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. Envy is another human emotion, drunkeness is a diseases, orgies are nobody's business but the participants. This God of your is some simpleminded.

budaatum:

Perhaps you are right. After all, if I were born in Saudi Arabia I'd likely be able to express myself better in Arabicspeak than my first speak which I use here, but hopefully, the sentiment and reasoning will be the same since I learnt that through much study, which you will find Jesus did too.

The sentiment and reasoning would be the same but the God would be different. Congratulations to Mr. Jesus for his PhD level studies in Jewish fables!!!!

budaatum:

I can't say I agree with your assertion above. In UK, for instance, where there happens to be a church in every parish and which is religious though not worn on a sleeve, one would not say there is "the high correlation between religiosity and suffering" that you claim there is. In fact, the opposite would be said and evidence provided for it too.

The level of religiosity is not determined by the church in every parish but the number of people in the churches and who profess the faith. There is an inverse relationship between religiosity and standard of living. That's why there might be a church in every parish but there's not enough people to fill the pew. Compared to Nigeria where there is a church filled to capacity in every nook and cranny.

budaatum:

Same goes for America, at least going by the number of people who would gladly jump out of the hell they describe Nigeria as being into the heaven they think America is.

The religiosity in America does cause strife and suffering but of course it's not Nigeria's level. The suffering shows up in drug laws, incarceration rates, lack of healthcare, etc. Guess which people will never support rectifying what ails America. The melanin lacking fellow believers of your precious book.
Trust me when I say the more religious an American is the more likely it is they espouse ignorant, bigoted, imbecilic views.

budaatum:

I guess I'm not simple, and in fact, the over a thousand page Bible isn't either or we would not be arguing about its complexity.

We are not arguing about it's complexity. It's only complex to people primed to believe it's special.

budaatum:

I never said the "Bible is figurative", Martian. I am rather too careful with my words than to make such an ignorant sweeping statement.

budaatum:

The Bible is not literal and neither are Gods.

You didn't say it's figurative. I'm sorry, you just implied it.

budaatum:

There is after all no way to claim "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife and goods", is meant figuratively. Or is it to you?

The people God gave the commandments to then went on a homicidal, infanticidal, genocidal, raping, rapine, kidnapping spree on the instruction of the same God. Forget about me, the people in the story thought "thou shalt not kill" was figurative.

budaatum:

How one reads and understands a book would determine if it's true or not, I would think, and is the point of that thread. I for instance, can not accept the understanding of some that the God described in the Garden of Eden was a good God since it seems to be promoting an alimanjeri creating ideology, while most responders, though not said yet, would accuse me of worshipping the serpent.

How one reads and understands a book does not determine it's truth. It's either true or unture. Real stories or contrived stories. And it's sometimes embellished truth but one's understanding does not change the underlying facts.

Your so called understanding of the Garden of Eden story does not make it true or untrue. It either happened or didn't happen and your inability to "understand" the God described in the story as a good God doesn't make it false or make you a serpent worshipper. The simple answer is the story is myth just like Zeus on Mt. Olympus. If we take your reasoning to it's logical conclusion, you would regard the stories of Zeus as true if you "accept the understanding".

Martian:

Logos as used in ancient greek philosophy could mean a number of things that's needless to get into here. Some ancient Greeks believed logos was the active reason pervading and animating the Universe. All Paul did was call it Jesus. What's some profound about that?
Philo did the same. Philo used logos to mean an intermediary divine being or demiurge, the so called first born of God.

I'm amazed you know this. Shows you know the author of John was working with known ideas, like Paul was, and Jesus, and the authors of the Bible.

An intelligent person would wonder why, but I guess that's not what you'd do, or perhaps you just haven't bothered yet. Do let me know when you have.

budaatum:

I'm amazed you know this. Shows you know the author of John was working with known ideas, like Paul was, and Jesus, and the authors of the Bible.

An intelligent person would wonder why, but I guess that's not what you'd do, or perhaps you just haven't bothered yet. Do let me know when you have.

Jesus, a Jewish rabbi who was't Hellenized, wasn't working with Greek philosophy so why are you so excited that Paul and the authors of the Greek Testament (New Testament) were? Don't refer to the authors of the Bible at the moment, because the culture that owns the original myth (so called Old Testament) do not subscribe to the new testament.

So what if they were influenced by Greek philosophy?. Education (for those who could afford it) during that time included Greek philosophy. What do you found so profound about this fact. Educate us with your behemoth of an intellect.

budaatum:

...you'd see why Jesus is described as a form of Logos

F#ck Jesus for now. Tell us the other forms of logos.

Martian:

Jesus, a Jewish rabbi who was't Hellenized, wasn't working with Greek philosophy so why are you so excited that Paul and the authors of the bible were?
So what if they were influenced by Greek philosophy?. Education (for those who could afford it) during that time included Greek philosophy. What do you found so profound about this fact. Educate us with your behemoth of an intellect.

Actually, he was indeed working with Greek Philosophy, amongst others, which by the time of his birth extended to Egypt where he went to school. Still, I wonder why you'd think him freeing the text of his day from the temples in which it was kept and opening it up to the masses is not a commendable thing. Guess you might prefer if people were kept ignorant, or just don't know how dumb even you might have remained if religion had not spread education to where you are.

Martian:


F#ck Jesus for now. Tell us the other forms of logos.

Every written word, and all forms of text and media including here and even our discourse despite our disagreement. Or do you think no one learns from you?

budaatum:

Actually, he was indeed working with Greek Philosophy, amongst others, which by the time of his birth extended to Egypt where he went to school.

If he went to school in Egypt, maybe he imbibed Egyptian philosophy instead of Greek philosophy. Besides, you don't know enough about this dude's life to make assertions about his possible sojourn in Egypt. And the Egyptians came before your favored Greeks, so if anyone influenced the other, it would be the Egyptians with their ancient civilization who influenced the Greeks.

budaatum:

Still, I wonder why you'd think him freeing the text of his day from the temples in which it was kept and opening it up to the masses is not a commendable thing.

What texts of his day did he free from which temples? What did he open up to the masses?

You seem to know a lot about a life that is not well documented. You're just adding your own embellishments to the Jesus legend all willy nilly.

budaatum:

Guess you might prefer if people were kept ignorant, or just don't know how dumb even you might have remained if religion had not spread education to where you are.

What education did religion spread to where I am? What scientific, technological, or other beneficial invention or creation has come from religion?

Good things are sometimes done in service of religious beliefs but what valuable knowledge has been gained by mankind that could not have been gained without religion?

budaatum:

Every written word, and all forms of text and media including here and even our discourse despite our disagreement. Or do you think no one learns from you?

So Jesus is just a word now? I hope they learn never to give charlatans any quarters.

Martian:


So Jesus is just a word now? I hope they learn never to give charlatans any quarters.

You are rather annoying with your utter lack of an attempt at understanding!

Is Logos "just one word"?

budaatum:

You are rather annoying with your utter lack of an attempt at understanding!

Is Logos "just one word"?

Stop your equivocation and you will find me more agreeable. Yes, Logos is one word as used in Greek philosophy.

You said Jesus is a form of Logos and I asked for other forms of Logos, to which you said:

budaatum:

Every written word, and all forms of text and media including here and even our discourse despite our disagreement. Or do you think no one learns from you?

How is it my fault you are annoyed when you come up with shit like this? Words, texts, media.......JESUS!!!

Martian:

If he went to school in Egypt, maybe he imbibed Egyptian philosophy instead of Greek philosophy. Besides, you don't know enough about this dude's life to make assertions about his possible sojourn in Egypt. And the Egyptians came before your favored Greeks, so if anyone influenced the other, it would be the Egyptians with their ancient civilization who influenced the Greeks.

You'd say one does not know only because you don't know. Do some research and you too will know.

You do know that the education you got was brought to you from Europe when they landed on your shores right?

By the time Jesus was born and went to Egypt, Egypt had been ruled by the Greeks from when Alexander the Great conquered it circa 323, and the Greeks had been there since about the 7th century BC.

Martian:
What texts of his day did he free from which temples? What did he open up to the masses?

The Torah, for one, which the religious leaders of his day were using to oppress the masses.

Martian:
You seem to know a lot about a life that is not well documented. You're just adding your own embellishments to the Jesus legend all willy nilly.

You have obviously not read enough and think the little you know is all there is to know. Take some Jesus advice and stop living by bread alone.

Martian:
What education did religion spread to where I am? What scientific, technological, or other beneficial invention or creation has come from religion?

The education that makes you value the written word, for starts. And the ability to learn to use your senses instead of creating crap inside yiur head and believing it.

Martian:
Good things are sometimes done in service of religious beliefs but what valuable knowledge has been gained by mankind that could not have been gained without religion?

This, I'm not even going to bother answering because just a little bit of study instead of thinking you already know it all is enough for you to educate yourself. Hint though. The 5 day school education you got evolved from one day God worship.

Martian:

Yes, Logos is one word as used in Greek philosophy.

You are merely proving how dangerous a little bit of education can be.

Kindly read up on logos here to disabuse yourself of your limited knowledge.

budaatum:

You'd say one does not know only because you don't know. Do some research and you too will know.

I've done the research, so let's compare notes. Where did

budaatum:

You do know that the education you got was brought to you from Europe when they landed on your shores right?

You say that as if the Europeans education occurred in a vacuum and wasn't influenced by other cultures.

budaatum:

By the time Jesus was born and went to Egypt, Egypt had been ruled by the Greeks from when Alexander the Great conquered it circa 323, and the Greeks had been there since about the 7th century BC.

That doens't mean that Egyptian philosophy didn't influence the Greeks. If they were there since about 7th century B.C., it follows that they were influence by Egyptian philosophy. What and where did Jesus study in Egypt? What writings or sayings did he leave for you to be so sure about his alleged studies?

budaatum:
The Torah, for one, which the religious leaders of his day were using to oppress the masses.

Learning to read is part of Jewish culture so I'm sure Jesus didn't make the Torah more accessible. What other books? Where are you getting your stories?

budaatum:

You have obviously not read enough and think the little you know is all there is to know. Take some Jesus advice and stop living by bread alone.

I'm relatively well informed and I'm always looking to cure any ignorance I may overlook. So please, tell me where you're getting your information.

budaatum:

The education that makes you value the written word, for starts. And the ability to learn to use your senses instead of creating crap inside yiur head and believing it.

My education is not dependent nor derived from religion, so I repeat; what education did religion spread to where I am? What scientific, technological, or other beneficial invention or creation has come from religion?

budaatum:

This, I'm not even going to bother answering because just a little bit of study instead of thinking you already know it all is enough for you to educate yourself. Hint though. The 5 day school education you got evolved from one day God worship.

How does a five-day school week support your assertions? In college, my school week was four days. Does that support or detract your asinine position?
I can play your games too.
Hint. Thursday is Thor's day. Sunday is the Sun's day.

Martian:


Stop your equivocation and you will find me more agreeable.

I do not need you to be agreeable. Just stop claiming I said what I never said since it just makes you seem ridiculous.

budaatum:

You are merely proving how dangerous a little bit of education can be.

Kindly read up on logos here to disabuse yourself of your limited knowledge.

I said Logos is one word, the first sentence in your link says the following:
Logos, (Greek: “word,” “reason,” or “plan”) plural logoi, in ancient Greek philosophy and early Christian theology, the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning.

What point did you prove?

budaatum:

You are merely proving how dangerous a little bit of education can be.

Kindly read up on logos here to disabuse yourself of your limited knowledge.

You are such a pompous fool to think your so called understanding and acceptance of unfounded metaphysical ideas makes you so intelligent.
Logos, spirits, souls, thetans, etc are just unfounded ideas similar to leprechauns, fairies, and gargoyles. Couching such ideas in arcane language and sanctimoniously claiming them to be true does not make them true.

budaatum:

You are merely proving how dangerous a little bit of education can be.

Kindly read up on logos here to disabuse yourself of your limited knowledge.

The identification of Jesus with the logos, which is implied in various places in the New Testament but stated specifically in The Gospel According to John, was further developed in the early church but more on the basis of Greek philosophical ideas than on Old Testament motifs. This development was dictated by attempts made by early Christian theologians and apologists to express the Christian faith in terms that would be intelligible to the Hellenistic world and to impress their hearers with the view that Christianity was superior to, or heir to, all that was best in pagan philosophy. Thus, in their apologies and polemical works, the early Apostolic (Christian) Fathers stated that Christ, as the preexistent logos, (1) reveals the Father to humankind and is the subject of the Old Testament manifestations of God; (2) is the divine reason in which the whole human race shares, so that Heraclitus and others who lived with reason were Christians before Christ; and (3) is the divine will and word by which the worlds were framed.

Martian:

That doens't mean that Egyptian philosophy didn't influence the Greeks. If they were there since about 7th century B.C., it follows that they were influence by Egyptian philosophy

Same way the philosophy of the area known as Nigeria today influenced the european education you got since the people now known as Nigerians were there when Europeans arrived on your shores to teach it to you, right?

You will need to forgive me for thinking you could reason. Go back through our discussion and find where we agreed syncretisation occured. Unfortunately, however, Egyptian Philosophy was pretty much dead by the time the Greeks arrived. The Egyptians believed the gods had built the pyramids and written hieroglyphs they themselves could not read, but I doubt you'd know this.

budaatum:

Same way the philosophy of the area known as Nigeria today influenced the european education you got since the people now known as Nigerians were there when Europeans arrived on your shores to teach it to you, right?

Yes, or do you want to claim that the Europeans weren't at least instructed about the unknown clime that came to by the inhabitants. Besides, that is a false analogy. A better example would be the Indian/Arabic numerals that the Europeans and everybody else have adopted in one form or the other. Egyptian civilization was older and more developed than the Greeks, so why can't you fathom than the Greeks probably learned from the Egyptians.

budaatum:

You will need to forgive me for thinking you could reason. Go back through our discussion and find where we agreed syncretisation occured.

budaatum:

Unfortunately, however, Egyptian Philosophy was pretty much dead by the time the Greeks arrived. The Egyptians believed the gods had built the pyramids and written hieroglyphs they themselves could not read, but I doubt you'd know this.

How would it die if syncretisation was occurring. Wouldn't it live on in the new philosophy?
I doubt you know that the Egyptians believed the gods had built the pyramids and written hieroglyphs. But of course, not every Egyptian would have been able to read. Anyway, cite your source

shadeyinka:


Lets look at your propositions carefully. At least, it seems you are not of those like brute animals who bleat that God is just a fairy tale idea like santa clause: lets hope you can logically wade through the concept/idea/personality called God.

The fact that the Universe exist at all proves that the universe was NEVER at anypoint void: for if the universe/multiverse was completely empty, then nothing will exist as something can never come out of nothing .

If we project back to the infinite past, we must arrive at the Primary Source and Origin of every other things in the universe. At least, we know that our universe (consisting of everything that obeys the law of Physics) has an origin of about 13.6 billion years ago. LEts call this Source/Origin the UNCAUSED-FIRST-CAUSE of everything.

This Uncaused-First-Cause of Everything could either be a THING or CONSCIOUSNESS/PERSONALITY


Now, looking at your argument: you've mentioned things like
Right conditions
Rules
A set of phenomenon
1. If the Uncaused First Cause was a THING, because it had existed infinite number of trillions of years before the big bang, common sense should tell us that it must be a CONSTANT. If it is a constant, then it remains a constant forever.
2. Conditions never act by themselves: conditions need objects to act upon. Can there exist electromagnetic waves without a source? Can there exist a temperature gradient without a source? etc. Without objects of creation, conditions are meaningless!
3. Rules are logical set of instructions: which is akin to how a computer works. Do you think it is possible for a computer to write a single line of meaningful code without an intelligence behind it?

It is amazing that some people are willing to believe the scientific impossibility that SOMETHING can come out of NOTHING instead of acknowledging that there must be something out there which DO NOT obey the laws of Physics and Chemistry that set up the physical realm.

If you know anything about the law of ENTROPY, you will understand that everything in the universe is tending towards a state of disorderliness. If you can only project backwards for infinite number of trillions of years before the big bang, you will arrive at a point of minimum entropy. A question is why didnt that state exist perpetually? Why would the big bang or the inflation theory seem to create order out of disorder without an external constraining ordering force?

So many things beyond the physical laws as the laws of physics and chemistry are not older than 13.6 billion years ago. Using such laws to unravel God is simply an exercise in futility.

I have my own (no creator) hypothesis of what may lay beyond the universe and what existed before this universe and how it led to this universe having a beginning, however since it's not really deeply grounded in any existing facts or theories, I keep to myself.

I do not reject the idea of a creator as there exists too much of what we don't understand which leaves that possibility open, even some nonreligious people have tried to propose that this world is a simulation (simulation hypothesis), which is an indirect way of suggesting there is a creator to the simulation.
This may have an infinite regress problem to it though, but I'll let it slide.
Another argument usually exist when we come back down. If we presuppose there is a creator, then the problems of who/what is this creator arises?
Did this creator ever communicate with man?
Did this creator make a religion and cares about being worshiped?
Does this creator worry about what humans are doing?
Why would we assume that the creator of a vast nearly infinite universe would be fixated on a small planet orbiting a small random star in a random Galaxy out of a seemingly infinite number?

IMAliyu:


I've been following the development and research of Artificial Intelligence, and this thing is as real as real can be and may infact posse a danger.

To know just how far things have gotten, you may want to look up GPT-3 a new ai language model. Which can write and respond on a near indistinguishable level to a person.

And robotics as well, you can see how far Boston dynamics has gotten.

We know people can be malicious and war mongering. All that needs to happen is for someone to bring these technologies together, to say for example create artificial soldiers, weapons.

And we will have a cause of people being killed by their own creations.

And don't get me started on bioweapons.

I guess as the mythology, God created man his image, and man seeks to create machines in it's images, the ex machina.

FatherOfJesus:
The logic of theist is nothing can exist without a creator. Going by this logic, who then created God?

Op, do forgive me for jumping into your thread without first addressing the question you pose. I wouldn't normally address such topics because, as you might have seen, they end where they end which tends to be nowhere at all, though knowledge and the seeds of thought are forever sown in the minds of those who bother to engage with such subjects. The pity is how few such as you who use their minds there are.

You say "the logic of theists", so I'll start by saying "some theists", and suggest the text that makes some come to such a conclussion is the following.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

A critical look would make one wonder as you've done, to my delight I dare say, so lets shall we, first however, let me categorically state that the text is a creation myth and just one of very many, and not original at that, but to it alone shall I refer on the assumption that 'Bible reader' is what you mean by "theists".

From the text we can deduce two things, first, that there was a beginning when God is written to have created the heavens and the earth. And second, that it was formless and void, as in, it had nothing in or on it. Oh, and perhaps a third which would be that God is a lousy creator, since the earth was void and formless, but I'll admit that would be mere speculation on my part since void and formless does not necessarily mean lousy just as the bottle I create for the wine I intend to create would not be lousy just because I have not filled it with wine yet, but I hope you get the humour. One thing for certain is the text is not in the first person, as in God did not write it, because if God had written it it would likely go something like "In the beginning, I, God created the heaven and the earth", which is not the form the text is in, and which would make one ask, who the heck was there recording what God was doing at the time. An angel, perhaps? But would that not mean there were more, erm, things, or shall I say godlike things even before the beginning? The Bible reader might say, but of course, especially since there is text reporting things that happened long before the beginning we read of in the beginning, no pun nor error intended, but there we go circular I guess, right back to where you began asking what created all those God things including God, angels, where they dwelt, etc. and there, will I suggest, is the beauty of the text.

You see, it has made you question as it rightly should, and made an unbeliever of you as opposed to those you call theist who think they know it all though they merely believe the crap they pretty much do not understand, and don't you just love using the brain in your head and your mind just like Adam and Eve were written in the myth to have done, refusing not to test if they'd really die if they ate of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, and mythologically thereby becoming the very first humans to use their own senses and becoming the first scientists in the process of their enquiry as opposed to merely believing they will surely die.

P.s. This is a recurring topic which I used to be rather fund of until I got bored of it, or rather, came to the conclusion that speculate is all we can do, but you'd find some of my previouses here.

Thanks op, for making those who would, use their minds and think. Please continue seeking and never ever become a believer, because as admirable as it may sound, emulating beings described as demons is so not admirable, as is written.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/11663600_20200604102351774_jpeg_jpeg0a6707a5c919e2761327fab9920679aa

Martian:

How would it die if syncretisation was occurring. Wouldn't it live on in the new philosophy?
I doubt you know that the Egyptians believed the gods had built the pyramids and written hieroglyphs. But of course, not every Egyptian would have been able to read. Anyway, cite your source.

This is not "my source" but it is sufficient for you to begin your own research and learning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_hieroglyphs?wprov=sfla1

LikeAking:
Humans created God.

Like iPhone created you!

DeusXmachina:


I have my own (no creator) hypothesis of what may lay beyond the universe and what existed before this universe and how it led to this universe having a beginning, however since it's not really deeply grounded in any existing facts or theories, I keep to myself.

I think its a free world!

DeusXmachina:

I do not reject the idea of a creator as there exists too much of what we don't understand which leaves that possibility open, even some nonreligious people have tried to propose that this world is a simulation (simulation hypothesis), which is an indirect way of suggesting there is a creator to the simulation.
[b]This may have an infinite regress problem [/b]to it though, but I'll let it slide.
[/qute]
Since time can be extrapolated infinitely backward, the infinite regress theory becomes a fallacy.

Its logically possible to start with the assumption that there had ALWAYS been a fundamental Something/Someone as the origin/creator of every other things.

[quote author=DeusXmachina post=96877345]
Another argument usually exist when we come back down. If we presuppose there is a creator, then the problems of who/what is this creator arises?
Did this creator ever communicate with man?

No one can know who the creator is except the Creator communicate with men either in the times past or presently about Himself. The fact that we have the concept itself even though not a proof suggests that it could be true. Those of us who explored the possibility and truthfulness of the proposition that God is get our own subjective proof of God. The plausibility is even more feasible than saying the universe came out of nothing.

DeusXmachina:

Did this creator make a religion and cares about being worshiped?
Does this creator worry about what humans are doing?

The Creator God I know does NOT care about being worshipped. Worshipping Him adds nothing to Him. It however goes the other way as His creatures choose to worship Him who has LIFE in Himself, who gives Life, who MADE everything, who SUSTAINS Everything. Worship is just an expression of acknowledgement of greatness, a sense of awe, a sense of dependence and admiration by thinking humans.

If a Creator exists, a question you should ask is WHY did He create the Universe?
Why did He create Humans with superior INTUITION, CONSCIENCE, WILL, EMOTION and INTELLECT?

The answer to this is made plain in the bible: Everything was created by God as a Garden of Flowers for His own delight!

DeusXmachina:

Why would we assume that the creator of a vast nearly infinite universe would be fixated on a small planet orbiting a small random star in a random Galaxy out of a seemingly infinite number?

THis is a good question for which we can only speculate as the purpose of the vast number of galaxies, planets , stars in infinite emptiness is not explicitly explained in the bible. But we can try to comprehend it from scientific point of view (may not be accurate).

An atom consists of a core and vast numbers of sub-particles whose purpose individually can NOT be ascribed but as a whole, the atom can find usefulness to the scientist. So also, each planet, star, galaxy may seem purposeless when one look at them from an individual perspective but when the Universe is looked at from the outside, meanings and purpose may be ascribed onto such.

From a spiritual point of view, we may SPECULATE that the universe (galaxies, solar systems, planets etc) is being prepared for ownership, inheritance and occupation by the Elect of God after this age.

Like I said, this is only MY Speculation: the TRUE answer can only be known from OUTSIDE the universe!

MuttleyLaff:
Exactamundo, only that Martian has just only a "kitchen heaven" and nothing whatsoever, at all, even when food goes off, end up in the dustbin or go into the trashcan, lmso

Even in the kitchen, a Food may be prepared expensively, perfect, aromatic, delicious and appetizing: however, it it is contaminated by a drop of poison or filth (excrement), it is no longer fit for consumption but for the refuse dump.

Such is the SIN NATURE of man which makes the Food unfit for the use of the Creator!