Why is it necessary that if a 'god' exists, in the idea of a powerful force that can influence the universe, that they didn't start exi...

Why is it necessary that if a 'god' exists, in the idea of a powerful force that can influence the universe, that they didn't start existing when the universe did?

What if God is posing as the creator of the universe in order to make us and other supernatural beings submit to it?

How can we know "God" was the creator of the universe and didnt start existing when the universe started existing?

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >influence the universe
    The idea is that something had to have created the universe.
    >What if God is posing as the creator of the universe in order to make us and other supernatural beings submit to it?
    You are acting like there is one true religion that everyone agrees on. Gods like Zeus aren't accredited with creating the universe. Why didn't China and Japan already believe in Christianity if there is a literal supernatural being who is pretending to be God?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I changed the idea of a creator to a powerful force that can influence the universe for the sake of argument
      no, I am not acting like that.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Like I said it only makes sense in a narrow Christian creation myth sense. How would this work in Greek mythology? This force has to pretend to be who exactly? It wouldn't be Zeus because Zeus isn't accredited with the creation of the universe.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Zeus could have been a lesser spirit.
          Who is to say that "God" is good? What if it presents itself differently to different people to cause chaos, similar to loki?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The problem is with this "lesser spirit". What exactly does it pretend to be? Christianity makes sense because there is ONE God who creates the universe that it can pretend to be. Most other religions don't have a single all powerful God create the entire universe. Most state that the universe exists in a state of Chaos.
            Like Norse mythology has 3 Gods make the universe out of the "original" being Ymir. Does this Loki pretend to be Ymir? Or does it pretend to be Odin specifically?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            the 'lesser spirit' may not pretend to be anyone.
            The other religions could be "god" in conjunction with other "lesser" spirits that are almost as powerful as "god"
            If there is a constant struggle between different "lesser spirits", then one could argue that is a state of chaos.
            I dont know which gods are actually "god" and which ones are lesser spirits. I can't know that, in fact. Nobody can. However, if there are a collection of gods that all have similar characteristics, they could all be the same "lesser spirit".

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Like I said it only makes sense through the scope of Christianity. Pretending to be the creator of the universe doesn't designate supreme power outside of Christianity. Most religions don't even attribute it to a singular being snapping his fingers and making everything exist.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I never said that being the creator does designates supreme power.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I dont know which gods are actually "god" and which ones are lesser spirits.
            aren't you playing semantics? there's no difference until you define "god" and "lesser spirit". what's the difference between them?
            >if there are a collection of gods that all have similar characteristics, they could all be the same "lesser spirit".
            why can't we have many gods? if you think there aren't, it means you went with monotheism. is this accurate? you think there's a monotheist god and multiple lesser spirits?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            "god" would be a spirit that is capable of influencing the universe on a large scale
            "lesser spirit" would be a spirit that cannot influence the universe on a large scale

            >why can't there be many gods
            I never said there can't. I proposed a hypothesis
            >they COULD all be the same "lesser spirit"
            not
            >they ARE all the same "lesser spirit"

          • 2 months ago
            No, Buddy

            God's creation is an ongoing process, just ask.

            Lesser spirits are as much of God as we are. The spirit/force that unites and creates through love is God and is found in every religion in one form or another. The lesser spirits are aspects of God, used to comprehend an infinite being in finite terms.

            the 'lesser spirit' may not pretend to be anyone.
            The other religions could be "god" in conjunction with other "lesser" spirits that are almost as powerful as "god"
            If there is a constant struggle between different "lesser spirits", then one could argue that is a state of chaos.
            I dont know which gods are actually "god" and which ones are lesser spirits. I can't know that, in fact. Nobody can. However, if there are a collection of gods that all have similar characteristics, they could all be the same "lesser spirit".

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            if I could 'just ask' god that, then I would also ask him all sorts of other questions, but you cant ask god anything.

          • 2 months ago
            No, Buddy

            That's the exact opposite of what is true. You can ask God anything. You can even ask a giant invisible spaghetti monster anything. The difference though, is that God answers. Have you taken the time to listen to the holy spirit within? Only then can you see God's works clearly. In Hindu terms, realize Brahman in yourself and be one with the universe. In Buddhist terms contemplate the suffering of others to release your own. The spirit speaks within, even for those who do not believe in God. Be present and listen faithfully.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            no, buddy, you cannot. If you could, everyone would be part of the same religion.

          • 2 months ago
            No, Buddy

            >If you could, everyone would be part of the same religion.
            So that's a no then, you haven't. As you have pointed out, you are far from alone. Nice digits by the way.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I have *tried* to contact god, I have gotten no reply or anything that would prove god exists.

          • 2 months ago
            No, Buddy

            >prove
            Hearing God is not proof. If proof is what you want then your search will never end. There are experiences you can have, but even the profound can be questioned to irrelevance.

            you assume I have always been an atheist. I have only been an atheist for a few years.

            Also: even if there was a voice inside my head telling me god existed, I wouldnt trust that voice because its completely subjective. For all I know, I could have a mental illness.

            No, like you I was raised in faith then became an atheist. When I found a new faith many years later it was born from personal experience, not the preaching of any one religion.

            >even if there was a voice inside my head telling me god existed
            At least for me the experience is much more subtle. If you don't question your sanity you aren't listening. If you listen then your faith may be strengthened by witnessing divine acts.

            Still, we all dwell in ignorance. It's a curse, but it's also a freedom. It's part of life. Overcoming ignorance is the ultimate act of bravery and it takes love. That is the path to God, however you find it. If you choose to do so in science, or in art, or in anything, that is no less significant than my own path.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >if its proof you want, your search will never end
            i.e. proof doesn't exist, but
            >If you listen then your faith may be strengthened by witnessing divine acts
            if divine acts exist, then proof does exist, therefore one of your statements is false.

            The more I look at science, the less need there is for a god.

          • 2 months ago
            No, Buddy

            Divine acts aren't proof either, not in any concrete scientific sense. Though, for you as an individual, they may be proof enough. I know I ignored the first few I saw, dismissing them as coincidence.

            >The more I look at science, the less need there is for a god
            What is true has very little to do with what I think is needed. The more l look at science the more of God I bear witness to. His spirit speaks within but it also speaks through the world around us. Science is a beautiful tool for listening.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Science is a method of gathering information, not a tool for listening. Nothing in science logically points to a god.

          • 2 months ago
            No, Buddy

            Do you really not see the connection between gathering information and listening?

            Science pointed me and many scientists to God, but we each have our own perspectives to contend with.

          • 2 months ago
            No, Buddy

            Thinking back to when I was of the same opinion as you, a big turning point for me was in realizing that I was looking and listening for something I'd never experienced. That was a mistake because God is always with us. By believing otherwise I was deaf to His voice. Much like when exploring an assumption in a logical proof, faith is required to learn something new from old experiences.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Then you're worshipping a demon that specifically chooses not to communicate in an easily understandable way for the majority of people and instead waits for people to be driven insane. In reality you're just making this claim because you have no rebuttal, but need evidence because otherwise you'd be a joke.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            you assume I have always been an atheist. I have only been an atheist for a few years.

            Also: even if there was a voice inside my head telling me god existed, I wouldnt trust that voice because its completely subjective. For all I know, I could have a mental illness.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    God is an adulterous being since he watches me shower and change clothes.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Nobody does that too hairy :/

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You'll have to look into the nothingness of various esoteric models to see what the common denominator is. You might not realize you're doing it, but you're personifying, humanizing, projecting God in your post, which is creating a separation and pushing you away from understanding.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because it doesn't work like that. God is existence itself. "I am that I am". And I'm not talking about any particular God, I mean the ineffable one that all religions attempt to know but never truly can.

    Tower of Babel is a metaphor for this (as is the Gnostic Demiurge myth that you seem to be alluding to. They're the exact same story told using different mythological imagery). The true God is ineffable and beyond our understanding. He's not some bearded man on a cloud, he is something so vast that to try to wrap your limited human mind around it is impossible. You ain't got the processing power.

    You can pray to Him and contemplate Him and create myths to represent Him, but as soon as you start believing you've got it all figured out, you fricked up. This is how we end up with different religions all thinking that their truth is the only whole truth. That is what the Tower of Babel story is communicating. We all start out with the same desire to know God and we all reach out to Him and can deduce certain attributes if we are acting in good faith. But when start adding our own shit based on our worldly desires and human foibles and telling everyone else they're wrong, that is the moment we lose that understanding. In the Babel story this is represented by the hubristic humans building their tower too high and God knocking it back down, where they then start speaking different languages and can no longer understand one another.

    The Demiurge myth is similar. Pistis Sophia means "Faith Wisdom". She represents wisdom we gain from religion. But when she oversteps and attempts to know the Monad, she creates a twisted monster that believes itself to be the one true God. It's not "real", it's metaphor. Yaldabaoth and his impotent Archons represent the various faiths of the world which believe they're the only ones who are right when they never really knew God to begin with.

    • 2 months ago
      No, Buddy

      Thank you for sharing.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The tower of Babel story is trying to say that God will not tolerate man actually succeeding in doing anything other than suffering on earth as he should in the Judaic/Christian worldview. The entire thing is just a condemnation of the works of men and an upholding that regardless of morality God will frick you for trying to make something of yourself independent of him and succeeding.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >What if God is posing as the creator of the universe in order to make us and other supernatural beings submit to it?

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Thinking the universe is as big as it gets is really short sighted. That be like saying my house is the edge of my universe because I don’t know there was an outside. The universe is the same concept. World, solar system, galaxy, universe, ??????, what is beyond the universe. You will never know mortal

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      the universe is as big as it gets. The universe is defined as all that exists. By definition, if it exists, its part of our universe. If there was something bigger than the universe, it can't exist without being part of the universe.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Humans defined it lol that doesn’t mean anything. If the world defined my dick as the largest you would believe it? You are moronic. Not ready for my gift

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          thats fallacious reasoning. A definition is a statement that tells you what a word or concept means. Therefore, you cant define your dick as being the largest, because thats not a definition, its a statement.

          The universe is fundamentally different from your penis. The universe can be thought of as a set, whose rule dictating what it contains is: everything that exists. Your penis is an object. Do I need to explain why sets and objects are different?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That isn’t a fallacy in the slightest, because you don’t know if there was something outside the universe. You can’t know because your brain is to tiny and cannot comprehend it. However for people that can think, they can ponder the existence of something outside the universe. Now go run along now before you get hurt kid

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            by definition, there cannot be anything outside the universe that also exists
            >the universe is defined as the set of all things that exist

          • 2 months ago
            No, Buddy

            To be fair, in semantic theory most choose to use a many worlds model where there are an infinite number of universes (or sets). There is sound logical reasoning behind this approach.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The many worlds interpretation is dumb and illogical, there is no way to test it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wow you are a dense homosexual, you are not deserving of my knowledge mortal

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            are you mad that I deconstructed and proved your argument incorrect?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            "god" would be a spirit that is capable of influencing the universe on a large scale
            "lesser spirit" would be a spirit that cannot influence the universe on a large scale

            >why can't there be many gods
            I never said there can't. I proposed a hypothesis
            >they COULD all be the same "lesser spirit"
            not
            >they ARE all the same "lesser spirit"

            I was only clarifying. Loki, is a big guy, so for them, many think of loki as GOD (doesn't mean you have to, but in the myth loki's big guy). I'm not lying many thought of loki as a god it says on wikipedia.
            But, I'm not denying other conceptions of god. Like god as what the other anon said.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >because you don’t know if there was something outside the universe.
            bro, you're rly a midwit fr af.
            What anon's saying is, if there's something outside the universe, that just means you found something that's ALSO the universe (he can call it the universe, using a valid definition).
            What you're saying is, your idea of universe is different. It's not that. You may think universe means what the satellites show or w.e.. in that case, if you found a dimension beyond that, you don't call it universe. but that's definition B. anon's using definition A. if you don't get -both- defs you're empty talk sm.h...

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Think you are talking to the wrong guy, I understand what that moron is saying and he is saying the universe has a strict definition. I am saying it is more complicated than he is arguing. You both must be homosexuals together if you think the universe can be broken down into your silly words. Whatever you will be long dead by the time you figure it out.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >he is saying the universe has a strict definition.
            It has the definition I decide to use. I look up the dictionary, pick one, and BANG. I'm just saying. That's how words work.
            If he wants to use the definition "universe. everything that is" then what's wrong about it? you got a problem?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because it is wrong Black person

          • 2 months ago
            No, Buddy

            Arguing over correct definitions is the definition of semantics. Lame.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No you conflate meaning with definition. How many times have you been institutionalized?

          • 2 months ago
            No, Buddy

            [...]

            >quantum chaos is, by definition, not predictable.
            This depends on chosen interpretation.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory
            In bohms(iirc), there's a 100% chance the coin will land on heads but we don't know it. In many-worlds, it's a 100% chance a bunch of worlds (one for heads, other tails) will pop up. only in the other it's the chaotic 50%.

            There are theories that suggest that what appears to be chaos might be understood in the future but for now it is not. That is one of many reasons we can not currently construct a set containing this universe and only this universe. According to some it may theoretically be possible, but right now it is not.

            There's more though.In a quantum system the future can influence the past. That means that to construct this set we must reach the end of time.

            Just because a prediction may theoretically be possible doesn't mean it can ever be used in practice.

          • 2 months ago
            No, Buddy

            In the field of linguistics it is often said that definitions don't really exist. Anything we try to define later defies said definition. The famous example of this is a chair (look it up if you aren't familiar).

            In semantic theory we get around this by quantifying the relationships between words. My personal favorite systems for this use high dimensional vector spaces computed from a large corpus. Another similar system is semantic set theory, which will likely appeal to you.

            In any case, no a definition does not tell you what a word or concept means. Instead a definition tells you about a word or concept's relationship with other words or concepts. Those relationships are expressed as statements. For example, the Pacific Ocean is the world's largest body of water.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The universe isnt the same kind of object as a chair. They are fundamentally different. While you can't concretely define what a chair is, its still an object that exists. It isnt a definite set of things
            The universe is a definite set of things. The definition of the set that is the universe is "the set of everything that exists"

          • 2 months ago
            No, Buddy

            >The universe is a definite set of things.
            A set's contents is only definite if we know exactly how it is produced or we can see it in its entirety. The universe does not satisfy these conditions.

            The many worlds interpretation is dumb and illogical, there is no way to test it.

            I'm not talking about physics, I'm talking about linguistics. It's a model for understanding "forms," not physical things.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You can't see the entirety of the set of all numbers, yet it exists.
            and what do you mean by "if we know exactly how it is produced"?

          • 2 months ago
            No, Buddy

            The set of naturals is produced using the successor function. The set of rationals is produced using pairs of naturals. The set of reals is produced using a Dedekind cut (a pair of sets of rational numbers).

            The functions that produce these sets are predictable and so their contents are predictable.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            What about the set of all real numbers? That can't be created by the successor function.

          • 2 months ago
            No, Buddy

            I actually already said

            The set of naturals is produced using the successor function. The set of rationals is produced using pairs of naturals. The set of reals is produced using a Dedekind cut (a pair of sets of rational numbers).

            The functions that produce these sets are predictable and so their contents are predictable.

            The set of reals is produced using a Dedekind cut (a pair of sets of rational numbers).

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            ah shit didnt see that, my bad
            You could create a procedural function that can generate a representation of every single unique object that exists in the universe

            My proof of this is that a computer could run a function that generates a unique object based on a unique string. Computers, in the theoretical sense, operate on the laws of mathematics

          • 2 months ago
            No, Buddy

            Quantum states do not operate on the laws of mathematics. How do you intend to model them and their chaos in a predictable manner?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Quantum states operate on probabilities...

          • 2 months ago
            No, Buddy

            A probability is a fancy way of saying a guess. That's the opposite of predictable.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The probability a coin will land on heads or tails is 50%. Thats not a guess.

          • 2 months ago
            No, Buddy

            Being able to calculate all possibilities is not the same as being able to calculate what is, let alone what will be. If you were to put all possible states of the universe in a set then this universe would be in that set, but so would ever other possible universe (which is basically why in linguistics we use many worlds).

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            we have functions that describe quantum states, like everything else in physics.

          • 2 months ago
            No, Buddy

            Sure, but those functions are not predictable, which is the topic of this discussion. Math is predictable, unlike quantum states and the universe as a whole as we know it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It is predictable. we can run simulations on quantum systems, and verify the simulation in the lab.

          • 2 months ago
            No, Buddy

            It is sometimes predictable to a degree in a closed system. However quantum chaos is, by definition, not predictable.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            not predictable in the sense that we can't know the definite position of any particle, but we can know the probability that a particle will be somewhere

          • 2 months ago
            No, Buddy

            Say the universe is just a coin flipping forever. That's a pretty simple chaotic system. We know there is a 50% chance of one side or the other landing on top. Now, in order to put this universe in a set, we put know ever flip the coin has made and will make in order. Can you do that with your probability?

          • 2 months ago
            No, Buddy

            we put inside every flip*

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >quantum chaos is, by definition, not predictable.
            This depends on chosen interpretation.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory
            In bohms(iirc), there's a 100% chance the coin will land on heads but we don't know it. In many-worlds, it's a 100% chance a bunch of worlds (one for heads, other tails) will pop up. only in the other it's the chaotic 50%.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The universe is all there is within our causality chain, right? That's the point of string theory, no?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Nvm, I looked into it. If materialism is real the "universe" is everything.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            materialism or not.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, because the universe only refers to matter, space and time. If materialism isn't true then the universe isn't everything

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Higher god/ lower god

  8. 2 months ago
    Michael

    So far The Dragon just shows up and says Hi. IDK what you're on about. Maybe people shouldn't make living creatures upset.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    God is was were will be did does do

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *