Have you ever asked yourself how God came about? His origin, can it even be imagined?

RedHotChic:

Have you ever asked yourself how God came about? His origin, can it even be imagined?

The next logical question will be the origin of God's origin,
And the origin of the origin of God's origin,
And the origin of the origin of the origin of God's origin,
And so on ---

imhotep:

The next logical question will be the origin of God's origin,
And the origin of the origin of God's origin,
And the origin of the origin of the origin of God's origin,
And so on ---

Since most people that believe in god believe that people came from god then who created the creator? if the creator can just suddely appear from no where then i believe that people too can come from no where too, meaning from no creator.

mazaje:

Since most people that believe in god believe that people came from god then who created the creator?

Good question.
-> Who created the Creator of the Creator
-> Who created the Creator of the Creator of the Creator
-> etc

mazaje:

if the creator can just suddely appear from no where

This is why they say God is being. "I am who I am"

mazaje:

then i believe that people too can come from no where too,

Not possible. People live and die, meaning that we do not possess the source of our existence.

mazaje:

meaning from no creator.

Not feasible.

imhotep:

The next logical question will be the origin of God's origin,
And the origin of the origin of God's origin,
And the origin of the origin of the origin of God's origin,
And so on ---

Even if the case is an infinite regress, you can still, rather than erecting strawmen, answer the initial question.

KAG:

Even if the case is an infinite regress, you can still, rather than erecting strawmen, answer the initial question.

Options for you:

1) Get bogged down with infinite regress - of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin etc --phew

2) Conclude that there is no God and face the big bang story. Even though you must battle with events that led to the big bang in the first place --- which begins to look like infinite regress again

3) Accept that there is God who is being, and have peace of mind.

imhotep:

Options for you:

1) Get bogged down with infinite regress - of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin etc --phew

2) Conclude that there is no God and face the big bang story. Even though you must battle with events that led to the big bang in the first place --- which begins to look like infinite regress again

3) Accept that there is God who is being, and have peace of mind.

Who told u that people that do not believe in All'ah, jehova, zeues, buddah, shirk etc do not have peace of mind?

imhotep:

Options for you:

1) Get bogged down with infinite regress - of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin etc --phew

2) Conclude that there is no God and face the big bang story. Even though you must battle with events that led to the big bang in the first place --- which begins to look like infinite regress again

3) Accept that there is God who is being, and have peace of mind.

Um, no. For the first, one needn't get bogged down by an infinite regression. As I stated in my earlier post, one can face specifics of separate origins, even if there were a suggestion of infinite regression. One needn't attend to the question of the origins of humans, the Earth, solar system, etc, to discus the origins of the English language . There's no need to erect strawmen to avoid a specific.

For the second, no, not necessary an infinite regress. However, even if there is one, the earlier point still applies.

For the third, "gods of the gaps" isn't a prequisite for peace of mind.

Your trichotomy is a false one

KAG:

Um, no. For the first, one needn't get bogged down by an infinite regression. As I stated in my earlier post, one can face specifics of separate origins, even if there were a suggestion of infinite regression. One needn't attend to the question of the origins of humans, the Earth, solar system, etc, to discus the origins of the English language . There's no need to erect strawmen to avoid a specific.

But, we ARE LOOKING for the origins of the universe and all it contains. Keep this in mind.

KAG:

For the second, no, not necessary an infinite regress. However, even if there is one, the earlier point still applies.

Infinite regress shall be your lot -> whether you choose the first one or the second one.

KAG:

For the third, "gods of the gaps" isn't a prequisite for peace of mind.

Infinite regress does not give peace of mind either. It really really ruffles and benumbs the mind.

KAG:

Your trichotomy is a false one

And this is a false conclusion.

Who told u that people that do not believe in All'ah, jehova, zeues, buddah, shirk etc do not have peace of mind?

I don't think they have peace of mind either especially the non christians.

Good question.
-> Who created the Creator of the Creator
-> Who created the Creator of the Creator of the Creator
-> etc

Will it be more cormfortable to blame evolution for the presence of God today? Who knows whether God evolved from stones or thin air.

RedHotChic:

Will it be more cormfortable to blame evolution for the presence of God today? Who knows whether God evolved from stones or thin air.

Always think of the next question => where did the stones/air evolve FROM; before evolving TO God?

what gives you the energy to communicate and even think? you all devil worshippers keep on coming here nd proving you are too wise. who keeps the balance in the galaxy and why is there time. when you start thinking out of your caged mind then you will know actually there is a system of design and a force actually designed that system. all things in nature were designed by a supernatural being we cant phantom. even science cannot. even Darwin could not so he found a way to ditch his head with the Natural selection falacy. A Creator exist.

what gives you the energy to communicate and even think? you all devil worshippers keep on coming here nd proving you are too wise. who keeps the balance in the galaxy and why is there time. when you start thinking out of your caged mind then you will know actually there is a system of design and a force actually designed that system. all things in nature were designed by a supernatural being we can't phantom. even science cannot. even Darwin could not so he found a way to ditch his head with the Natural selection falacy. A Creator exist.

Who is a devil worshipper? Did God not say in the bible that "His children perish because they lack knowledge"? How will you get the knowledge of God if you don't think?

Again, for the records, Charles Darwin was a christian.

Always think of the next question => where did the stones/air evolve FROM; before evolving TO God?

True but where then can we point to prove the origin of God. What if there is no God at all? Do we have any conclusive proof that God actually exists when we haven't seen Him before? what's his/her gender since He made man in his own image and likeness?

RedHotChic:

True but where then can we point to prove the origin of God. What if there is no God at all? Do we have any conclusive proof that God actually exists when we haven't seen Him before? what's his/her gender since He made man in his own image and likeness?

you ask stupid rhetorical questions.

have you ever wondered the complexity of the eye and its design? what about the minute human cell and its wonders? why is there time and space? have you studied about the brain and its design? wow i can keep on talking.

you ask stupid rhetorical questions.

have you ever wondered the complexity of the eye and its design? what about the minute human cell and its wonders? why is there time and space? have you studied about the brain and its design? wow i can keep on talking.

I dont know whether you are just a religious stooge or simply punchdrunk with abusing people, i guess the latter is the case.
Anyway, have you wondered the studied about computer chips and the complexity of it's design, have you wondered about the sputnik and it's wonders, Apollo, challenger etc are wonders too.

imhotep:

But, we ARE LOOKING for the origins of the universe and all it contains. Keep this in mind.

No, we are looking for the origins of gods. Keep that mind. Discard your strawman.

For the second, no, not necessary an infinite regress. However, even if there is one, the earlier point still applies.

Infinite regress shall be your lot -> whether you choose the first one or the second one.

The first or second one of what? That it isn't necessrily or an infinite regression or that one needn't erect the strawman of an infinite regression when it's a question of the origin of a specific?

Infinite regress does not give peace of mind either. It really really ruffles and benumbs the mind.

The life of Pi: e

And this is a false conclusion.

Except it isn't, as I showed.

babaearly:

you ask stupid rhetorical questions.

have you ever wondered the complexity of the eye and its design?

Which eye? Did you have any specific type in mind?

what about the minute human cell and its wonders?

What about it?

why is there time and space?

Expansion of the Universe for the first, and initially inflation for the latter.

have you studied about the brain and its design? wow i can keep on talking.

So the brain and its design is the origin of gods?

I SUGGEST YOU ALL READ THIS BOOK:

THE GOD DELUSION - by Richard Dawkins

a must read !!

KAG,

Your depth of intelligence is acknowledged. However, this thread might not be sufficient for you to probe and explore critically and indepth the purpose and truth of God in the way you have inferred. I am sure you have an inner drive to know and the mental endurance to prolong the discussion on the origin of God. Open your own thread and ask the questions that you seek the conversation on. I promise to join you in that dialogue and I'm sure others as well like Imhotep and possibly Huxley will join you. Let's dig and exchange ideas and knowledge.

What do you think?

The question about "the origin of God" is NOT a good question.

It puts the seeker on the road of Infinite Regress ----> you MUST also seek to find out the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin --------------------------------- of the origin of God.

The solution lies elsewhere.

Where's the solution?

@redhotchic
I suggest you start by reading Thomas Aquinas' five ways. God's very essence is to be. This is the ultimate meaning of Exodus 3:14 => "Ego sum qui sum" => (roughly) "I am He who is".

So, He did not come from anywhere, neither is He going anywhere. He is.

The existence of God can be proved in five ways.


1.) The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.


2.) The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.


3.) The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.


4.) The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.


5.) The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Negro_Ntns:

KAG,

Your depth of intelligence is acknowledged. However, this thread might not be sufficient for you to probe and explore critically and indepth the purpose and truth of God in the way you have inferred. I am sure you have an inner drive to know and the mental endurance to prolong the discussion on the origin of God. Open your own thread and ask the questions that you seek the conversation on. I promise to join you in that dialogue and I'm sure others as well like Imhotep and possibly Huxley will join you. Let's dig and exchange ideas and knowledge.

What do you think?

Sounds like a plan. What do you propose the title be?

imhotep:

The question about "the origin of God" is NOT a good question.

It puts the seeker on the road of Infinite Regress ----> you MUST also seek to find out the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin --------------------------------- of the origin of God.

The solution lies elsewhere.

You're still wrong.

KAG:

You're still wrong.

And you are still trapped in the maze of Infinite Regress.


--- of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin ----

Let me know when you decide to free yourself.

imhotep:

And you are still trapped in the maze of Infinite Regress.


--- of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin ----

Let me know when you decide to free yourself.

Um, again, no. When it's addressed to a specific, one needn't dodge the question by appealing to the strawman of infinite regression. Look, even Pastor AIO managed to give his opinion on the idea: "Who created God? God created God. But what was God before he created God? He was God." Thereby nixing the urge to resort to infinite regression.

KAG:

Um, again, no. When it's addressed to a specific, one needn't dodge the question by appealing to the strawman of infinite regression.

Not a strawman, but a mind boggling reality that you cannot escape from.

KAG:

Look, even Pastor AIO managed to give his opinion on the idea: "Who created God? God created God. But what was God before he created God? He was God." Thereby nixing the urge to resort to infinite regression.

Every cause must precede the effect it causes. For God to create Himself, He must precede Himself. This is absurd.

imhotep:

Not a strawman, but a mind boggling reality that you cannot escape from.

No, a strawman. It's no different from claiming that one can't answer what John 3:16 says because then you'd have to know the origin of the Gospel of John, then the origin of the Bible, then the origin of the authors, then the originof the origin of the authors parents, etc. It dodges a specific.

Every cause must precede the effect it causes. For God to create Himself, He must precede Himself. This is absurd.

It's not that absurd. I don't buy it, but it's not that absurd.

KAG:

No, a strawman. It's no different from claiming that one can't answer what John 3:16 says because then you'd have to know the origin of the Gospel of John, then the origin of the Bible, then the origin of the authors, then the originof the origin of the authors parents, etc. It dodges a specific.

Really. Well, let me lay it out for you :

The Creator was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator who was created by a creator ------> Ad Infinitum

KAG:

It's not that absurd. I don't buy it, but it's not that absurd.

Very very very absurd. Might as well argue that KAG gave birth to himself.

imhotep:

Really. Well, let me lay it out for you :

What does John 3:16 say?

Very very very absurd. Might as well argue that KAG gave birth to himself.

In a sense that's exactly what happened, as "KAG" is simpy one aspect of my person. It's a representation that i have created on a website called Nairaland.

KAG:

What does John 3:16 say?

Not enough to get anyone out of the maze.

KAG:

In a sense that's exactly what happened, as "KAG" is simpy one aspect of my person. It's a representation that i have created on a website called Nairaland.

Good. You had to exist outside Nairaland BEFORE you could create KAG inside Nairaland.

But you were supporting the view that God (who was not existing) suddenly created Himself. Wierd.