The idea of God, as the supreme uncaused Cause, helps in escaping the irrationality of springing out of an absolutely unproductive void -- nothing. But in an empty world, there would be God and nothing, but now there is us and something. Does that mean your God created from NOTHING? Also in your view, is design necessary for a creation out of nothing, with no rule or character to conform with?

Is your God omnipotent in this respect?

--substance and change-- just passing through

Thak you for your thought-provoking questions.

My view is that the encapsulation and unity of all intangible eternity is what is God itself. This is not nothingness - for in my perception nothingness strictly speaking is nothing: and as such does not exist at all.

If we could rightly perceive or picture eternity, infinite time and infinite space, and understand that such constitutes a unified reality, we could begin, in my view, to remotely conceive of what God is or means. It is that infinite reality which being an unchangeable  constant, is the compound and self-existent encapsulation of the eternal reality itself. That is what God is - and that is why it simply is - God is.

It is not nothing - for in its very still and one unity, it encompasses the limitless span of every infinite possibility that may exist - and is thus the core egg, which contains, perhaps i might say, the genes for everything else.

The unity of such an eternal reality is in my view, being the fount of reality, the most powerful force that is, or could exist. And that very unity - that oneness - is what i understand to be the oneness of God - and this is where i locate my apprehension of my monotheistic view. It might seem odd to say, but it is at the self-same time a coin that can be viewed in endless and infinite polytheistic views, given that we speak of infinity.

Now the oneness of eternity - which is God - in my view - by its very nature and oneness implies certain self-existent properties about it. Some of the most basic would be its constancy - which is the real meaning of truth itself, indeed, which is what truth is, its oneness - which is the real meaning of love - because the purest and ultimate love is in reality a reflection of the principle of oneness and its perfect balance - which is the real meaning of justice and harmony.

These things are thus, in their purest form, subsumed within the ONENESS itself, as self existent properties of the ONENESS - which is God. They are very real in their existence as properties of the ONENESS OF ETERNITY, which is what God is.

There are  also other properties which emanate naturally as consequenecs of that oneness. The laws of existence all emanate naturally as self-existent properties of the ONENESS. This is why the laws of existence are immutable and bespeak balance. This is also why I like to describe God as simply the compound of self-existent laws. That is what God encapsulates and is. And it is from this nature that the creations naturally spring forth in accordance with the properties of the ONENESS. And not from nothingness.

This is just my personal and humble view of God - and i realize it will be completely empty and meaningless especially to the hardened materialist.

Kay 17:

The idea of God, as the supreme uncaused Cause, helps in escaping the irrationality of springing out of an absolutely unproductive void -- nothing. But in an empty world, there would be God and nothing, but now there is us and something. Does that mean your God created from NOTHING? Also in your view, is design necessary for a creation out of nothing, with no rule or character to conform with?

Is your God omnipotent in this respect?

How is this any different from the atheist idea that you appeared essentially out of nothing?

^ A very strange idea indeed, i must say. . . . the only logical response to that being the refrain "We don't know" - which of course is agnostic and not atheistic.

Dafidi, how you dey? Bagged that Phd yet?

Deep Sight:

^ A very strange idea indeed, i must say. . . . the only logical response to that being the refrain "We don't know" - which of course is agnostic and not atheistic.

Dafidi, how you dey? Bagged that Phd yet?

I wonder. Apparently its more "logical" to believe we appeared out of nothing than to believe God created us from nothing. Strange.

My brother i dey kampe and u? Yes i did, over a yr ago. Tx.

Congratulations!

Thanx for the effort deepsight. Can one say God is not a being as a singularity, but aggregate of conditions?

Also, how does the nature of God result to our own existence and consciousness? Are we a part of God? Whats the role of design in us and God?

@davidlyan

i dont believe anything came from nothing. I think matter is eternal, and simply changes form.

Kay 17:

@davidlyan

i dont believe anything came from nothing. I think matter is eternal, and simply changes form.

and this matter came from? Somehow its illogical that God is eternal but you believe matter is eternal on the basis of? strange.

@davidylan
Congratulations on your PHD. I wish to bag one too someday. At the moment, I can only dream of it. Kudos!!!!!!!

davidylan:

and this matter came from? Somehow its illogical that God is eternal but you believe matter is eternal on the basis of? strange.

Took the words right out of my mouth!!!! However I'm impressed that he admitted that matter only changes forms. What drives me crazy is when somebody claims that science has conclusively answered the question of how everything, including the fundamental elements make up the universe, was created -- the big slam. I'm happy I don't own a gun because each time I hear that I feel like shooting myself in the head.

The big slam only constitutes a stage in the eternal changes of forms that matter goes through.

Kay 17:

@davidlyan

i dont believe anything came from nothing. I think matter is eternal, and simply changes form.

I have already pointed out in another thread that most atheists cannever really avoid the God question, the question of an eternal entity or eternal creator, they only shift posts. What the believer attribute to an invisible non-physical God; atheists attribute to matter or the physical universe.

Your description of matter here is the same description some believers give concerning God, especially those believers who believe that God is the totality of everything that exists and that God is in everything in one form or another. You have only replaced the word "God" with "matter"

justcool:

@davidylan
Congratulations on your PHD. I wish to bag one too someday. At the moment, I can only dream of it. Kudos!!!!!!!

Took the words right out of my mouth!!!! However I'm impressed that he admitted that matter only changes forms. What drives me crazy is when somebody claims that science has conclusively answered the question of how everything, including the fundamental elements make up the universe, was created -- the big slam. I'm happy I don't own a gun because each time I hear that I feel like shooting myself in the head.

The big slam only constitutes a stage in the eternal changes of forms that matter goes through.
I have already pointed out in another thread that most atheists cannever really avoid the God question, the question of an eternal entity or eternal creator, they only shift posts. What the believer attribute to an invisible non-physical God; atheists attribute to matter or the physical universe.

Your description of matter here is the same description some believers give concerning God, especially those believers who believe that God is the totality of everything that exists and that God is in everything in one form or another. You have only replaced the word "God" with "matter"

thanks bro!

you hit the nail on the head in the highlighted section. I'm not sure Kay17 realised what he just did.

I do feel, matter in its simplest form excludes it from the rule of causality. Just the same way reality does not need a cause. Its from matter everything in the universe is composed of. Simply an extension of what preexisted. As to an alternate reality (spiritual) the agnostic stand of most believers leaves so much incomplete.

However, Deepsight's God is quite fascinating and seems accessible via reason.

Kay 17:

I do feel, matter in its simplest form excludes it from the rule of causality. Just the same way reality does not need a cause. Its from matter everything in the universe is composed of. Simply an extension of what preexisted. As to an alternate reality (spiritual) the agnostic stand of most believers leaves so much incomplete.

However, Deepsight's God is quite fascinating and seems accessible via reason.

i'm really struggling to understand what you are trying to convey. Matter ALWAYS existed in what form? Why is matter eternal? What is the purpose for having matter in the first place?

Kay 17:

The idea of God, as the supreme uncaused Cause, helps in escaping the irrationality of springing out of an absolutely unproductive void -- nothing. But in an empty world, there would be God and nothing, but now there is us and something. Does that mean your God created from NOTHING? Also in your view, is design necessary for a creation out of nothing, with no rule or character to conform with?

Is your God omnipotent in this respect?

@OP
I have a criticism with this debate, that are true with most debates about "God". It is that no one has even offered a clear, coherent, and meaningful definition of what God IS that the debaters agree on. The debate just started with everyone assuming they knew what everyone else meant when they say God. What is the point of debating God, if we do not even know what it IS we are even talking about. Otherwise we may as well be saying Goasdmidm(a word I made up) is omnipotent(a very nebulous word) and eternal. We essentially know just as much about the word Goasdmidm as the word God. Which is to say nothing at all.

That is the key difference between talking about God and talking about matter. It is fairly easy to find such a definition. People usually turn to the realm of science to obtain said definition. God on the other hand has widely differing definitions and most I have seen are either unclear, incoherent, meaningless(or some combination) or dare I say non-existent . So I suggest first clearing up the ontological aspect of the debate first and foremost. I am not aware of deepsight ever giving a clear, coherent, and meaningful definition of what God but I could be wrong.

If we can agree that god, no matter how much we believe in it or how we define it, is just a notion, an idea, a hypothesis. Matter on the other hand, is self-evident. We can observe, measure and analyse matter. Its kind of funny to state with conviction, that something that is self-evident could only be created by something that is not self-evident.
Physical matter has embeded within it , many qualities and properties that we are yet discover and understand, which may include the very superlative qualities we ascribe to god.

Matter may just be a the total sum of one singularity(god) and not a creation of that singularity(god).

@idehn

I think i would go with whatever Deepsight sees his God as. Just want to understand the height of his power

@davidlyan

what ever existed before is definitely a part of us (assuming we are not created from nothing). Also, no one has been able to prove the creation or even destruction of matter.

Idehn:

@OP
I have a criticism with this debate, that are true with most debates about "God". It is that no one has even offered a clear, coherent, and meaningful definition of what God IS that the debaters agree on. The debate just started with everyone assuming they knew what everyone else meant when they say God. What is the point of debating God, if we do not even know what it IS we are even talking about. Otherwise we may as well be saying Goasdmidm(a word I made up) is omnipotent(a very nebulous word) and eternal. We essentially know just as much about the word Goasdmidm as the word God. Which is to say nothing at all.

That is the key difference between talking about God and talking about matter. It is fairly easy to find such a definition. People usually turn to the realm of science to obtain said definition. God on the other hand has widely differing definitions and most I have seen are either unclear, incoherent, meaningless(or some combination) or dare I say non-existent . So I suggest first clearing up the ontological aspect of the debate first and foremost. I am not aware of deepsight ever giving a clear, coherent, and meaningful definition of what God but I could be wrong.

I am sorry to say, but my view is that it is quite useless wasting everyone's time (repeatedly) with the same contribution - I observe that this is the self-same and exact comment you make in each of these discussions - and I am unable to countenance it seriously because in my humble view everyone has a basic idea of what the word "God" refers to in these discussions.

Even where the ideas contain disparate components, the fundamental components or precepts remain standard and univcersal - namely an eternal being or mind said to be the origin of all existence and creation. This basic property of the term "God" is so virtually universal to all precepts of the word "God" as used within Atheistic/Theistic discussions, that it becomes tiresome, nebulous and almost escapist for anyone to claim that the idea of what God is being discussed is not clear.

I am sorry, but i see such a contention as an idle postulation which does nothing to help serious minded philosophical discussion. You cannot claim that there is any confusion as to whether figures such as Santa Claus are being discussed here. Even the religious "Gods" all share the basic precept of being a reference to the eternal and fundamental being that is the root of all existence. We should deal with that basic precept instead of shadow-boxing with idle diversions.

plaetton:

Matter may just be a the total sum of one singularity(god) and not a creation of that singularity(god).

Friend, you are a panthiest.

plaetton:

If we can agree that god, no matter how much we believe in it or how we define it, is just a notion, an idea, a hypothesis. Matter on the other hand, is self-evident. We can observe, measure and analyse matter. Its kind of funny to state with conviction, that something that is self-evident could only be created by something that is not self-evident.
Physical matter has embeded within it , many qualities and properties that we are yet discover and understand, which may include the very superlative qualities we ascribe to god.

Matter could not be eternal in the past because it lacks the qualities of self-existence. Self-existent things are intrinsincally intangible things. Further, self - existent things are also immutable, whereas matter is subject to change. For these reasons, a keen student of these precepts should understand that matter is not, and could never have been, self-existent.

God is the creator of all all existence. One can also say that God is the living source of all that is. God is the living source of all energies. Thus there is God and the emanations (radiations) of God. All that was, is and will ever be has its origin in the emanations of God. Thus, God brought and will continue to bring creations into existence from his radiations because the radiations of God contain all the primordial elements which either instantaneously or by development result in the in the birth of creations. Life, Infinity, Immutability, Love, Truth, Time, Perfection, Omniscience, etc, are living attributes that resides in God. It is for this reason that these aforementioned attributes are unattainable by the radiations of God (creations and creatures that inhabit them). The radiations of God although containing all the primordial elements have to be pressed into union so that what floats in infinity as oceans of flame can cool off, precipitate into seeds, germinates by cosmic explosions resulting in myriads of material and non-material universes. This pressing into union, cooling off, amalgamation into cosmic seeds and explosion of these seeds results from an act of Gods Will. Thus rightly understood, all creations are simply a direct or indirect consequence of the act of will of God. Without a conscious act of Gods will, there will be no creations.

Yes, creations can be described as an expression or the work of God but a work or an expression of God is not God. Yes, the radiations are the natural emanations from God but the radiations of God from which existence springs forth is not God. Yes in the work of God, one will find reflections of the attributes that are in God. But these reflections like images are limited, the limitation imposed by the fact that they lack the unsubstantiated divine substance that is only in God. I oppose the view that God or a part of God is within his creations. What we find in all creations are simply radiations of God that have either taken form or are formless. An author is not the same as his books or inventions even though the mind of the author can be found in his books. Although it is a crude analogy, it faintly reflects the relationship between God and his creations. Even man is a coarse reproduction of the actual images or reflections of God.

All energies, in whatever form are simply derived from a definite specie of Gods radiations. To be more specific, the energies that propel material creations into motion and union are spiritual particles or radiations emanating from the the volition of the the actual images of God. Thus energy is spirit but a different specie of spirit to that that is Man. The spirit particles hold all the secrets of the origin of our universe and other universes. Matter is simply enveloped spirit particles. One can also say that matter is energy covered with the clock of material substances. When man is willing to receive in humility, then the secrets on how to strip matter of all material envelopes, laying bare the spirit particles will become know to some people. But such knowledge will be for the future. Now it will be laughed off or ridiculed.

God brought creations into existence and can also cause creation to cease to exist. God does not need or depend on his creations but his creations are absolutely dependent on God. God brought creations into existence as a living expressions of his love. Before creation, only God and his divine emanations were in existence. The emission and simultaneous attraction of the divine radiations of God back to the Godhead resulted in a void. It is into this cosmic void that creation was born into and continue to expand. Viewed from outside of creation this cosmic void is limited but the limit can never be reached even if all creations are to expand eternally. But viewed from within creation, the void is limitless and infinite. Best Wishes.

^^ all radiations derive their source from God but not part of him? Dont u see that as a contradiction? Is there any effort made (creative wise) in developing these radiations?

Is it just me or are some here confusing God with matter/energy? Here are a few key differences.
God is supposed to be a mind while matter/energy is not a mind.
God is supposed to have created matter while matter/energy is supposed to have been created.
God is supposed to be outside the universe while matter/energy is supposed to make up the universe.
And many more.
What are the similarities between God and matter/energy?
In fact, for the purpose of this discussion, what is God?

Kay 17:

^^ all radiations derive their source from God but not part of him? Dont u see that as a contradiction? Is there any effort made (creative wise) in developing these radiations?

Hi Kay. I do not see a contradiction. Consider the sun and its rays. Although it is again a crude analogy, the rays of the sun came from the sun but the rays of the sun are not the sun. Again, work of art is an expression of the "mind" of an artist but the artist is not the same as the art. In these examples, you will not see even a particle of the artist in his art nor will you see a particle of the sun in a ray from the sun. When you express your volition via your actions, thoughts or imagination, you will not find a single particle of Kay in your words, thoughts and actions. In my perception it is erroneous to surmise that the same consciousness  in Kay can be found in Kay`s actions, words and thoughts. Kay is the creator of his actions, thoughts and words but his words, thoughts or actions are neither Kay nor the creator of Kay.

I think I have already addressed the issue when I said that an act of Gods will is what presses these radiations into cooling off, encapsulation as cosmic seeds, explosion of these seeds and the birth of universes (physical and non-physical). The birth, development and decay of the forms of these radiations are also "programmed" by the creative will of God. Best Wishes.

Definitions and concepts cannot accurately capture what God is. In spite of this I will make an attempt in the knowledge that this definition is a very faint reflection of reality. God is the primordial source of all energy. One can also say that God is the primordial source of Life or that God is primordial Life or primordial Energy. Anything else that exists or will exist derive its life or energy from GOD. In other words, only GOD is alive, everything else derives there life from God. What scientists are conversant with are various forms of energy with material universe. There are energies in all creations, not just in material universe. These energies originated from the radiations of God. In material universe energies are secondly radiations of primordial spiritual beings created by God and these primordial spiritual beings are the actual image of God. The human spirit that is man is simply an image or a reflection of these primordial spiritual beings. The primordial beings are of unimaginable size that one of them can hold our entire material universe in the palm of its hands. And yet even these primordial beings are creatures of God.  Best Wishes.

m_nwankwo:

God is the creator of all all existence. One can also say that God is the living source of all that is. God is the living source of all energies. Thus there is God and the emanations (radiations) of God. All that was, is and will ever be has its origin in the emanations of God. Thus, God brought and will continue to bring creations into existence from his radiations because the radiations of God contain all the primordial elements which either instantaneously or by development result in the in the birth of creations. Life, Infinity, Immutability, Love, Truth, Time, Perfection, Omniscience, etc, are living attributes that resides in God. It is for this reason that these aforementioned attributes are unattainable by the radiations of God (creations and creatures that inhabit them). The radiations of God although containing all the primordial elements have to be pressed into union so that what floats in infinity as oceans of flame can cool off, precipitate into seeds, germinates by cosmic explosions resulting in myriads of material and non-material universes. This pressing into union, cooling off, amalgamation into cosmic seeds and explosion of these seeds results from an act of Gods Will. Thus rightly understood, all creations are simply a direct or indirect consequence of the act of will of God. Without a conscious act of Gods will, there will be no creations.

Yes, creations can be described as an expression or the work of God but a work or an expression of God is not God. Yes, the radiations are the natural emanations from God but the radiations of God from which existence springs forth is not God. Yes in the work of God, one will find reflections of the attributes that are in God. But these reflections like images are limited, the limitation imposed by the fact that they lack the unsubstantiated divine substance that is only in God. I oppose the view that God or a part of God is within his creations. What we find in all creations are simply radiations of God that have either taken form or are formless. An author is not the same as his books or inventions even though the mind of the author can be found in his books. Although it is a crude analogy, it faintly reflects the relationship between God and his creations. Even man is a coarse reproduction of the actual images or reflections of God.

All energies, in whatever form are simply derived from a definite specie of Gods radiations. To be more specific, the energies that propel material creations into motion and union are spiritual particles or radiations emanating from the the volition of the the actual images of God. Thus energy is spirit but a different specie of spirit to that that is Man. The spirit particles hold all the secrets of the origin of our universe and other universes. Matter is simply enveloped spirit particles. One can also say that matter is energy covered with the clock of material substances. When man is willing to receive in humility, then the secrets on how to strip matter of all material envelopes, laying bare the spirit particles will become know to some people. But such knowledge will be for the future. Now it will be laughed off or ridiculed.

God brought creations into existence and can also cause creation to cease to exist. God does not need or depend on his creations but his creations are absolutely dependent on God. God brought creations into existence as a living expressions of his love. Before creation, only God and his divine emanations were in existence. The emission and simultaneous attraction of the divine radiations of God back to the Godhead resulted in a void. It is into this cosmic void that creation was born into and continue to expand. Viewed from outside of creation this cosmic void is limited but the limit can never be reached even if all creations are to expand eternally. But viewed from within creation, the void is limitless and infinite. Best Wishes.

m_nwankwo:

Definitions and concepts cannot accurately capture what God is. In spite of this I will make an attempt in the knowledge that this definition is a very faint reflection of reality. God is the primordial source of all energy. One can also say that God is the primordial source of Life or that God is primordial Life or primordial Energy. Anything else that exists or will exist derive its life or energy from GOD. In other words, only GOD is alive, everything else derives there life from God. What scientists are conversant with are various forms of energy with material universe. There are energies in all creations, not just in material universe. These energies originated from the radiations of God. In material universe energies are secondly radiations of primordial spiritual beings created by God and these primordial spiritual beings are the actual image of God. The human spirit that is man is simply an image or a reflection of these primordial spiritual beings. The primordial beings are of unimaginable size that one of them can hold our entire material universe in the palm of its hands. And yet even these primordial beings are creatures of God. Best Wishes.

Finally a ray of Light descends into this thread. I completly agree with the above explainations.

Deep Sight:

I am sorry to say, but my view is that it is quite useless wasting everyone's time (repeatedly) with the same contribution - I observe that this is the self-same and exact comment you make in each of these discussions - and I am unable to countenance it seriously because in my humble view everyone has a basic idea of what the word "God" refers to in these discussions.

If you would actually proffer a definition of God that followed those criterion I would not have to repeat myself. It is that simple. The first time I asked the question you attempted to use empty metaphors. The fact that you presume to know the minds of your fellow man on such a scale is and on such a contentious issue is far from humble.

Even where the ideas contain disparate components, the fundamental components or precepts remain standard and univcersal - namely an eternal being or mind said to be the origin of all existence and creation. This basic property of the term "God" is so virtually universal to all precepts of the word "God" as used within Atheistic/Theistic discussions, that it becomes tiresome, nebulous and almost escapist for anyone to claim that the idea of what God is being discussed is not clear.

You cannot honestly believe that most human beings have the same basic notion of what God is. On nairaland alone, I have read people arguing that God exist outside time and space, which would preclude any notion of being eternal. Furthermore, the hindu pantheon and shinto patheon the "Gods" are most certainly are not eternal.There is no need to project your definition of what God is onto others. Just present it. Also you may want to look up what nebulous means before you use it again.

But at least you have something. What is always unclear/nebulous, is what an eternal mind entails. You may as well have said an eternal car engine. Is god made a special form of matter/energy? Does this matter not undergo entropy. If you are stating that God is a physical entity that has/can interact with the physical universe the least you could do is give a more concise physical definition.

Along those lines What is always unclear/nebulous is what being the origin of the universe entails. The conservation laws of matter/energy are the closest physical analogy for being eternal we have. Energy is always conserved. If you start with energy you must end with energy. If the Universe is composed of energy then it would be consistent to say the Universe has always existed in some form.
Are you saying God is the origin of just structure of the Universe, or also the the substance there within.

m_nwankwo:

Hi Kay. I do not see a contradiction. Consider the sun and its rays. Although it is again a crude analogy, the rays of the sun came from the sun but the rays of the sun are not the sun. Again, work of art is an expression of the "mind" of an artist but the artist is not the same as the art. In these examples, you will not see even a particle of the artist in his art nor will you see a particle of the sun in a ray from the sun. When you express your volition via your actions, thoughts or imagination, you will not find a single particle of Kay in your words, thoughts and actions. In my perception it is erroneous to surmise that the same consciousness  in Kay can be found in Kay`s actions, words and thoughts. Kay is the creator of his actions, thoughts and words but his words, thoughts or actions are neither Kay nor the creator of Kay.

I think I have already addressed the issue when I said that an act of Gods will is what presses these radiations into cooling off, encapsulation as cosmic seeds, explosion of these seeds and the birth of universes (physical and non-physical). The birth, development and decay of the forms of these radiations are also "programmed" by the creative will of God. Best Wishes.

From your analogy, i could conclude that my arm is not me?!

Sun rays are not wholly the Sun, but are part of the Sun. An artist shares a piece of his mind in an artwork. Ur kind of Radiations can be likened to sun rays, they are composed of the same materials as the sun, they are more or less copies of Sun.

Idehn:

If you would actually proffer a definition of God that followed those criterion I would not have to repeat myself.

Perhaps you missed it. Those are not criterion. Those were actually the wordings of the definition. However it seems to me that there is no definition proferred that would suit you - given that its quite obvious you do not intend to ever proceed beyond haggling over definitions.

This is all the more sad because i very specifically wrote (and please note the bolded) -

"I am unable to countenance it seriously because in my humble view everyone has a basic idea of what the word "God" refers to in these discussions. . . . This basic property of the term "God" is so virtually universal to all precepts of the word "God" as used within Atheistic/Theistic discussions"

There you are. There is no person who can expect to be viewed as being seriously ready for a worthwhile discussion if the above misses him. Because i very specifically wrote - "God - as used in Atheistic/ Theistic discussions." I wrote this twice and even bolded it.

Can you sincerely claim that the idea of God as advanced in these discussions is unknown to you? Can you sincerely claim that the central idea of God as used in these discussions does not refer to an eternal being who is the source of all that exists?

And can you further claim, that this fundamental precept is not common to the conceptions of God of most religions - barring only very few indeed?

If you will not be honest on these transparent questions, then obviously there is no point in indulging your definition games. I do not post on this forum for the purpose of indulging such games.

You cannot honestly believe that most human beings have the same basic notion of what God is.

At its core fundamental, of course they do. Would you seriously claim that most humans who believe in God do not regard it to be an eternal being which is the source of all that exists?

I would dearly love to hear you repeat that preposterous claim.

I have said severally that it is only natural that varying cultures would embellish that fundamental precept with their varying myths, lores and concepts - but it is absolutely false to assert that the vast majority do not retain that fundamental precept of God as an eternal being which is the source of all that exists.

On nairaland alone, I have read people arguing that God exist outside time and space, which would preclude any notion of being eternal.

Lol. Tell me you're kidding here, just tell me! Existing outside temporal time and space is exactly what being eternal is described as. Good grief. Let's have a serious discussion please.

Furthermore, the hindu pantheon and shinto patheon the "Gods" are most certainly are not eternal.

Obviously, for hindusim, you never heard of Brahman.

For Shinto, the very word itself means "the way of the gods". . .yes,  this is one religion that does not speak of a supreme being along with Buddhism. But neither reject the notion: they are silent on it, preferring to deal with the essentials of the natural cycles that are pertinent to man.

At all events this is not relevant in light of the fact that I very specifically referred to the word God - 'as used in atheistic/ theistic discussions' - and I hope that you will be honest enough to admit that there exists a basic precept of what that word refers to in such discussions. If you cannot admit that, i will not bother any further.

Just present it. Also you may want to look up what nebulous means before you use it again.

I don't see your confusion, unless you have no grasp of definition, liscence, context and usage. Your points are indeed vague, tenuous, hazy, and virtually meaningless - you are not saying anything clear, in light of the fact that "God" as used in these discussions is quite clear indeed. Your claim to the contrary is thus neither here nor there and quite confusing.

But at least you have something. What is always unclear/nebulous, is what an eternal mind entails. You may as well have said an eternal car engine. Is god made a special form of matter/energy? Does this matter not undergo entropy. If you are stating that God is a physical entity that has/can interact with the physical universe the least you could do is give a more concise physical definition.

It has at all material times been clear that God is not said to be physical. It shows up your interest in definition games, if you will go so far as to seek clarification on that.

Along those lines What is always unclear/nebulous is what being the origin of the universe entails. The conservation laws of matter/energy are the closest physical analogy for being eternal we have. Energy is always conserved. If you start with energy you must end with energy. If the Universe is composed of energy then it would be consistent to say the Universe has always existed in some form.

Matter cannot be eternal in the past because it is not self-existent - it does not have the properties of self existent things - such as intangibility and immutability. I have explained this a gazillion times on this forum.

Are you saying God is the origin of just structure of the Universe, or also the the substance there within.

God is the origin of all that exists. Period. That is what I am saying. It's not hard, and I do not force it on you to accept. All I ask is that you are honest enough to admit that there is an idea of what God is said to be - instead of repeated definition games.

And I just cannot get over the claim that Hindu gods are "certainly not" said to be eternal. This is the most preposterous claim I have ever heard. How far will a person go just to play definition games? Is this to be taken seriously? ? ?

In Hinduism, Brahman (ब्रह्मन् bráhman) is the one supreme, universal Spirit that is the origin and support of the phenomenal universe.[1] Brahman is sometimes referred to as the Absolute or Godhead[2] which is the Divine Ground[3] of all being. Brahman is conceived as personal ("with qualities", impersonal ("without qualities" and/or supreme depending on the philosophical school.

The sages of the Upanishads teach that Brahman is the ultimate essence of material phenomena (including the original identity of the human self) that cannot be seen or heard but whose nature can be known through the doctrine of self-knowledge (atma jnana).[4] According to Advaita, a liberated human being (jivanmukta) has realised Brahman as his or her own true self (see atman).

The Mundaka Upanishad says:

Auṃ - That supreme Brahman is infinite, and this conditioned Brahman is infinite. The infinite proceeds from infinite. If you subtract the infinite from the infinite, the infinite remains alone.


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

Kay 17:

From your analogy, i could conclude that my arm is not me?!

Sun rays are not wholly the Sun, but are part of the Sun. An artist shares a piece of his mind in an artwork. your kind of Radiations can be likened to sun rays, they are composed of the same materials as the sun, they are more or less copies of Sun.

Hi Kay17. From my crude analogy, you cannot conclude that your arm is not you. Rather your arm is a part of your body. If however you use your arm to write, or invent a piece of work. Then that invention, books or painting is not part of your body.
No, the sun rays are stellar radiations. Yes, they are emitted from the sun but they are not the sun or part of it. Stellar radiations consist of X-rays, UV, visible light, radio waves. The sun mostly contain hydrogen and then helium plus other heavy gases in smaller amount. But more importantly, the stellar radiations are a consequence of nuclear fusion. I am not aware of any scientific paper that have demonstrated that stellar radiations emitted from the sun naturally undergo nuclear fusion. If you are aware of such a paper, I will be pleased to have the citation. Besides, will you argue that a photograph of Kay 17 is Kay 17 or part of Kay 17?

I have already stated that a painting or sculptor is an expression of the volition of the artist. The artist is the creator while the painting is his work. He stands outside his work and not inside his work. He can destroy his work and yet leave on to produce other works. The patterns of his work of art can lead others to understand some aspects of his artistic talent. This crude analogy faintly reflects the relationship between God and his creations. Thus creatures in all creations of God will come to an understanding of the the "mind" of God by experiencing his creations. In this way they will gradually learn the laws of God. Indeed the laws of God are the inherent properties in all creatures and creations. Science with all its disciplines are actually studying the laws of God in the physical universe. However these laws are also present outside and above the physical universes. I am certain that a time will come when science will go beyond the physical universes and study the laws of God in other creations that are not physical including the spiritual. Just like we have teachers and mentors in our school system, God in his love send out teachers to help humanity to recognize and live according to his laws. These spiritual teachers are incarnated on earth and they reveal some aspects of the laws of God to their people. They adapt their teachings to the spiritual maturity and culture of there people. Even amid the distortion of the teachings of these prophets by their followers, a genuine student of creation will still find the grains of Truth in the various traditions. If he orders his life according to the grains of Truth that he has found, he will be liberated and find his way to God, his maker,  irrespective of his earthly religious affiliation. Best Wishes.