but who created the atoms, energy?

[Popeyesays]

The concept that God "equals" the universe, and the universe "equals" God is highly doubtful to me.

If God pre-exists the multiverse, and I believe He must if He is the Creator, then the universe does not contain God in any meaningful sense.

Who created the atoms? Nature did. But Who created the quarks which would eventually become atoms of hydrogen and later develop in stars of the first population to atoms as complex as iron. Then in the novae of those population I stars was the transmutation of atoms into more complex elements.

The idea that God IS the universe is far too simplistic.

Regards,
Scott

[Vajradhara]

Namaste popeyesays, or do you prefer Scott?

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

The concept that God "equals" the universe, and the universe "equals" God is highly doubtful to me.

If God pre-exists the multiverse, and I believe He must if He is the Creator, then the universe does not contain God in any meaningful sense.

Who created the atoms? Nature did. But Who created the quarks which would eventually become atoms of hydrogen and later develop in stars of the first population to atoms as complex as iron. Then in the novae of those population I stars was the transmutation of atoms into more complex elements.

The idea that God IS the universe is far too simplistic.

Regards,
Scott

you are aware, are you not, that "nature" is not a "who", correct? nature isn't a sentient being and thus does not engage in an act of willful creation of anything, let alone subatomic particles.

metta,

~v

[wil]

The concept that God "equals" the universe, and the universe "equals" God is highly doubtful to me.

omnipotent, omnipresent, onmniscient, in him we live and have our being...seems like everything to me...

you are aware, are you not, that "nature" is not a "who", correct?

But God is a who?? Surely we aren't stuck with what Mike painted on the ceiling? Something akin to Thor or Zeus tossing around lightning bolts and plagues?

Isn't this the secularism section...we are going to answer a science question with some ancient myth. So God isn't atoms and energy...since 'he' created them...lest that darn chicken egg thing come back. So that definetly pops the wind out of that larger than life anthropormorphic being that we represent in paintings all the time and annually portray as Santa Claus. And he's not some jolly old elf, passing out gifts and deeming who's naughty and nice, glad we got that out of the way.

But "he" not only a who, but masculine, because that is the only way we could come to think of 'him' until Jesus that is, identified him as spirit, and his kingdom within...hmmm

But we do think 'he' is a sentient being...has consciousness, has sensation, has feeling...maybe spirit is consciousness, is sensation, is feeling, is love, is compassion...doesn't have it...is it....and out of that I am that I am... om... love compassion sensation consciousness vibrated.. om... thought... om... energy... bang....er big bang and saw that it was good.

namaste,

[truthseeker]

I happen to think that God Is Energy. After all, without Light, there is nothing. And everything that exists is a reflection of Light.

Akhenaten was on the brink of something big, but the people weren't having it.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Wil,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by wil

But God is a who??

i suspect that would depend on the tradition in question.

Surely we aren't stuck with what Mike painted on the ceiling? Something akin to Thor or Zeus tossing around lightning bolts and plagues?

pardon?

Isn't this the secularism section...we are going to answer a science question with some ancient myth.

yes, it is. some beings, however, will answer as they see fit irrespective of the particular forum boundaries.

So God isn't atoms and energy...since 'he' created them...lest that darn chicken egg thing come back. So that definetly pops the wind out of that larger than life anthropormorphic being that we represent in paintings all the time and annually portray as Santa Claus. And he's not some jolly old elf, passing out gifts and deeming who's naughty and nice, glad we got that out of the way.

i'm unaware of anyone that thinks the Creator G!D is Santa Claus

But "he" not only a who, but masculine, because that is the only way we could come to think of 'him' until Jesus that is, identified him as spirit, and his kingdom within...hmmm

But we do think 'he' is a sentient being...has consciousness, has sensation, has feeling...maybe spirit is consciousness, is sensation, is feeling, is love, is compassion...doesn't have it...is it....and out of that I am that I am... om... love compassion sensation consciousness vibrated.. om... thought... om... energy... bang....er big bang and saw that it was good.

namaste,

whilst this is all well and good, my point was that Nature is not a sentient being and therefore does not engage in acts of willful creation. no more, no less.

metta,

~v

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste popeyesays, or do you prefer Scott?

thank you for the post.




you are aware, are you not, that "nature" is not a "who", correct? nature isn't a sentient being and thus does not engage in an act of willful creation of anything, let alone subatomic particles.

metta,

~v

Nature is not a who, I agree. Nature assembles atoms from sub-atomic particles all the time.

I tend to believe in a "BANG" picture of Creation. But What initiated the series of effects from the initial "cause"?

I don't think GOD is a "who" either. Bud nature is not GOD. What "IT" might be is beyond my comprehension.

Regards,
Scott

[wil]

Quote:

pardon?

I was refering to the version of God and Creation Michelangelo painted on the ceiling of Sistine chapel
which creates God in our likeness. (or is it depicting ideas and thoughts out of a cross section of a brain creating through focused thought?? And what about that navel on Adam?)

i'm unaware of anyone that thinks the Creator G!D is Santa Claus

Many that aren't Christians 'celebrate' Christmas...and to me it appears..as I indicated..some big guy with a beard (check out the painting again) keeping track of who is good and bad and providing coal(from Hell?) or gifts in return...on Jesus B-day. I'll bet the big guy keeps the anthropormphic idea alive as much as anyone.

namaste,

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Popeyesays,



thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

I tend to believe in a "BANG" picture of Creation. But What initiated the series of effects from the initial "cause"?

why must it have a cause? naturally, we see within the universe, on a classical scale at any rate, that cause and effect are "true". yet, that does not mean that the universe requires a cause.

naturally, there are many theists that feel that G!D is the "cause" of the universe though they assert that G!D is, itself, uncaused. this would lead me to the question of why the universe couldn't be uncaused and so forth.

I don't think GOD is a "who" either. Bud nature is not GOD. What "IT" might be is beyond my comprehension.

Regards,
Scott

fair enough. i would tend to agree with your points here. that which is real is often not what we are dealing with.

metta,

~v

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by truthseeker

I happen to think that God Is Energy. After all, without Light, there is nothing. And everything that exists is a reflection of Light.

Akhenaten was on the brink of something big, but the people weren't having it.

Notice the light rays holding the ankhs.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste popeyesays, or do you prefer Scott?

thank you for the post.




you are aware, are you not, that "nature" is not a "who", correct? nature isn't a sentient being and thus does not engage in an act of willful creation of anything, let alone subatomic particles.

metta,

~v

Hmmmmmmm ......what if you are a Gaia theorist?

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Hmmmmmmm ......what if you are a Gaia theorist?

Namaste Tao,

welcome to CR.

perhaps one of them can explain the sentience of Gaia so that we can compare the observed sentience of beings with this?

i don't know if we have any on the forum, though.

metta,

~v

[tectrikz]

The problem I have with saying God is nature, is that it makes me think that the word “god” is just a metaphor for the universe. So if “god” is just a metaphor for the universe, why should we call it god, why not just call it the universe?

[wil]

The problem I have with saying God is nature, is that it makes me think that the word “god” is just a metaphor for the universe. So if “god” is just a metaphor for the universe, why should we call it god, why not just call it the universe?

Could it possibly be because God is bigger ( a bigger concept) than the universe? My understanding is that the reason we see G-d and YHWH is that saying or writing the word diminishes the whole, and the reason God is hard to describe is because we are in dual consciousness and attempting to use words to describe something that is all encompassing.

In spiritual infancy (chronologically both ours and religions) we see God as the larger than life anthropormorphic being, because that is our understanding our evolution from past religious God thought...as we grow it encompasses more, some still only have God in humans, others in humans and animals, others see God in Nature, living things...and others extend that to 'inanimate' objects...and then even to the Universe and beyond...

Elohim, Yahweh, God, Krishna, Spirit, Universal Consciousness, Cosmic Conscioiusness, I am that I am, YOU....does the name matter?

namaste,

[Eudaimonist]

Originally Posted by nomanshake

According to science evolution is all about space, atoms, particles etc.etc.. but then who made this all?

Evolution has nothing to do with cosmology. You may be confusing the two.

i mean energy , atoms, molecules etc etc.. they all cant just exist by themselves?

Why not? Something has to exist "by itself". Why not physical reality?

but i'd still like to know from a viewpoint of an atheist, according to him how can it all start?

From my personal viewpoint (other atheists may disagree), physical existence never started -- only time/change of physical existence started, and maybe not even that (if infinite regressions are possible).

if there was an explosion, but then why was it there?

If God created the universe, why was a God there who possessed various "omni" characteristics? Nothing is really solved by adding God into the equation.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Eudaimonist]

Originally Posted by wil

Elohim, Yahweh, God, Krishna, Spirit, Universal Consciousness, Cosmic Conscioiusness, I am that I am, YOU....does the name matter?

It sure does! Look at your list. If I were to call the universe "Cosmic Consciousness", don't you think that term carries a lot of conceptual baggage? When I think of the universe, I don't think of some conscious megaentity.


eudaimonia,

Mark