₦airaland Forum

Wilgrea7:
There was another example which he gave, that really got me thinking. It was about witch burning in the medieval times. And he said something along the lines of "If we knew someone conspiring with the devil, we'd want to burn them too". And that got me thinking.

And this is my own perspective. In the absence of the god factor we're trying to prove, we term something good, if we think it is good, and bad, if we think it is evil. Now, I know that sounds cliche, but hear me out for a minute.

When we think of the devil, we think of the most evil being imaginable, and we think of evil, we think of things that reduce happiness, or the human condition. Theft, hunger, Pain, suffering, etc. If we saw something as evil, we would feel justified to destroy it. The witch burnings happened because the people thought they were expunging evil from their society, even though technically, "thou shall not kill" was supposed to be part of the golden commandments.

The wars of israel in the bible are often justified by christian apologists, by saying they were fighting against evil people, and sinners. But when we look deeply at what this evil is supposed to be, it turns out to be things we don't like, or in other cases things that worsen the human condition.

For example, if i asked you, if you would shoot a random person walking on the street, you would probably say no, and say that it's a bad thing to do. But if I asked you if you would shoot someone in self defense, to protect yourself and your family, I'm guessing you would say yes.

As another example, most people wouldn't steal from the poor woman hawking tomatoes down the street. But if given the opportunity, they would still from a politician they believe to be dubious, to give the woman selling tomatoes. Because they believe the politician to be a bad person, who probably steals from people in the first place. They would do something considered bad (stealing) in order to combat something else (a lying, stealing politician) and still feel justified by it. Even though we can all agree that we don't like it when our things get stolen.

I'd like to say this is me just thinking out loud, and nothing more. As time goes on, and as I read more, my views may change. But i do think it's something to think about.

Some of these acts we consider bad, like murder, become justifiable when we do them against things we consider bad.

you're right but to clarify something
The commandments says do not murder.. and to murder means do not kill the innocent

What defines the innocent, those who have God's goodness in them. That's why we can kill animals and criminals but not those who bear God's image.

Reason being those who have God's image have received fr God the right to live as long as God wills.

Now I say you're right because what we see as good or evil depends alot on what affects us, but that shouldn't be so. It is so because theres an evil in us called selfishness that places us not good, as priority. It tells us whatever we desire is good and whatever we don't desire is bad, that mindset that makes us think that is what a god should be or that we are such gods.

But interesting God defines good not by desire but by observation, he observes if a thing benefits others and then defines it as good but it it doesn't he defines it as bad. We fell from the state and became too carnal and emotional, clinging to things even when they are destructive

LordReed:
My own observations don't lead me to accept that conclusion. My understanding of the physical laws of the universe around us shows that what we call order is the effects of these laws stacking up on themselves, one could almost say the universe is reiterative with reiterations producing sometimes novel effects. There doesn't appear to be any conscious drive in this order/stacking/reiteration nor does it appear to be intelligent, just repetitive. I would like to know why your own observations leads you to accept such a conclusion.

nothing begins without a force starting it, and nothing ends without a force influencing it. Whether there is order or chaos there is a cause. Now if the universe is self sufficient then it is "God" and it defines all that occurs in it, the fact that order exists means there is something that gives that order. Chaos exists where there is confusion, and where there is no need for order or a cause for it.

Wilgrea7:
I understand your analogy of the house and the landlord. And I don't disagree with it. But like I said earlier in our previous discussion, it's not about rulership. It's about creation. The act itself. We had a disagreement on what the different things equate to. How being the owner of a house, does not necessarily equate to being the builders (laborers, electricians, plumbers, painters etc).

This topic is about the existence of a "creator God", not an "owner God". Sure, we've agreed that they can be one and the same. But I've also pointed out that it doesn't necessarily have to be the case. And besides, I'm more focused on the aspects of creation, rather than ownership.

The reason I used the words "Creator God", is because most monotheistic beliefs attribute the universe to being the literal creation of a supreme being. Not a case of a supreme being telling angels or servants to create things on its behalf. No. Most talk about a supreme being, creating everything BY ITSELF. Which is synonymous to the landlord doing every single bit of work by himself. The painting, tiling, plumping, wiring, etc.

In addition to that, while I applaud your landlord and house analogy, it is not the only analogy through which a thing can be created.

For example, a baby needs 2 adults of the opposite gender to be able to create it. In this case, you can't argue for a single right to rulership.

A group of people, can for whatever reason, agree to work on a project. We're still dealing with multiple people, but right to rulership can be debated. It can also be disputed.

A single person can also gather tools for example, and create something like a box, or a watch.

I am not trying to argue that these cases HAVE to be true. I agree that any of the cases, including the one you believe in, may be true. My question is, with the existence of multiple scenarios and possibilities like this, through which a universe could exist, on what basis do people who hold specific beliefs, like the monotheist, or polytheist one, base their conclusions.

the point of ownership and creator being different would be based on who paid the creator for the job?

If a creator makes a thing out of his own expense then he owns it. Now it comes down to who brought about all that exists because we were born without the food we needed but we meet the food, meaning someone provided it. So the question of what is above will always be there, because there will be needs and demands for supply, either from the universe or from the maker of the universe, just as children make demands from ther parents who spun them

Wilgrea7:
I've answered. No. A thing cannot create itself.





Have you heard the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". I'm honest enough to admit that the world we see could have come into existence through a number of different ways. There doesn't seem to be evidence for a particular way, like the one you guys believe in. And that's my point. I'm not against any particular belief system. I'm simply asking, why people believe in the specific one they do? I'm asking for the evidence that shows the world exists through a specific way, as opposed to the other ones.


As you see, there is no valid multiple scenario at all.

so basically you can understand the concept that what we own doesn't mean we created it nor did it create itself, meaning a land we own was created by someone or something but yet we own it by laying undesputed claim to it or paying the price required for it.

Now you ask for evidence, is your existence not enough evidence that creators exist? Did you create yourself?

We have never witnessed evolution or a simple jump of existence from a non living thing to a living thing, speak less of from nothing to something.

Wilgrea7:
Another thing I wanted to talk about, was the rulership aspect. For example, the world we see today has rules. And according to your belief, those rules are set by a single entity. And if i'm understanding your argument well, if multiple entities existed, they would disagree over the rules of the universe, and hence, it is impossible. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

While I do accept the argument, I'm still proposing that laws, and rules, can still exist, even with the existence of multiple entities. Let's take a car door for example. It can have several dimensions. On the drawing board, the engineers in charge of making the car can put forward different ideas on how the car will look, or what dimensions it will have.

But in order for them to progress and actually make the car, they need to unanimously, or by majority, agree on a specific dimension or set of values. Your analogy is great, but it assumes that if multiple entities were involved in creation, they would not at least, have had a sort of drawing board to put ideas on, or a sort of voting process in order to agree on how the universe is eventually created.

That's the point I'm trying to make.

the existence of other creators doesn't mean a supreme creator doesn't exist, the rest just have to follow the will of the first

Lighthouse50:
There are thousands nf gods, these gnds have their own people. Those gods too know who is the most powerful among them. Every land and tribe have a gnd(s). Sn not one. Each god tends to show their power through their people. Listen, science is a god on it own and has die hard follower who only listen to the voice of their prophets (scientist). The confusion on earth is everyone claim to be a follower of the most powerful.

because no one wants to feel inferior to another

Tb222:
God exists, there are many testimonies concerning that... First the bible proves it, two :
scientific investigations have also proven it, an organization known as the near death experience research foundation has proven the existence of an afterlife, mainly reported by people who at a point in their lives faced death and were certified dead, only to be resusicated , 75% of them reported seeing themselves traveling through a tunnel or dark void at incredible speed, they reported seeing a bright light a million times more glorious than the sun.
Although this light was so bright, they somehow could look at it, they reported being overwhelmed by an incredible sense of peace and wellbeing, the purest form of unconditional love that they felt at the presence of this light moved them to tears, they somehow could converse telepathically with this light or higher self as some reported.
Others reported seeing Jesus Christ, seeing large meadows with the greenest of green, flowers of incredible colors with millions of colors never seen on earth, crystal streams and rivers, "everything seemed to be alive" an experiencer claimed. They were often given or shown a review of their lives from when they were born to their present state. One reported "I saw everything i had ever done, the words i said, the help i rendered, i also saw the consequences and ripple effects of my actions, i felt the emotions of those i hurt like i was the one being abused, i felt so miserable, it was a hopeless feeling i never want to experience again, i decided there and then to change my ways and life for the better". Every single individual who experinced an nde( near death experience) came back a changed person with a quest and zeal to impact humanity selflessly and with love." God is love, he is the purest indescribable form of love you can ever imagine" an experiencer said.....
To listen to compelling nde stories you can go to the near death experience research foundation website: www. nderf. org or simply download spotify , go to the podcast section and search for nde stories, i bet you your perspective on life and what lies beyond life would be challenged.

thanks for sharing

gohf:
nothing begins without a force starting it, and nothing ends without a force influencing it. Whether there is order or chaos there is a cause. Now if the universe is self sufficient then it is "God" and it defines all that occurs in it, the fact that order exists means there is something that gives that order. Chaos exists where there is confusion, and where there is no need for order or a cause for it.

And your point is?

Kayouzka:
5. Note, infinity consciousness can never be good or bad it at rest, it is our minds that creates that distinction, does a lion feel bad when it devour a zebra or does a zebra feel vengeful when it comrade is devoured, we only think of good and evil because of our limited minds.

how do we know what a lion or zebra feels?

LordReed:
And your point is?

"There doesn't appear to be any conscious drive in this order/stacking/reiteration nor does it appear to be intelligent, just repetitive."

You wanted to know why others believe the universe is intelligently designed. If you don't understand what I wrote, it explains why u believe the universe isn't intelligently designed.

gohf:
"There doesn't appear to be any conscious drive in this order/stacking/reiteration nor does it appear to be intelligent, just repetitive."

You wanted to know why others believe the universe is intelligently designed. If you don't understand what I wrote, it explains why u believe the universe isn't intelligently designed.

You wrote a bunch of assertions with no coherent theme and expected me to read your mind? What you wrote doesn't even point out any sort of intelligence.

gohf:
In Genesis it writes let us create
The term for God in Hebrew is Elohim, a plural term. The fact they write the Lord thy God is one, attributes to unity not singularity. Can something singular be everywhere? Especially if your measure of singularity is physical.

I don't understand. The claim of omnipresence is not one of multiple gods being spread out across the earth or universe. It's one god, being everywhere, all at once. So the Elohim analogy doesn't really contribute to the situation.

The concept of eternity is hard to accept when faced with death daily, but when we understand that even the basic state of matter and energy cannot be destroyed but can be transferred from one form to another, we see a never ending cycle of things, then we understand that the end for one maybe the beginning for another. An eternal God shows that continuity in existence. Meaning as long as existence exists, it's creator exists, not just to create it but to maintain it.

The concept of an eternal god i was discussing wasn't dealing with death. It was dealing with birth, or creation. Which is another way of saying, how do you know that your god, whichever one you believe in, wasn't created. Our universe has been shown to be about 13.8 billion years old.

Is it impossible for a god, who created the universe, to have also been created, let's say 200 billion years ago. If no, then why not? If a god created this universe and everything in it, is it not possible for the same god, and whatever reality it exists in, to have also been created by another being?

Nothing created is self sufficient, that's why it needs a creator to maintain it and for that it has to have a creator that cares enough.

Interesting point. However, I don't agree that all systems necessarily need to be maintained. We have examples of self-sustaining systems, like rain-forests. Also, What exactly do you mean by self-sufficient in this context? The universe seems pretty self-sufficient to me, or maybe I'm thinking about it wrong. And how does a creator in this situation, maintain creation?

Now personality is something attributed to a living being, and since what we know if that the highest form of existence is alive then that which is higher must have something higher than life and even having a personality is obviously possible. Just has all things have characteristics but not personality. Secondly a desire to communicate, if the creator has no personality how would he or we communicate.

That wasn't what I was talking about there. I said a personal God, not a God with personality. A personal God, is one who would want to be involved with humans, or interfere with their relations and in a specific way too. One who could choose to favor one person over the other, or one group over the other.

You made reference to a desire to communicate. You'll agree with me that desires are things we choose to indulge in. So my question is, must a god choose to, or want to communicate with humans? Must it care? Is it possible for it not to care, or for it to care, but simply not interfere? If you think a god must care, or want to interfere, why so?

Power is a measure of what is done or can be done, when we can't easily even calculate the amount of power needed to keep a planet alive or the sun shining, how much more a vast sea of stars. Infinite simply is something beyond human capability to calculate. Like something is negligible not because it doesn't exist but because it's too small, like comparing the square root of quarter to a cubic trillion.

So basically, a god who created the universe, would be infinitely powerful relative to us. That makes sense.

Simply put defining God is hard, maybe when we become like him it gets easier.

What evidence do you have that a god, if it exists, is male. And what proof do you have that we can somehow become like him? This statement denotes that godhood is somehow part of our development process, like a butterfly is to the caterpillar. If so, what proof do we have of such claims?

gohf:
True our dreams are based off real life experiences, like sentence based off letters we know. But what better way for the spirit realm to communicate other than using what we can relate with.

Is it possible for the blind to dream of lights or the deaf of sounds.

But again how possible is it for us to use what we have to feed ourselves a specific dream. How much control has a human over their minds and brains not to speak of when they are asleep, do they define what they see.

I bet you not everyone who has heard Christ's crucifixion as had a dream about it, and yet someone who heard it once a long time ago, has multiple dreams about it.

Our minds are something, people dream of spaces years before ever thinking how vast it may be. They named stars, planets probably without knowing so much about them.

Have u ever dreamt of something that hasnt happened and it did happen, question is what made you dream of it?

Of course, I've had dreams that seemed to later come true in reality. I've also had dreams that didn't. I've also had dreams that didn't make logical sense. Like opening the fridge and walking into a football field, with people holding a barbecue in the center.

The way the human consciousness works, is something that is still a deep mystery to us. But as far as i'm concerned, it doesn't really do anything to strengthen or weaken the arguments for a specific concept of God. That's why i made reference to things like this happening across all religions.

gohf:
Now why we can't have multiple creators, is because creation is a mind thing and has to have a goal. The universe functions in unison shows it seems to have a goal which may be obvious to some or too grand for others to see. Everything has to have a source, a Genesis.. just the way we don't start counting from 2 but from one.

The universe functioning in unison doesn't negate the possibility of multiple creators. It just shows that if multiple creators did exist, that they simply had to agree on how to create it. We have products created by groups of people. These products were only possible because the people making them agreed on how to go about it.

I agree that everything has a source. But that logic doesn't of course, apply to God. Most theists believe that God doesn't have a source. So if one can exist without a source, why can't 2? or 10?

Wilgrea7:
Of course, I've had dreams that seemed to later come true in reality. I've also had dreams that didn't. I've also had dreams that didn't make logical sense. Like opening the fridge and walking into a football field, with people holding a barbecue in the center.

The way the human consciousness works, is something that is still a deep mystery to us. But as far as i'm concerned, it doesn't really do anything to strengthen or weaken the arguments for a specific concept of God. That's why i made reference to things like this happening across all religions.



The universe functioning in unison doesn't negate the possibility of multiple creators. It just shows that if multiple creators did exist, that they simply had to agree on how to create it. We have products created by groups of people. These products were only possible because the people making them agreed on how to go about it.

I agree that everything has a source. But that logic doesn't of course, apply to God. Most theists believe that God doesn't have a source. So if one can exist without a source, why can't 2? or 10?

that's why I said the Hebrew believe about God isn't that he is a singular entity, he might be a million in one, El shaddai, el elohe, el jireh, el Nissi, etc the same being. "Let us make". They speak one voice and complete agreement. We don't count it because there is unity and no division, oneness like I mentioned before. Be it 7 spirits of God, trinity, angels, etc.

Wilgrea7:
I don't understand. The claim of omnipresence is not one of multiple gods being spread out across the earth or universe. It's one god, being everywhere, all at once. So the Elohim analogy doesn't really contribute to the situation.

so which do you believe, does a being that is Omnipresent have need for more creators?

aren't you the one telling yourself Elohim has to be in a particular way?

The concept of an eternal god i was discussing wasn't dealing with death. It was dealing with birth, or creation. Which is another way of saying, how do you know that your god, whichever one you believe in, wasn't created. Our universe has been shown to be about 13.8 billion years old.

lol you have no idea what eternal life or existence is, because everything around us has a time limit and dies. But if we understand that nothing truly dies, why would it be difficult to accept that there's a God with no end.

Who said God wasn't created , He is self created besides if you understood the Hebrew word for create, you may understand how God and the universe exist.

Is it impossible for a god, who created the universe, to have also been created, let's say 200 billion years ago. If no, then why not? If a god created this universe and everything in it, is it not possible for the same god, and whatever reality it exists in, to have also been created by another being?

an origin is an origin, just like 0 is a beginning, you can have a 0 and a 1, the moment you have another 1 it because 2. This is the very basis of maths and programming. Now the difference between universe having a beginning and God having one. Does God have a beginning?

Interesting point. However, I don't agree that all systems necessarily need to be maintained. We have examples of self-sustaining systems, like rain-forests. Also, What exactly do you mean by self-sufficient in this context? The universe seems pretty self-sufficient to me, or maybe I'm thinking about it wrong. And how does a creator in this situation, maintain creation?

you don't really need to agree, even a so called self sufficient system put in place may fall apart, maybe once it achieves its goal. Will it continue forever without errors?
He maintains it the very way he made it, with the principles he made it with. Please don't argue the principles, because if you want room for more "gods" there has to be a code of conduct and pattern and standard.

Don't you realise that we men studied nature and learnt from it, you think the way we behave is our own invention. If we have 3 suns and 7 moons and 42 hrs a day and trees grow into the ground, the way we behave, think,act and work would be based on how things are created

That wasn't what I was talking about there. I said a personal God, not a God with personality. A personal God, is one who would want to be involved with humans, or interfere with their relations and in a specific way too. One who could choose to favor one person over the other, or one group over the other.

you mentioned those personalities and those attributes yourself. Now you want to drift into something else, "a personal God". Fine. Do you have a problem with there being a "personal God"

You made reference to a desire to communicate. You'll agree with me that desires are things we choose to indulge in. So my question is, must a god choose to, or want to communicate with humans? Must it care? Is it possible for it not to care, or for it to care, but simply not interfere? If you think a god must care, or want to interfere, why so?

because life is designed that way and He himself is life, eternal life and life cannot die. Even though we are dying the moments we do feel alive, we care, we love, we give and do you think to yourself that a being who is purely love and life would lack these very things we experience sparsely? Does that make anysense to you, that God who is good, shouldn't be good, or a God who is love shouldn't love. Does it make sense to you to have a father that is white and bald but you are black and full of hair. Our inherent nature from our parents is selfish and self seeking but as we grow we learn, we listen, our inner conscience tells to different between right and wrong

So basically, a god who created the universe, would be infinitely powerful relative to us. That makes sense.



What evidence do you have that a god, if it exists, is male. And what proof do you have that we can somehow become like him? This statement denotes that godhood is somehow part of our development process, like a butterfly is to the caterpillar. If so, what proof do we have of such claims?

because the male part is the giving part, is the loving part.. we are the ones with the sex not God but we can only describe him with attributes we can relate to, but God is neither man nor woman but he is both Father and Mother, simplest way of defining his attribute.

The one proof is how we choose to live our lives, do we what is right and good and become more of who he is, or do we succumb to base desires of survival even at the cost of hurting others all because we are afraid to suffer and die

gohf:
that's why I said the Hebrew believe about God isn't that he is a singular entity, he might be a million in one, El shaddai, el elohe, el jireh, el Nissi, etc the same being. "Let us make". They speak one voice and complete agreement. We don't count it because there is unity and no division, oneness like I mentioned before. Be it 7 spirits of God, trinity, angels, etc.

I think you're missing my point. I'm not saying the universe has to have multiple Creators. I'm not saying it has to have just one either.

I'm just trying to show that both are very real possibilities when discussing the nature of a God.

If someone, like you, claims to know, with certainty, that a God is specifically singular, or specifically plural, as in the case of the elohim.. you have to prove it.

Muslims for example, reject the idea of am elohim.. and claim that the creator is a single entity, without multiple personalities like you have in the trinity or in the elohim. Unity or not.

What evidence do you have for your claim, in opposition to the Muslim one, or the Hindu one

gohf:
so which do you believe, does a being that is Omnipresent have need for more creators?

You're setting yourself up for contradiction.

lol you have no idea what eternal life or existence is, because everything around us has a time limit and dies. But if we understand that nothing truly dies, why would it be difficult to accept that there's a God with no end.

What exactly do you mean by nothing truly dies? Sure we know that things die. We have proof for it.. we see it all around us. You're making a claim now that nothing really dies.. what evidence do you have for such a claim?

The concept of an eternal God I'm discussing.. is one that has no beginning. One that has always existed, and will always do so. You're the one claiming that the creator of our universe is eternal. The burden of proof falls on you.

Who said God wasn't created , He is self created besides if you understood the Hebrew word for create, you may understand how God and the universe exist.

That's a logical inconsistency. It is impossible for something to create itself. In addition to that, if something created itself, then it had a beginning.. and didn't always exist

an origin is an origin, just like 0 is a beginning, you can have a 0 and a 1, the moment you have another 1 it because 2. This is the very basis of maths and programming. Now the difference between universe having a beginning and God having one. Does God have a beginning?

That's the question you should be answering. Why are you asking me? You're the one who's making the claim.

As far as I'm concerned, it is just as logically possible for the agent/agents behind the universe to have a beginning, as it is for them not to have one. I'm not the one making the claim of one or the other. You are

you don't really need to agree, even a so called self sufficient system put in place may fall apart, maybe once it achieves its goal. Will it continue forever without errors?

Goals? Errors? What are you talking about?

He maintains it the very way he made it, with the principles he made it with.

And what exactly would those principles be?

Please don't argue the principles, because if you want room for more "gods" there has to be a code of conduct and pattern and standard.

And what prevents multiple gods from agreeing on a code of conduct?

you mentioned those personalities and those attributes yourself. Now you want to drift into something else, "a personal God". Fine.

I think there may have been a slight misunderstanding there. Having a personality, is something that is intrinsically related to consciousness and intelligence. And those were points i agreed on.

There's a difference between having personality, for example, and having a good personality, or a bad one.. or a nonchalant one. Just as there's a difference between saying “Wilgrea7 has a ball".. and “Wilgrea7 has a blue ball".. the latter goes into more detail.

I believe if a God/gods exist, and they have intelligence, then they would have a personality of some sort.

But to say that the personality must be one where they're good, loving, and caring, is a statement that requires proof. Because there are multiple ways through which personalities can be expressed.

Do you have a problem with there being a "personal God"

I don't. But the burden of proof isn't on me.

because life is designed that way and He himself is life, eternal life and life cannot die. Even though we are dying the moments we do feel alive, we care, we love, we give and do you think to yourself that a being who is purely love and life would lack these very things we experience sparsely? Does that make anysense to you, that God who is good, shouldn't be good, or a God who is love shouldn't love. Does it make sense to you to have a father that is white and bald but you are black and full of hair. Our inherent nature from our parents is selfish and self seeking but as we grow we learn, we listen, our inner conscience tells to different between right and wrong

You said we care and love.. and these attributes exist because a being who is purely love exists. But we also kill, hate, and envy.. by that logic, a being who is purely bad, or purely hate also exists.

Your father and son analogy is great.. but it fails when comparing humans to a creator.

1. We are not the only creation. If you say the arributes found in humans are from the creator, then the ones found in animals are also from the creator too.. since he created them as well.

For example, dolphins are one of the few aquatic animals that kill purely for the sake of fun. Lots of land animals do so too. Some animals engage in aggressive sexual behavior too. Are you willing to also attribute these behaviours to your creator?

If not, then it is entirely possible for a creator not to have the attributes we do.

because the male part is the giving part, is the loving part.. we are the ones with the sex not God but we can only describe him with attributes we can relate to, but God is neither man nor woman but he is both Father and Mother, simplest way of defining his attribute.

Makes sense.

The one proof is how we choose to live our lives, do we what is right and good and become more of who he is, or do we succumb to base desires of survival even at the cost of hurting others all because we are afraid to suffer and die

That's not proof. That's speculation. In order to show you how a caterpillar becomes a butterfly, i could show you the process of development, as well as the process of transformation from a caterpillar into a butterfly.

If you claim we develop into gods, then you need to show evidence, for at least the process of transformation, where a human is transformed into a god.

I can show you a butterfly that was once a caterpillar.. show me a god that was once a human

Wilgrea7:
1) A SINGULAR GOD

Why exactly does the creator need to be a singular entity? All attributes we can observe, like conscious or intelligent design, can exist perfectly fine if there are 2, 3, 10 or even 100 creators. Why does the concept of a creator need to be singular?

People often say if there were multiple creators, they would run into conflict. Why exactly do multiple higher entities have to fall into conflict with each other? The fact that humans and other life forms on earth do it doesn't mean they (the alleged creators) need to do it.

And even if they do, how do we know it's not something that's bound to happen in the future, and we just don't know yet?

You started your thread by agreeing to a conscious creator of our intelligently designed universe, which I find very interesting for you to agree to. It also makes these your questions quite suspicious.

The concept of a creator needs to be singular, because this creator is ETERNAL. This means this creator is infinite and perfect in every conception. There cannot be multiple infinite perfect beings existing in tandem, even if they seem to be multiple, they'll have to be the same being. Because at the level of infinity, with respect to creation, there is only room for ONE BEING. Even if there are many persons, all these persons, if they are the infinite origin of everything, will be one. One being.

Your misunderstanding of the Singularity of God is tied to your second question which I will address below.

Wilgrea7: 2) AN ETERNAL GOD

Why exactly does our creator, if it exists, need to be eternal. From our current observation, the universe began about 14 billion years ago. What law is stopping our creator from having another creator? What stops our creators from being 30 billion years old, or even 300 billion years old?

A common objection is the infinite regress fallacy. Which is to say that if you say a creator needs a creator, then you go back infinitely needing creators, which is illogical.

Except of course we don't necessarily need 1 generation of a creator. We could have 3, 4, or even 100 generations of creators. Of course there's no way to prove it. So why do we come to the conclusion that any creator we have, happens to be eternal and timeless?

You imply you understand that infinite regress is a logical fallacy. So I'll continue with that assumption.
You must not understand the definition of eternal. If there is a generation of creators, then they aren't really the eternal creator. The eternal creator is uncreated. Being eternal by definition with respect to creation means you're uncreated. If there was an intercepting generation of makers, then the maker of the makers is God, because God is the original source of all things. And since you understand that infinite regress is infinitely stupi.d, then you can see that there must be an eternal creator that is the source of all things, irrespective of whether you interject multiple generations of makers before you get to our created order.

And the reason interjecting is also unreasonable is because time itself has a beginning from infinity. So our creator is not only eternal with respect to us, but also timeless, since He is the author of our own time and space.

Wilgrea7: 3) A PERSONAL GOD

People often assume that if we were created, whoever created us MUST care for us, or be kind, and loving and whatnot. But what exactly stops the alleged creator/creators of the universe from being evil, sadistic, or simply, not caring.

We could be created just for the sake of spectatorship, where the creator/creators just want to watch the universe and see what happens. We could have creators who derive joy in seeing civilizations from different planets develop and fight each other, like in an arcade game. Or simply creators that just don't care very much. What rule is there that said a creator needs to be good, caring, loving and so on?

Because of the nature of creation. But this is cause for another thread. You have to be a theist first before we argue on the character of Theos.

Wilgrea7: 4) AN OMNIPOTENT / INFINITELY POWERFUL GOD

Certainly, whatever made our current universe needed to have been powerful enough to create it. But that doesn't necessarily mean it has to be infinitely powerful. You can get a universe from an infinitely powerful cause. You can also get a universe from a cause just powerful enough to create 2 universes, and not more.

On what basis do we grant omnipotence or infinite power?

Once again, this is because of a poor concept of the nature of infinity or eternity. With respect to our created order, which sprang from a point of infinity, every character and nature of that infinity is superlative. God is eternal, so His power cannot be finite. An eternal being has eternal power. An eternal being is eternal in every respect.

Wilgrea7: I have a couple more, but I'll leave it at this for now. Please note if you're proving any point, you need to back it up with some verifiable evidence. Quoting scriptures does not equate to evidence.

Over to you guys

What gives you the right to determine what is verifiable evidence? This arrogance is very hypocritical and annoying.

LordReed:
My own observations don't lead me to accept that conclusion. My understanding of the physical laws of the universe around us shows that what we call order is the effects of these laws stacking up on themselves, one could almost say the universe is reiterative with reiterations producing sometimes novel effects. There doesn't appear to be any conscious drive in this order/stacking/reiteration nor does it appear to be intelligent, just repetitive. I would like to know why your own observations leads you to accept such a conclusion.

It's because he's not in self denial like you. He can see the obvious order and intelligence in creation. He isn't happily denying it to deny God. That takes an incredible amount of futile effort and he is happy to not dabble in intellectual suicide.

Kayouzka:
Most people think there is a God seating on a thrown, we like to idolise, it is so hard for man in his mind not to idolise because his mind is full of the thought of time and space, for the mind is the tunnel through which God sees the world bit by bit through limitations. You cannot know God with your mind, you cannot find God while looking at material things that is why science cannot proof it, the highest way to know God (find yourself) is to go into the silence in meditation. That's silence the mind that which brings limitations then you feel one with all, you can't touch it or wrap your mind over it, the moment you try you lose it immediately.

Who told you all these things

Joshthefirst:
It's because he's not in self denial like you. He can see the obvious order and intelligence in creation. He isn't happily denying it to deny God. That takes an incredible amount of futile effort and he is happy to not dabble in intellectual suicide.

LoLz! Yes the intelligent designer who never speaks for himself but instead has people defend him on the internet with piss poor arguments and ad hominems. Bwahahahahahaha!

LordReed:
LoLz! Yes the intelligent designer who never speaks for himself but instead has people defend him on the internet with piss poor arguments and ad hominems. Bwahahahahahaha!

He will speak for himself and clear your doubt, i just hope you hear us who are speaking for him and change before then. Because by then there will be no room for change. You see God is not moved by skeptics. One day He will clear doubts everywhere. A day of vengeance. May my words not come to you on the other side of vengeance on that day. Come to God now in this year of acceptance. Join the millions and turn to Him.

Isaiah 61: The Spirit of the Lord GOD is on Me, because the LORD has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent Me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and freedom to the prisoners, to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor and the day of our God’s vengeance, to comfort all who mourn

Joshthefirst:
He will speak for himself and clear your doubt, i just hope you hear us who are speaking for him and change before then. Because by then there will be no room for change. You see God is not moved by skeptics. One day He will clear doubts everywhere. A day of vengeance. May my words not come to you on the other side of vengeance on that day. Come to God now in this year of acceptance. Join the millions and turn to Him.

Isaiah 61: The Spirit of the Lord GOD is on Me, because the LORD has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent Me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and freedom to the prisoners, to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor and the day of our God’s vengeance, to comfort all who mourn

Riiight. The coming soon Jesus that has been allegedly coming soon for over 1980 years. LoLz. As you can tell I don't buy that story and the so called intelligent god would know that waiting 1980+ years is not the definition of soon.

Apologies for the late reply. Been real busy recently

Joshthefirst:
You started your thread by agreeing to a conscious creator of our intelligently designed universe, which I find very interesting for you to agree to. It also makes these your questions quite suspicious.

I admitted that the cause of the universe, whatever it may be, seems to have some sort of intelligence or consciousness involved in it. I don't deny that. The additional qualities theists ascribe to the alleged creator are the things i question.

The concept of a creator needs to be singular, because this creator is ETERNAL. This means this creator is infinite and perfect in every conception. There cannot be multiple infinite perfect beings existing in tandem, even if they seem to be multiple, they'll have to be the same being. Because at the level of infinity, with respect to creation, there is only room for ONE BEING. Even if there are many persons, all these persons, if they are the infinite origin of everything, will be one. One being.

Your misunderstanding of the Singularity of God is tied to your second question which I will address below.

I think we're saying 2 different things here. Or maybe we're defining the words "eternal" in different ways. When i say eternal, I mean something that did not begin to exist, as per the Kalam cosmological argument. Not necessarily something that is spatially boundless.

A spatially boundless first cause is another good point, but also one we don't seem to have evidence for, or against. So it's really hard to make up a case for it. Also, I have a hard time understanding why multiple "things" can't exist without a cause. It's the question I've been asking since. If one thing can exist without a cause as per the kalam, then why can't multiple?

You imply you understand that infinite regress is a logical fallacy. So I'll continue with that assumption.
You must not understand the definition of eternal. If there is a generation of creators, then they aren't really the eternal creator.

The eternal creator is uncreated. Being eternal by definition with respect to creation means you're uncreated. If there was an intercepting generation of makers, then the maker of the makers is God, because God is the original source of all things. And since you understand that infinite regress is infinitely stupi.d, then you can see that there must be an eternal creator that is the source of all things, irrespective of whether you interject multiple generations of makers before you get to our created order.

Yes.. this is exactly what I've been saying. For the sake of this discussion, I'm granting the existence of an uncaused first cause. However, what I'm challenging is the claim that theists make, where they say that their God, is the uncaused first cause.

I'm simply making an alternative case, to show that there could just as well, be 2, 3 or even 10 generations of creators. 10 generation of creators doesn't cause infinite regress. We can have 1 uncaused cause at the first generation, and then 9 subsequent generations of caused, and finite creators. Infinite regress is still very much avoided.

The theist claims that they're God, especially the one they claim is responsible for the creation of our universe, is at the first generation, rather than 3rd or 5th. And of course we can't prove or disprove it. And that is exactly my point.

A lot of the claims made about the alleged creator are not things we can or have verified. So on what basis would someone making that claim base it? especially when they champion it as truth? That's the point of the whole thread.

And the reason interjecting is also unreasonable is because time itself has a beginning from infinity. So our creator is not only eternal with respect to us, but also timeless, since He is the author of our own time and space.

Good point. Very good point. So if I'm understanding correctly, these attributes assigned to a creator God, are based on our subjective perception, rather than any possible objective standard?

By this logic, a God which existed before our creation would be eternal. A God existing for 20 billion years, would be eternal from our frame of reference, since all of our time, which we can only trace to the big bang, began 14 billion years ago. This is a really interesting way of thinking about it.

Because of the nature of creation. But this is cause for another thread. You have to be a theist first before we argue on the character of Theos.

Ok.

Once again, this is because of a poor concept of the nature of infinity or eternity. With respect to our created order, which sprang from a point of infinity, every character and nature of that infinity is superlative. God is eternal, so His power cannot be finite. An eternal being has eternal power. An eternal being is eternal in every respect.

I'll be honest. I'm a bit confused here. Are you saying power is in someway related to how long a thing has been in existence? If yes, then an infinitely powerful God, on the basis of an eternal or timeless existence makes sense. But I think I've come to terms with the infinitely powerful claim.

At least logically, if you consider the frame of reference example you gave, a being/beings capable of creating the universe we observe today would need to have an incomprehensibly large amount of power, which from our reference frame, would be infinite. I think TenQ pointed out something like that too, and I agree with that.

What gives you the right to determine what is verifiable evidence? This arrogance is very hypocritical and annoying.

It's not an attempt at arrogance. If we want to have an honest discussion regarding what is objectively true, then I think we need to agree on what counts as evidence. And I don't think anyone considers the words written in any Holy book as objective evidence

LordReed:
Riiight. The coming soon Jesus that has been allegedly coming soon for over 1980 years. LoLz. As you can tell I don't buy that story and the so called intelligent god would know that waiting 1980+ years is not the definition of soon.

This is what makes me questions the sanity of those churchgoers calling JWs false prophets for anticipating God's Kingdom. It makes sense if an atheist like you ran to such conclusion after all you don't believe the God who made the promise but as for those claiming they also believe in this promise how come they just dismiss the thought that when someone say "coming soon" 1989 years doesn't have any correlation with the phrase?

Well the truth is that it's only the JWs who always anticipate the coming that are faithful just like ancient servants of God who were eagerly anticipating the coming of Christ and his kingdom! 2Peter 3:3-4