God is his own creation and creator

Post Reply New Topic

"In the beginning, God..." I get a different interpretation when I read this. This tells me there was a beginning point. If I am completely wrong and this simple language states God just plainly existed then what was before the beginning. If God has truly always existed without a cause then how can there truthfully be a beginning. If God has always existed then Existence would have always existed and there was a time that God was existence and existence was God. God being the beginning and the end would be invalidated and all of it would be invalidated.



Sand gave this quote and he is so right. If there is no cause then there can be no effect. Unless you all can show me how this rule can be broken and God can always exist without any cause then I as a bible believing christain who believes Jesus Christ came and died for my sins believes this causality loop may be true The bible is the infallible word of God but mankind's interpretation to the meaning of words and phrases and the usages of the words and meanings is falliable including mine. This means I could be wrong.

This is kind of why for me I believe in both creation and evolution. I have never understood why both can't work side by side. They both make better sense when used together and fill in all the questions.

For me there was and is a God who made ever thing creation. Then he stepped back to see what happens evolution. Best exmaple I have for this is looking at airplanes. Us knowing how to do that had to have already been there creation. But it took time until we got to that point evolution.

The Hebrew bible (TNKH) is not the infallible word of anyone. It is based on bronzeage mythology.

Some of the later books like Esther and Lamanetations have an historic basis, but the creation story is all myth.

ruveyn

Because many of those can't exist.


Many "time paradoxes" of science fiction are logically impossible.


No, not at all. Saying "paradox" doesn't solve the logical problem.


No... not likely. This is a "time impossibility" not really a real paradox.


Ok, well, you're wrong.

You just intrigued me. Why do you say that they're impossible? For all I know, I could be wrong in my thinking.

If I am wrong in my thinking here then will you please show me where I am wrong? There could be premise(s) in my whole thinking that could be wrong. I can certainly say this. If you can knock down my first domino then all of my dominos will fall. If you can show me where I'm wrong I will re-correct. I could be missing a minute detail here.

If you accept that you cannot exist AND not-exist then the grandfather paradox shows that backward time travel is logically impossible.

We are all forward time travelers. Stay where you are and you go into the future at the rate of one second per second, which is to say you go forward in time at the speed of light.

ruveyn

ruveyn

Ruveyn, this is a somewhat related question to your post though off topic to the thread a bit, but with respect to the surface of the Earth, at what rate does time pass on the surface of the planet Mercury? This question is concerning gravitational time dilation, BTW, so what is the ratio of the clock rates?

Ruveyn already did it.

His argument is essentially the same one/a similar that I already put forward when I was putting forward an argument on logical impossibility. Mine was simply that a being cannot create itself simply because the existence of this being would have to logically precede the creation, which is impossible if it is it's own creator.

I think the statement that "God creates Himself" may not be quite right because it's assuming that God was created. If God exists eternally, (which the Bible states He does) and is outside time and space; and if God created time and space, then He clearly was not created. It's almost like asking who created the uncreated or who made the unmade.

If God exists eternally then my question is how can there be a beginning at all like it says in revelation? We would have eternal existence even if God at that time was existence and existence was God. You say the bible states that he existed eternally. Where in the bible does it say this? In fact, where does it say that God created time itself? How are these things derived from the reading the bible. When I read it I get a different view.

If God has always existed eternally and I am completely and absolutely wrong then what sand says is not true when he says "By the most basic logic an effect must have a cause. If there is no cause there can be no effect." We have found a counterexample of an effect having no cause. This would make me wonder could it be possible to have any other effects in existence that have no cause besides God having no cause? This could mean that we're missing rules to our basic logic system and that our logic system as it stands does not always hold up. This means we have inconsistencies here if you all are truly correct about God and I'm totally wrong.

It is true that The word of God is true and infallible but why can't mankind's interpretation of the word of God be fallible including mine?

Summing up, my argument is either sand is only partially right about what he said an effect must have a cause and I'm completely wrong about what I said or I am right and it fills in the inconsistencies to the current belief system and sand will be right that an effect must have a cause and this is always true.

This is what dynamic honesty is. It doesn't matter what I think is true or what anyone else thinks is true. It doesn't matter if I think I'm right or wrong or you're right or wrong. Dynamic honesty is to keep getting closer and closer to the truth so we can truly establish what is truly true and false. This will be a continuous process for as long as mankind continues to exist.

Why do we all believe that NOTHING cant exist?
Simply because there is SOMETHING(there obviously is something because its all around us!)
But what if NOTHING is simply the addition of all that is SOMETHING with the additional stipulation that everything that exists has to have an equal and opposite counterpart cancelling it out.

This would solve lots of problems. We would not need to explain the beginning of NOTHING, because what need is there to explain NOTHING?
And at the same time explaing SOMETHING would not be a problem at all. Because within NOTHING everything that is conceivable and ' existable' HAS to exist. And we just happen to live in a tiny part of all those SOMETHING's

And imagining nothing as an addition of all that is something is not even that farfetched. An example of this principle in action is our own physical universe itself. How much total energy do you think it has?
A lot?

Think again.

I think its close to zero. I think the energy contained in its expansion is very very close to the energy of the gravity field that is counteracting that expansion.

Ok, sorry for the diversion.

Let go back to the original question for a while: is God his own creator?
I think where the Bible speaks of alpha and omega that is exactly what is meant.

God is the cause and the purpose of the universe. That is hard to imagine from our own persective within the physical real where determinism in the strictes sense is made impossible by the combination of quantummechanics and chaos dynamics.

But if we follow Einsteins line of thought we get a different result. A massless particle of light(photon) moves at the speed of light. From its own perspective it will move forward in time at an infinite speed. Which means the end of time is reached instantaneously.
And that in turn means there is no longer a meaningful way to speak of cause and effect because both occur at the same time. Hence, alpha and omega.

One rule of logic is that every effect must have a cause, but God isn't an effect. He is the uncaused cause that created the first cause. If the world ever had a time where nothing existed, then nothing would still exist now, since nothing creates nothing. But since the world does exist now, something or someone who exists independently of the world had to create it, otherwise nothing would exist.

I think the premise that God is the "uncaused cause that created the first cause" is valid in the sense that there are no known exception to it. And I think that since we are not postulating that God had a beginning but is eternal, it isn't necessary for us to have to explain God as the first cause.

The Bible says that God is self-existent, which means that God has no origins and that His existence doesn't depend on anyone or anything. We exist because God exists, and God exists because in Him existence and substance are the same: God is His own existence. When Moses asked God His name, God simply answered, "I am that I am."

Cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am. Since mind is consiously aware, and can doubt itself there in, It must exist because how can something not exist if it is producing a self aware action. Rene Decartes

I'm Popeye the sailor man beep beep!

God is strong at the finish, cuz He eats his spinach.

ruveyn