[Paradigm]

Maybe you should mind your own business and let people answer the question as it pertains to them. It may well be that some answers are simply over your head.

[anasawad]

@ Harmattan.

a) "Something" is more natural than "nothing". In quantum physics, pairs of particles and antiparticles spontaneously appear from nothing in the void, then disappear (most of the time). So when you ask "why is there an universe" I answer "why should there be nothing".

Exactly, there are physical forces that together can create something out of nothing.
Those the same theoretically where the universe came from.
Thus they are external to the universe. Meaning with or without the universe they will still exist, and possibly even create universes all the time.

b) There was no "before" and no cause. It is important to understand that in physics the start of the universe is the start of time. At some point there was something and before there was no before, no time and no nothing. And without time there is no causality, so there is no cause either. It is because it is.

Incorrect. On a concept, true there was no time before the universe ( i.e secon 1, or part of a million of a second 1). However time in physics is a dimension, a force if we were to say. That can be canceled and have variations and measurable effects. (Basically its just a result of the universe but its not an essential force or concept rather a one than may exist or not. Basically there are places in the universe currently that time has no effect in it.
Thats why some scientists created something called imagenary time and real time, the time as a force is the real time.)
Causality is an entire different thing independent of time.

of a being daring to stand above me.

That is if i may say the human ego, though it is part of our nature. However is harmful. Away from spirituality and creation and all such ideas, as a general concept, we will only reach our full potentials when we know our place in the universe and act on it. There are much stronger forces in the universe that could easily wipe us out. We are fragile in our existence and we must accept this fact in order to survive and prosper.

@ Mike.

I don't know, and if there is a why at all I doubt I'd be capable of understanding it.

Agreed, perhaps this is the most purist truth we can ever reach.

I plan to live my life as best I can and if there is some sort of afterlife and judgement I will face it

Perhaps many should learn this point.


@Hindsite.

we have this hope that this creative force will empower us with abilities to save ourselves or will come to our aid to save us from death and destruction.

This perhaps is indeed the best section i have so far seen you write.

I believe God created the universe to show His great power, creative ability, and majesty in design. I believe after this material world God will create a new universe and earth that combines the material and spiritual in a more cohesive way.

Why ? I have thought of this explanation my self before as i do believe in god, however i found it inconvincing. I do not believe that god with all his mightiness needs to show off his powers.

I believe our existence is to provide physical/spiritual children and a wife for God's pleasure.

On this matter, i believe god is one and only, and does not have a wife, a companion, or a child.
How could a god have a family ?
This is one philosophical point Hitler in matter of fact understood very well.
Family is weakness. How can god have a weakness ?

@ Paradigm

I think my view here is comparable to that of Henri Bergson's "elan vital." That is, I think there is a natural drive within the cosmos toward greater novelty and complexity. So whether it's starting from a "primeval atom," as Lemaitre put it, or from a beginning-less expansion of dark energy (one of the latest theories to gain traction), there is an intrinsic need to create higher and more complex forms.

I agree on this. And i do from a religious point of view believe in it as in Islamic scripture, God did say he is always and for ever expanding in his creation.

As a panentheist, I think of God as experiencing the cosmos from within. So this increase in complexity would add greater depth to God. God grows with the cosmos, just as the cosmos grows with God.

If you may, elaborate on this point. Why does god need to be within the universe ? Why not outside of it ? and why rule out the possibility of more than one universe and more than one creation ?

@ Ummon.
I am always interested in hearing new points of view.
So do elaborate on your views if you have the time.


@Everyone.
Personal attacks and comments is preferred to be kept else where, and to keep this thread as productive and clean as possible for perhaps each of us can reach and learn something new and even a better level of understanding
of each other's points of views.

[Hindsite]

To anasawad:

God does not create because he needs to, but because he desires to create. God is not like Hitler, so God can desire to experience weakness or to have a Son, like Jesus or a family if He wishes. The Holy Bible reveals that God has desires and He created man in His own image with desires and abilities to create as well. He Created them male and female and joined them together and commanded them to have children, because this was part of His desire.

The reason you have a different belief is because you put too much faith in the truth of the Quran (Koran) and the teachings of Muhammad and the religion of Islam.

[Besoeker]

To anasawad:

God does not create because he needs to, but because he desires to create.

You know what god desires?
Astonishing.

[Potemkin]

The Holy Bible reveals that God has desires and He created man in His own image with desires and abilities to create as well. He Created them male and female and joined them together and commanded them to have children, because this was part of His desire.

Just a minute.... if God created man in his own image, then what about Eve? Was she made in God's image too? If so, then wouldn't that imply that God is hermaphrodite...?

[Harmattan]

Exactly, there are physical forces that together can create something out of nothing.

By "created" you assume there was no matter. Once again nothing is not the default. The default is something with matter. The universe was not created, it has always been there because it is more natural than not having anything. It creates time.

But since you insist that everything has to be created by an external factor to exist, then who created your god?

Actually we can both agree that there has to be something that has existed since the start of time. Physics say the universe suffices to itself but you want to put a god before.

However time in physics is a dimension, a force if we were to say. That can be canceled and have variations and measurable effects. (Basically its just a result of the universe but its not an essential force or concept rather a one than may exist or not. Basically there are places in the universe currently that time has no effect in it.
Thats why some scientists created something called imagenary time and real time, the time as a force is the real time.)

The idea of an imaginary time or additional temporal dimensions are mere speculations, not proven theories. Marginal speculations afaik.

Anyway those imagined dimensions would have also started with the universe and not before it, just like the only time dimension we know.

We are fragile in our existence and we must accept this fact in order to survive and prosper.

You are free to submit to your wrathful deity to please her if you like to, in the hope of a room in the afterdeath cruise. As for me I will stand up laughing, convinced there is no god and nothing after death, resolved to take what I can before I die, perfectly aware it can happen anytime.

[Hindsite]

Just a minute.... if God created man in his own image, then what about Eve? Was she made in God's image too? If so, then wouldn't that imply that God is hermaphrodite...?

Actually, God made the woman from a rib taken out of the side of the man. She was made as a sex partner for Adam the first man.

[Potemkin]

But a woman's body has a different image than a man's body. They look different, and there are significant physiological differences both in form and function. So which of them is actually the image of God, Hindsite?

[Paradigm]

If you may, elaborate on this point. Why does god need to be within the universe ? Why not outside of it ? and why rule out the possibility of more than one universe and more than one creation?

To put God outside the universe is, I think, too limiting. A God outside of the universe is utterly alien to us, and offers us nothing to relate to. I prefer to think of God as continuous with creation. I do not take God to be identical with creation, as pantheists do, but neither do I place a wall of separation between creator and creation. I think God is bigger than that. And yes, there could very well be multiple universes, and God would be equally present in all of them.

[Nets]

I don't have any definite beliefs, but I suspect it's partly because we are built to seek patterns in everything and partly because we deeply desire for there to be something definite we can hold on to.

I agree. Ascribing agency to rocks and shit probably had an evolutionary advantage, erring on the side of everything being out to get you. But also the existential terror of death. Humans are smart enough to understand death, and it is pretty scary. One day I will cease to exist, and within a few generations of that day I will be completely forgotten. It is depressing.

[Hindsite]

But a woman's body has a different image than a man's body. They look different, and there are significant physiological differences both in form and function. So which of them is actually the image of God, Hindsite?

Obviously, God knows what is requried for sexual attraction and reproduction. So there must be some physical differences between the male and the female. Use your brain once for a change and you would not have to ask stupid questions like these. God is spirit, so the main meaning of "in the image of God" refers to the creative spirit of God.

[Potemkin]

God is spirit, so the main meaning of "in the image of God" refers to the creative spirit of God.

Aha! Now we're getting somewhere. So are you willing to believe that the physical form of the human body - which you have just conceded is not the image of God - might have taken its present form through a long process of evolution and adaptation by natural selection? After all, the morphological similarities between the human body and the bodies of the other higher mammals, particularly the great apes, are difficult to explain otherwise, wouldn't you agree?

[Hindsite]

Aha! Now we're getting somewhere. So are you willing to believe that the physical form of the human body - which you have just conceded is not the image of God - might have taken its present form through a long process of evolution and adaptation by natural selection? After all, the morphological similarities between the human body and the bodies of the other higher mammals, particularly the great apes, are difficult to explain otherwise, wouldn't you agree?

No, evolution takes a long time, like millions of years. The whole creation only took 6 days, so that rules out evilution.

[Godstud]

Not everything is about the Holy Babble, Hindsite.

God wasn't a literalist. Some people can't understand that the Holy Babble wasn't meant as a science and history text.

Are you still looking for a needle's eye that is big enough for that twat Trump to get thru, so he can get to heaven?

There is not necessarily a WHY for the universe. It just IS.

[anasawad]

By "created" you assume there was no matter. Once again nothing is not the default. The default is something with matter. The universe was not created, it has always been there because it is more natural than not having anything. It creates time.

But since you insist that everything has to be created by an external factor to exist, then who created your god?

Actually the default is no matter. The default is a number of physical forces. And matter and time are mere results of those forces working together. And this is physics not religion or anything.

You are free to submit to your wrathful deity to please her if you like to, in the hope of a room in the afterdeath cruise. As for me I will stand up laughing, convinced there is no god and nothing after death, resolved to take what I can before I die, perfectly aware it can happen anytime.

It is not about submitting to god or anything, its about being realistic.
If we thought we're invisible, then we will parish because we will not take account of the many things in the universe that can destroy us.
A simple natural disaster will cause havoc among us. And a natural disaster is very small and light event compared to others around.

[Nets]

God wasn't a literalist. Some people can't understand that the Holy Babble wasn't meant as a science and history text.

I don't know why you keep saying this. Large portions of the Bible were written as history books. Bad history books, sure, but history books. Are you going to tell me Kings, Chronicles, or Acts (of the Apostles) aren't history books? Herodotus (sometimes called "The Father of History") has a generous sprinkling of myth in his history works, that doesn't mean it isn't history.

[Godstud]

Right, and Ulysses was a history book, as well.

Are you going to tell me that? It's as much a history book as the Holy Babble is.

[Nets]

You are missing the point. I never said that the Bible was historically reliable. I am disputing your claim that the Bible was not intended to be read as history. You said, "Some people can't understand that the Holy Babble wasn't meant as a ... history text." It is quite clear that some books of the bible were written as histories.

For example, take the first paragraph of Luke:

1 Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first,[a] to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.

I am not claiming that Luke is historical, but the evangelist here clearly intends the work to be taken seriously as history. For another example, look at the introduction to 2 Maccabees:

19 Jason of Cyrene has recorded in five volumes the story of Judas Maccabeus and his brothers, the purification of the great Temple, and the dedication of its altar. 20 He has described the battles with Antiochus Epiphanes and with his son Eupator, 21 and he has told of the heavenly visions that appeared to those who fought bravely and enthusiastically to defend Judaism. Our forces were few in number, but they plundered the entire country and routed the heathen forces. 22 They recaptured the Temple famous throughout the world, liberated Jerusalem, and restored the laws that were in danger of being abolished. They were able to do all these things because the Lord was merciful and kind to them.

23 I will now try to summarize in a single book the five volumes written by Jason. 24 The number of details and the bulk of material can be overwhelming for anyone who wants to read an account of the events. 25 But I have attempted to simplify it for all readers; those who read for sheer pleasure will find enjoyment and those who want to memorize the facts will not find it difficult. 26 Writing such a summary is a difficult task, demanding hard work and sleepless nights. 27 It is as difficult as preparing a banquet that people of different tastes will enjoy. But I am happy to undergo this hardship in order to please my readers. 28 I will leave the matter of details to the original author and attempt to give only a summary of the events. 29 I am not the builder of a new house who is concerned with every detail of the structure, but simply a painter whose only concern is to make the house look attractive. 30 The historian must master his subject, examine every detail, and then explain it carefully, 31 but whoever is merely writing a summary should be permitted to give a brief account without going into a detailed discussion. 32 So then, without any further comment, I will begin my story. It would be foolish to write such a long introduction that the story itself would have to be cut short.

Consider the way books were grouped in the Septuagint. Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Maccabees, etc were all grouped under the heading "History". Kings and Chronicles both cite sources for what they write, like history books. There is a reason Joshua-Judges-Samuel-Kings are called the "Deuteronomistic history" by scholars. These books together provide a history of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. That the history they relate is theologically tinged and mixed with mythology and legend doesn't mean they weren't written as a history book.

[Hindsite]

When the Greek conquerors of the Jews ordered the history of their people, the 70 Jews tasked with the order presented them with the Septuagint, which is the first Greek translation of what we call the Old Testament today. So apparently, those Jews considered it all history, including the literary portions containing poetry, hymns (songs), and proverbs that they had made in their history.

[Besoeker]

Aha! Now we're getting somewhere. So are you willing to believe that the physical form of the human body - which you have just conceded is not the image of God - might have taken its present form through a long process of evolution and adaptation by natural selection? After all, the morphological similarities between the human body and the bodies of the other higher mammals, particularly the great apes, are difficult to explain otherwise, wouldn't you agree?

No, evolution takes a long time, like millions of years. The whole creation only took 6 days, so that rules out evilution.

Or maybe, just maybe, your notion of ruling out evolution is just plain wrong?