- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
If God created all things, then…
Where did God come from?
Think about this…
A bachelor by definition does not have a wife.
Likewise, God by definition does not have a beginning.
Therefore, to ask the question, “Where did God come from?”
…is no different than asking, “Who is the bachelor’s wife?”
Wouldn’t you agree?
A more appropriate question about God is…
“How is it possible for God to have always existed without a beginning?”
To get an idea, you need to consider the following basic truth…
“NOTHING comes from NOTHING”
It’s evident that all things that begin to exist are caused by something that was before it.
It’s impossible for something to spring out of nothing.
To deny this, is unreasonable.
Now, imagine a point in the past where nothing existed.
NO PLANETS
NO GALAXIES
NO STARS
NO UNIVERSE
Not even God.
If this was true, what should exist today?
Nothing!
For we know that nothing comes from nothing.
The fact that something does exist, shows us that someone or something must have always existed.
That which has always existed must be the one that created everything else.
The Bible clearly teaches that God has always existed and that all things were created by Him…
“…even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.” Psalm 90:2
“…the high and lofty One that inhabits eternity…” Isaiah 57:15
“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork.” Psalm 19:1
See:http://www.logicalfaith.org/from.htm
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerHow do I know?
If God created all things, then…
Where did God come from?
Think about this…
A bachelor by definition does not have a wife.
Likewise, God by definition does not have a beginning.
Therefore, to ask the question, “Where did God come from?”
…is no different than asking, “Who is the bachelor’s wife?”
Wouldn’t you agree?
A more appropriat ...[text shortened]... and the firmament showeth his handiwork.” Psalm 19:1
See:http://www.logicalfaith.org/from.htm
The Bible tells me soooooooooooo
Originally posted by dj2beckerperhaps, but not in any manner comparable to my observation. It would have been more accurate for you to observe that an eternal god cannot be contemplated with somethin temporal. In other words, god is inconceivable apart from man.
The definition of "God" does not exist apart from that of "eternal".
bachelor, n. a man who has not married (i.e. one who lacks a wife)
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by jimmyb270There is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.
So why can the thing that has always existed not be the universe?
1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.
If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy — the ‘heat death’ of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible.
So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.
See:http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by WulebgrSo that is that exactly why it would be stupid to ask who is the bachelors wife and who created God?
perhaps, but not in any manner comparable to my observation. It would have been more accurate for you to observe that an eternal god cannot be contemplated with somethin temporal. In other words, god is inconceivable apart from man.
bachelor, n. a man who has not married (i.e. one who lacks a wife)
7 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerI love how some Christians pick and choose when they want to invoke particular scientific theories as evidence of their metaphysical beliefs, yet reject other scientific theories that are the product of the very same method as those that are invoked. It's a never ending source of amusement.
There is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.
1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.
If the total amo ...[text shortened]... f usable energy, and is now running down.
See:http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html
Seriously, it cracks me up. Apply the Laws of Thermodynamics to an eternal lake of fire. Do you still want to invoke the Laws as a standard of truth, or do you want to pick and choose which of its implications you'll accept?
You'll stand behind the Laws of Themodynamics when christiananswers.net tells you to, and you'll reject the Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang theory when christiananswers.net tells you to, ignoring the fact that they are all products of the same methodology of acquiring understanding, and that none of them have metaphysical application.
Originally posted by dj2beckerIt has been shown numerous times that that website doesn't understand the Laws of Thermodynamics at all (which are certainly NOT the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences). There is no reason why a cyclical universe that expanded for a time following a Big Bang couldn't contract back into a singularity over time and then have another Big Bang ad infinitum.
There is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.
1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.
If the total amo ...[text shortened]... f usable energy, and is now running down.
See:http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html
Originally posted by dj2beckerIt is stupid to CREATE a concept (in this case God), define its characteristics in a certain manner and THEN say it must exist outside and seperate from the rules that govern all other things. All you have proven is that you can define something odd, not that such an odd thing actually exists.
So that is that exactly why it would be stupid to ask who is the bachelors wife and who created God?
Originally posted by dj2beckerAdmittedly, it seems like nothing should ever have existed.
If God created all things, then…
Where did God come from?
Think about this…
A bachelor by definition does not have a wife.
Likewise, God by definition does not have a beginning.
Therefore, to ask the question, “Where did God come from?”
…is no different than asking, “Who is the bachelor’s wife?”
Wouldn’t you agree?
A more appropriat ...[text shortened]... and the firmament showeth his handiwork.” Psalm 19:1
See:http://www.logicalfaith.org/from.htm
But, clearly, something does (or, if everything vanishes in the future, something did). Therefore, something necessarily exists, be it something else that causes what now exists to exist contingently, or some aspect of what currently exists that isn't apparent to us.
But that doesn't have to be God, as traditionally conceived by monotheistic religions, or as conceived by dj2becker.
However, in deference to the theistic view, it is more credible--in a domain where credibility is almost impossible to judge for want of comparative criteria--that
(a) there should exist a necessary superbeing who causes our universe to exist contingently,
rather than that
(b) there is some other necessarily existing stuff from which our university derives,
or
(c) our universe is necessarily existing for reasons we don't intuitively grasp.
Maybe.
On the other hand, (a), and perhaps even (b), postulate more entities than (c), so (c), being simpler, may be more preferable, by Occam's razor, though the applicability of that razor here is hard to call.
Note: If Occam was alive today, would they have called it his Philishave?