When was God created?

[soliloquy]

Along with the actually somehow interesting thread "What created God", I wanted to make this one, which will probably be even more fun, and more full of bullcrap.

First off, let us keep in mind that God must have been created.  We will completely dismiss the arguments of whether or not he created himself and just ignore them.  He can not have always been, as this means he was created (infinity) years ago, which there never was.  Avoiding anything mathematically complicated, just like there can never be an infinity year A.D., there can never have been an infinity year B.C.  So he was created at a point in time.  He has interaction with our space time continuum, therefore he is not an anomaly in regards to the laws of spacetime.  Because he exists in time, the theory of conservation of energy states that energy can not be created or destroyed, but only transformed.  Therefore because he must follow the laws of space-time, something had to transfer energy into his creation, meaning there was energy from OUR universe prior to God.  This something now, by the commutative property, has interaction with space-time, therefore God could not have created himself.

So, if something other than God himself created God, when was God created, because he could not have been created "forever" ago?


6000 years?  6,000,000 years?  43 years?  Wanna make a poll?

[nicco]

5 minutes ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_minute_hypothesis

[jlh]

Your topic is flawed because it makes at least two initial assumptions that are impossible to prove.

[pianistimo]

exactly - and yet - the concept of infinity has it's own symbol in mathematics.

infinity is not alone in being a possibility.  what about:

inspiration
out of body experiences
near death experiences
miracles

these have all happened to many people through many generations and in many countries and also been written about and documented.  how does one explain phenomenon that one does not understand?  some by faith, some by believing the person psychotic, and some by maintaining some skepticism - but not completely disbelieving either. 

[soliloquy]

Your topic is flawed because it makes at least two initial assumptions that are impossible to prove.

Which are?

[pianistimo]

God was created.

there is no infinity.

[jlh]

Which are?

1) God exists
2) God was created

Susan's 3rd answer is plausible as well.

Without these 2 assumptions it's impossible to come to a conclusion about WHEN God was created.

[soliloquy]

1) God exists
2) God was created

Susan's 3rd answer is plausible as well.

Without these 2 assumptions it's impossible to come to a conclusion about WHEN God was created.

Number 1 is necessary for any argument relating to God.  Of course you know I don't personally think he exists, but this is for sake of argument.  I then elaborated as to why God would have had to be created.  Did you only read the first two sentences of my post?

[jlh]

Number 1 is necessary for any argument relating to God.  Of course you know I don't personally think he exists, but this is for sake of argument.  I then elaborated as to why God would have had to be created.  Did you only read the first two sentences of my post?

You also make yet another fundamental assumption:  Time exists.

What you are proposing is a "chicken and the egg" form of origin argument, which is pointless.

[jlh]

The concept of time is arguably a man-made construct.  So if your belief is that God does not exist, and time only exists because we have made it have meaning, then any conclusion you make as to the origin of God within or outside of time is also flawed. 

[soliloquy]

You also make yet another fundamental assumption:  Time exists.

If this would be considered a "fundamental assumption" then all physics, not just quantum or astro, but even the most basic highschool crap is BS.  You're being foolish grasping at ridiculous meta-pseudo-philoso-crap-physics to try to avoid the argument.

What you are proposing is a "chicken and the egg" form of origin argument, which is pointless.

No, I'm not.  I'm saying that due to the theory of conservation of energy there MUST have been time before God.  Your combination of lack of understanding of what I'm saying, along with your pitiful deflections aren't exactly making you look smart, ya know?

[jlh]

You're being foolish grasping at ridiculous meta-pseudo-philoso-crap-physics to try to avoid the argument.

LOL  What if God doesn't live in our 3 dimensional world?  According to string theory, there may be 9-10 different dimensions in the bulk universe.  If time exists only in our braneworld, then time might not even be an issue where God lives...? 

The same could be said about a flat screen TV... the people on the TV cannot see us no matter how close we are to the screen.

No, I'm not.  I'm saying that due to the theory of conservation of energy there MUST have been time before God.  Your combination of lack of understanding of what I'm saying, along with your pitiful deflections aren't exactly making you look smart, ya know?

Yet if string theory is correct, then it is plausible that conservation of energy need not be applied to God.

[jlh]

For the sake of argument... 

[soliloquy]

I brushed lightly on string theory and its assertion of 13/14 universes in the other thread.  The Bible speaks specifically of only one universe, therefore if you are going to argue string theory you're going to argue the nonexistence of God

If that's what you want to do I won't get in your way ^^

[jlh]

I brushed lightly on string theory and its assertion of 13/14 universes in the other thread.  The Bible speaks specifically of only one universe, therefore if you are going to argue string theory you're going to argue the nonexistence of God

If that's what you want to do I won't get in your way ^^

This is interesting.  I'm not an expert on physics or quantum mechanics, nor do I possess the ability to argue intelligently on the subject.

Please tell me why string theory is anti-God.  Specifically how string theory proposes multiple universes as opposed to multiple braneworlds (dimensions) of a bulk (whole) universe.

[thalberg]

energy can not be created or destroyed, but only transformed.  Therefore because he must follow the laws of space-time, something had to transfer energy into his creation, meaning there was energy from OUR universe prior to God.

Let me ask you--who created the energy prior to God?  Is it that it was always there? 

You are correct in realizing that SOMETHING was always there.  There is something eternal in the universe from which everything came.  We choose to call that God, and to believe that the "something eternal" is alive and able to relate to us, not impersonal and random.

[rimv2]

Along with the actually somehow interesting thread "What created God", I wanted to make this one, which will probably be even more fun, and more full of bullcrap.

First off, let us keep in mind that God must have been created.  We will completely dismiss the arguments of whether or not he created himself and just ignore them.  He can not have always been, as this means he was created (infinity) years ago, which there never was.  Avoiding anything mathematically complicated, just like there can never be an infinity year A.D., there can never have been an infinity year B.C.  So he was created at a point in time.  He has interaction with our space time continuum, therefore he is not an anomaly in regards to the laws of spacetime.  Because he exists in time, the theory of conservation of energy states that energy can not be created or destroyed, but only transformed.  Therefore because he must follow the laws of space-time, something had to transfer energy into his creation, meaning there was energy from OUR universe prior to God.  This something now, by the commutative property, has interaction with space-time, therefore God could not have created himself.

So, if something other than God himself created God, when was God created, because he could not have been created "forever" ago?


6000 years?  6,000,000 years?  43 years?  Wanna make a poll?

How does one define the present?

[soliloquy]

This is interesting.  I'm not an expert on physics or quantum mechanics, nor do I possess the ability to argue intelligently on the subject.

Please tell me why string theory is anti-God.  Specifically how string theory proposes multiple universes as opposed to multiple braneworlds (dimensions) of a bulk (whole) universe.

I think you're trying to be sarcastic here, but I promise you're not.  I made it fairly clear that I was attempting to avoid anything too complicated in the field of math and science so as to leave this thread viable to entries from people who haven't studied higher math and physics, but whatever.  For the sake of argument.


Current String Theory utilizes M-Theory, which is a probabilistically necessary hypothesis needed to support their use of the Calabi-Yau manifolds.  String Theory applies this through idea of a "string theory landscape" which is their fundamental basis for the support of an anthropic cycle, the idea that "fundamental constants" may have the values they have not for fundamental physical reasons, but instead because such values are necessary for life.  You're talking about branes, I'm talking about universes.  At the moment, I believe the consensus is there are 14 or 10^500 universes and 10 or 11 (not 9 or 10) branes.  There is also Boson Superstring Theory which postulates 26 branes.  The 4-dimensional brane we exist in (don't get confused kids, time is considered a dimension in ST) is not source brane.  In regards to Thalberg's question about where the first energy came from, this is unimportant, as the first energy in OUR brane which God interacts in was most-likely created by energy emissions of the original Boson String, or an emission from a D-brane which have gravitational mass, ergo energy, depending on which school you follow.  The transmutation of such could easily be explained by loop quantum gravity.  If God was not the source, then the temporal distance of his creation or construction or whatever word you prefer to use would have to be measurable in a finite manner, therefore disproving that God is the creator of all.


@ rimv2:

present: intermediate between past and future

[rimv2]

@ rimv2:

present: intermediate between past and future

Really? What if past and future don't really exist?

Seems like all we really have are thoughts.

I'd try to get you think more about it, but it'd more than likely end with some rude comment.

[timothy42b]

As i said in the other thread, there seems to be no theoretical reason why humans couldn't eventually evolve a higher consciousness or super awareness, perhaps through some kind of grouped mind. 

At that point we evolved into God.  Prior to that time God would not have existed, but after that moment God very well could escape time, living in the past as well.  It sounds like a paradox but not necessarily. 

Or, perhaps humans became extinct and some other life form evolved. 

[counterpoint]

Really? What if past and future don't really exist?

There are fotographs which prove that past exists 

[thalbergmad]

There are fotographs which prove that past exists 

Great, can you post some fotos please.

Thanks

Thal

[prometheus]

I think that the oldest fertility goddess statue we have found is dated up to 800,000 years old.

[pianoplayer88]

God was never created. HE ALWAYS WAS, ALWAYS IS, AND ALWAYS WILL BE.

[wotgoplunk]

God was never created. HE ALWAYS WAS, ALWAYS IS, AND ALWAYS WILL BE.

 

Statement != Fact.

https://www.machineslikeus.com/articles/CanGodExist.html

[debussy symbolism]

If something is responsible for the creation of something else that something naturally assumes the role of God. If for instance some state of energy manifested a God-like entity, the particular instance of energy would then be God.

[goldentone]

The problem is that you're redefining God, Soliloquy.  You are saying that God was created and is bound by time.  God by definition is uncreated and eternal--not bound by time.  This "being" in your proposition isn't God.   

[ahinton]

exactly - and yet - the concept of infinity has it's own symbol in mathematics.

infinity is not alone in being a possibility.  what about:

inspiration
out of body experiences
near death experiences
miracles

these have all happened to many people through many generations and in many countries and also been written about and documented.

Where exactly in the above is your answer to soliloquy's question?

how does one explain phenomenon that one does not understand?

How indeed do I explain you, Susan? (not that I haven't tried to understand some of what you write)...

some by believing the person psychotic

I've never said that about you.

As you may (or may not) have noticed, I've changed the subject; does that process seem in any way familiar, Susan?

Anyway, back to the subject. Although I am certain that the correct answer is not "6,000 years ago", I do not claim to know what it is, but it could be whenever it was that the first human ever to conceive the notion of "God" actually did so.

But surely you could help us here, Susan, for even if you are not presently certain of the correct answer, you could just call God on your mobile and ask Him; given your trust in Him, you presumably feel that the veracity of His answer may be relied upon...

When was Susan created? And when was her alter ego "pianistimo" created"? And when exactly was that seven-day period during the first six days of which God supposedly created the heaven and the earth, etc.? All questions as profound and searching as the one posed by soliloquy in his opening post, no doubt...

As a parting shot here, one of the best "when"s that I remember is Satie's remark on hearing the opening movement of Debussy's La Mer (whose title roughly translates as From Dawn to Midday on the Sea) that he particularly enjoyed a moment between half past ten and quarter to eleven.

Why do I keep straying from the subject here? There must be some reason...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

When looking at this forum's opening page just now, I could not help but notice (in the part that displays the identity of the most recent message in this thread) the words "When was God created... by ahinton". I protest. I did not create Him, nor have I ever claimed to have done so. I think that I may just have to complain to Nils about this; it's abit like someone claiming on my behalf that I wrote the Hammerklavier Sonata or the Fantasia Contrappuntistica (although that, however fatuous, would seem to be preferable)...

When was pole-dancing created? And jelly beans?

Best,

Alistair

[counterpoint]

Yes, who would doubt this information

"When was God created?  Today at 08:40:30  by ahinton   

[pianistimo]

perhaps WE are the created ones.  God is ETERNAL.  He is the only one who can grant us, also, ETERNAL LIFE.   in the spirit.  we don't understand this concept fully.

[counterpoint]

we don't understand this concept fully.

How true 

What did God do all the endless time before he created the Universe... 

[ahinton]

Yes, who would doubt this information

"When was God created?  Today at 08:40:30  by ahinton   

Who would doubt it? I, for one. I already said that I do not know the correct answer!

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

what did God do with his endless time?  maybe plan for the creation of this world and the heavens - in the absolute perfection they are seen in.  we consider small imperfections to be observed visually.  but what if through imperfection we are perfected?  what if handicapped and blind and lame people will be healed, see, and jump and move around without limitation in the ressurrection.  for which God has planned 'from the foundation of the world.'  that means  - when he planned for this world - he also planned for a redemption of each person who wants to be in his 'book of life.'  eternal life.

[counterpoint]

what if handicapped and blind and lame people will be healed, see, and jump and move around without limitation in the ressurrection. 

This leads to another question: it's a long time since God created the Universe and Adam and Eve. So, how can one say, he created me and you? I thought, the creation was finished at the 7th day...?

[mike_lang]

what did God do with his endless time?  maybe plan for the creation of this world and the heavens - in the absolute perfection they are seen in.

Let's not speculate, dear Susan... guesswork does not improve your credibility.

  we consider small imperfections to be observed visually.  but what if through imperfection we are perfected? 

Of course, we are perfected on account of our imperfection - were we not incomplete, it would be impossible for us to become complete.  Let's not propose axioms as philosophical questions...

Best,
ML

[term]

First off, let us keep in mind that God must have been created.  We will completely dismiss the arguments of whether or not he created himself and just ignore them.  He can not have always been, as this means he was created (infinity) years ago, which there never was.  Avoiding anything mathematically complicated, just like there can never be an infinity year A.D., there can never have been an infinity year B.C.  So he was created at a point in time. 

If you dismiss infinity, you already dismiss the very definition of what god is, so you're going the wrong way already.
Time and space correlate. If space is infinite, time is. Infinity is zero is infinity is zero.... (goes on infinietly  ) If it (the universe) is not infinite, it has a beginning and will have an end. If we ask, what was before that beginning, we are already at the point of asking whether the universe is infinite, and so whether space and time are infinite.
You will never in your life be able to eliminate infinity in whatever it is: science, math in particular, your thoughts...etc. So the very existence of infinity and the fact that you cannot eliminate it is a proof for god. It's just another name. God=infinity.
And because infinity and zero are the same thing, the short answer is: Yes, there is a god, and before the beginning there was nothing and when it ends there will be nothing.
Don't get caught up in words, as language itself is imprecise. 

[timothy42b]

The problem is that you're redefining God, Soliloquy.  You are saying that God was created and is bound by time.  God by definition is uncreated and eternal--not bound by time.  This "being" in your proposition isn't God.   

You've hit on the heart of the controversy, I think, but let me amplify.

Soliloquy has one definition of God.  You have another.  They are in conflict. 

If God in fact exists it is not necessary for Him to be bound by either of your definitions, that is pure arrogance.  If He is bound by your definition then He does not in fact exist. 

You also have a long list of his attributes, any or all of which may be wrong. 

[prometheus]

Time was created at the big bang. God created the big bang. Therefore before the big bang there was no time. So therefore god wasn't created at a time before the big bang. Therefore god wasn't created before the big bang.

God must have formed during the time in which the first generation of stars also formed. How? Probably some kind of darwinian evolutionary process.

[term]

@prometheus:
Are you joking?  Am i mising the irony in your post?
Are you trying to eliminate the word before by eliminating the time?

If you say there was such thing as a big bang, it must have happened at a point in time. As you said correctly, before time there is no existence, so god cannot have existed before the big bang. You also said, time was created *at*  the big bang. But what was first? The time, so that we can say the big bang actually existed, but then the big bang did not create time and there is the question as to what created time. Or the big bang, which created the time, but then the big bang did not exist and neither did time.
Did they come simultaneously? Such thing doesn't exist, because time per definition defines everything as a succession of events, so if you say they came simultaneously you're negating their existence again.

With other words, to what is the word big bang actually referring? Read the bible, as there is written "I am the beginning and the end". He is not before the beginning, not after the beginning. He *is* the beginning, that one paradox which is the error in your statement. Or - to use your words - god=the big bang.  If i refer to my post above, big bang=infinity, as the theory states natures of law didn't exist at the point of the big bang, and the endless question of "what was first? time or big bang?" resolves in infinity.
 
(btw i'm not a christian, nor religious)

[prometheus]

@prometheus:
Are you joking?  Am i mising the irony in your post?
Are you trying to eliminate the word before by eliminating the time?

If you say there was such thing as a big bang, it must have happened at a point in time.

Nope. Time was created at the big bang. How can you have something before it exists?

As you said correctly, before time there is no existence,

Not sure about this. But no existence in space and time for sure.

so god cannot have existed before the big bang. You also said, time was created *at*  the big bang. But what was first? The time, so that we can say the big bang actually existed

The big bang is not something that exists in time(or space). It is the event of space and time coming into being.

[term]

Nope. Time was created at the big bang.

Do you have an answer to this paradox? You sure have, because you say time was created *at* the big bang. That word is unsuitable here, so please be more precise ^^ I pointed ou three possibilities: before, after, and simultaneously, and all three are impossible.

Not sure about this.

So you can also not be sure about whether a god existed before the big bang or not.

The big bang is not something that exists in time(or space).

Well that is a paradox again. The big bang is, per definition, the exact event when existence came into existence. If you say the big bang did not exist in space or time, it didn't exist at all. If it did, there is the question in what did it exist. Some other universe?
As soon as you mark a point, such as the big bang, it is perfectly legitimate for everyone to ask what was before that point, or in what did the point exist. The only way to avoid this is to mark no point at all.
Or let me put it that way: The mere fact that you are defining a *cause* (just another name for the same) for something already marks a point in a time and says it was before. Cause is always before action, obviously, because otherwise it would be no cause.
The big bang theory proves itself wrong. Don't be too sure just because it is very popular. It is very practical because it defines a point, a centre in the universe and helps to get a conception about why, for the visitor, everything seems to depart from him, no matter where in the universe he stands.

[pianolearner]

As i said in the other thread, there seems to be no theoretical reason why humans couldn't eventually evolve a higher consciousness or super awareness, perhaps through some kind of grouped mind. 

At that point we evolved into God.  Prior to that time God would not have existed, but after that moment God very well could escape time, living in the past as well.  It sounds like a paradox but not necessarily. 

Or, perhaps humans became extinct and some other life form evolved. 

A brilliant theory. We could have all lived on earth sometime in the past. We have somehow been resurrected either by alien archaeologists or humans, who have managed to extract our imprint from the past and recreate us within a super computer.

[prometheus]

Do you have an answer to this paradox? You sure have, because you say time was created *at* the big bang. That word is unsuitable here...

Why? I don't see the paradox. Neither do any astronomers I know of.

So you can also not be sure about whether a god existed before the big bang or not.
Well that is a paradox again. The big bang is, per definition, the exact event when existence came into existence. If you say the big bang did not exist in space or time, it didn't exist at all.

The big bang isn't something that exists. It is something that happened. A 'bottle falling from the table' doesn't exist. 'The bottle' exists and 'the table' exists. The big bang is neither matter or energy. The universe expanded from a singularity and that is what we call the 'big bang'.

Now, when we get to the singularity or back to just 10-43 seconds after the big bang started our understanding of physics stops. But as our understanding is right now things just started coming into existence out of nothing from this single very dense point.

it is perfectly legitimate for everyone to ask what was before that point, or in what did the point exist.

No. Asking 'what was before the big bang' is like asking 'what is south of the south pole'. Both 'time before the big bang' and 'south of the south pole' are undefined. They fall outside the domain of possible values.

[prometheus]

The big bang theory proves itself wrong. Don't be too sure just because it is very popular.

Nope. Our observations are clear. The evidence is clear. The universe expanded from a single point. There is no way around it. We just have to accept this as what happened. Even if we don't like it.

So saying it is wrong is just stupid. Even if you do, the universe still came from a singularity.

[term]

This is the single most ridiculous statement i have ever read 
Not only are you saying 1+1 is 3 after me saying 1+1 is 2, you do not even bother to prove me wrong. (which is a possibility i do no exclude).
But you are also saying that humanity has found the truth. Like when people 1000 years ago said, a thunderstorm is a sign from god because there is no other explanation. Are you aware of the simple fact, which every phisicist will tell you, that there is no true theory in physics, only false ones...but the theories are getting better and better?

Again...you're joking, right? I'm not that good in understanding these kinds of jokes, i'm afraid...

[prometheus]

Physics is absurd and ridiculous.

[soliloquy]

Physics is absurd and ridiculous.

 

[term]

Im going to have a coffe. With milk. No sugar.

[wotgoplunk]

Not only are you saying 1+1 is 3 after me saying 1+1 is 2...

1+1=2.5 because 2+2=5.

Proof.