What is your ideal on the Beginning of all

[Mr_M]

Sometimes I ask myself a question where everybody also think about. How did everything begins? How does God feels?

Note: Below are my own thinking only.
===============================================
God himself is "existence" in the beginning there are emptiness except God as time does not affect God.

God does not have a form as he is everything.

During the emptiness God is like a new born baby but however he is alone.
"To gain experience one need to live through and learn it, as one cannot gain experience in emptiness"

As times goes God learn the feeling of Lonely and started creation.

As time goes by living being started to knowledge as we human are part just small of it.

God love his creation, as the feeling of loneliness has gone.

Time goes by as the feeling of loneliness has come back, as he watches his creation living together care for each another.

God wanted that feeling, God send part of his soul down and born as human to feel what it is to be a human with family, friends, love one and to gain experience.

God is one and only, think and feel what it is like to be alone. That why we need to love God and be thankful to God's creations.

All God's creations are equal, all creation have feeling.

God share our feeling for pain and happiness, as we are part of him.
===========================================================================

I believe if you love God, first thing you must understand is that all creations are equal.

Please post what you think about the beginning of everything. Your own way of thinking about everything.

Thank you.

[The11thDr.]

Some of "his" creation must be more equal than other parts.

[The11thDr.]

Also your post contains a contradiction. If god were to be outside of time, then how would there be time for after time him(it?) to become lonely?

[Yrreg]

I guess you mean what is your idea (not ideal) on the beginning of all.


We cannot think about God in Himself but only God in us, because we only know ourselves but not God.

Still we can claim to know in a way God by seeing in ourselves existence and consciousness and intelligence and volition, which are all components of ourselves and magnify them to the nth degree ascribing them to God.

So when we talk about the beginning it is in relation to us, we have a beginning but not God, He has always been around, no past and no future for Him, He is always in the present.


The beginning then for us is when God already having us always in His mind brings us forth from His mind into the sphere of time and space which He also provides for us, to exist in and to operate in and to behave in, by our limited human ways in accordance with the goodness He wants to see in us by obeying His commandments.



Yrreg

[The11thDr.]

because we only know ourselves but not God.

Still we can claim to know in a way God by seeing in ourselves existence and consciousness and intelligence and volition, which are all components of ourselves and magnify them to the nth degree ascribing them to God.

Sounds about right, if you get what i mean.

[Yrreg]

The11thDr., I am really happy to have found a kindred soul in you.


It is said in Genesis 1:1 that "In the beginning God created heaven and earth," that beginning refers to the beginning of heaven and earth, but not to God Who has no beginning whenever He does something.

That is unimaginable from our part, and as it should be because we are not God in our knowing and thinking and doing and willing.


May I just call you Dr?


Yrreg

[Enginseer]

All life on Earth started as a single, sustainable chemical reaction. This grew to larger, more diverse chemical reactions. Which underwent natural selection to eventually form the first single cell organisms, you know the rest from there.

This initial chemical reaction, the pre-cursor for life could have been created by lighting striking water, volcanic activity or just a general shift in composition of molecules.

[Canuckster1127]

All life on Earth started as a single, sustainable chemical reaction. This grew to larger, more diverse chemical reactions. Which underwent natural selection to eventually form the first single cell organisms, you know the rest from there.

This initial chemical reaction, the pre-cursor for life could have been created by lighting striking water, volcanic activity or just a general shift in composition of molecules.

Your first paragraph is a declarative statement of fact that is unprovable. The best science can do in this situation is demonstrate plausibility, not fact.

Your second paragraph demonstrates this.

[Enginseer]

All life on Earth started as a single, sustainable chemical reaction. This grew to larger, more diverse chemical reactions. Which underwent natural selection to eventually form the first single cell organisms, you know the rest from there.

This initial chemical reaction, the pre-cursor for life could have been created by lighting striking water, volcanic activity or just a general shift in composition of molecules.

Your first paragraph is a declarative statement of fact that is unprovable. The best science can do in this situation is demonstrate plausibility, not fact.

Your second paragraph demonstrates this.

If scientists where able to create such a sustainable chemical reaction which shows signs of evolving, and they where able to prove that this chemical reaction can be created by any event I mentioned in my second paragraph, then it could be considered factual. Although that's quite away off, takes a long time to find the origin of life when working backwards from the top i.e. humans. So yes, at this point it's just speculation.

[Canuckster1127]

Even if science could replicate or initiate something in the manner described above, all that would demonstrate is plausibility, not fact as to it actually having occured in that manner.

The issue for many in this realm is more a matter of metaphysics than Physics or biology.

For me, it demonstrates two sides of the same coin. On the one hand you have some theists (a broad category of all whom believe in God, which includes Christians) who appeal to a God of the Gaps type argument that states that there are things that cannot be solved or explained without the presence of a creator/God who exists independently, outside of the natural order of things. I believe that this type of an argument can be a fallacy. Many things that have been appealed to in this manner in the past (eg. the spontaneous regeneration of lice and flies which were thought to just arise from dirt until the invention of the microscope) then if and when a natural explanation arises that is deemed by skeptics to be proof of the non-existence of God (which is it's own fallacy, of course) the opposite conclusion is reached that God "couldn't" have been involved or even that there is therefore no God.

So Christians need to be careful about invoking God of the Gaps type arguments. They are circular and presume that that which is currently unknown or unexplainable will remain thus. Because Christians are wrong when they do this however, doesn't prove the opposite to be true. That a rhetorical debating technique.

On the other side, however, what often is expressed here is a fallacy as well, I think. The production of life in a controlled labratory setting does not "prove" that this took place or could take place in an uncontrolled setting and that life therefore arose by chance. That assumes at least two things that are circular as well namely:

1. That a creator would not or could not use seemingly natural means to achieve prescribed and directed ends.

2. That the possibility or even the demonstrated plausibility of such an occurance by definition proves the non-existence of God.

In an ironic way it can even be seen that the presence of the scientists in the labratory setting who apply controlled settings and intelligent design (as it were) in a sense demonstrate the need for such factors outside of that.

Anyway, I hope that helps to clarify some of what I'm trying to say.

bart

[Enginseer]

Even if science could replicate or initiate something in the manner described above, all that would demonstrate is plausibility, not fact as to it actually having occured in that manner.

The issue for many in this realm is more a matter of metaphysics than Physics or biology.

For me, it demonstrates two sides of the same coin. On the one hand you have some theists (a broad category of all whom believe in God, which includes Christians) who appeal to a God of the Gaps type argument that states that there are things that cannot be solved or explained without the presence of a creator/God who exists independently, outside of the natural order of things. I believe that this type of an argument can be a fallacy. Many things that have been appealed to in this manner in the past (eg. the spontaneous regeneration of lice and flies which were thought to just arise from dirt until the invention of the microscope) then if and when a natural explanation arises that is deemed by skeptics to be proof of the non-existence of God (which is it's own fallacy, of course) the opposite conclusion is reached that God "couldn't" have been involved or even that there is therefore no God.

So Christians need to be careful about invoking God of the Gaps type arguments. They are circular and presume that that which is currently unknown or unexplainable will remain thus. Because Christians are wrong when they do this however, doesn't prove the opposite to be true. That a rhetorical debating technique.

On the other side, however, what often is expressed here is a fallacy as well, I think. The production of life in a controlled labratory setting does not "prove" that this took place or could take place in an uncontrolled setting and that life therefore arose by chance. That assumes at least two things that are circular as well namely:

1. That a creator would not or could not use seemingly natural means to achieve prescribed and directed ends.

2. That the possibility or even the demonstrated plausibility of such an occurance by definition proves the non-existence of God.

In an ironic way it can even be seen that the presence of the scientists in the labratory setting who apply controlled settings and intelligent design (as it were) in a sense demonstrate the need for such factors outside of that.

Anyway, I hope that helps to clarify some of what I'm trying to say.

bart

Wise words, and I must stand corrected. If such acts where replicated it demonstrates that that particular act is one of the plausibilities, however it is still just that. A plausibility.

I highly doubt that finding the origin of life will disprove god in any way. Evolution can cause people to rethink Creationist Theories, yet the theories themselves hold no ground in disproving intelligent creation of some form.

There are limitations to our knowledge, there are some things we as humans could never conceive, such as multi-dimensional space [above 4 dimensions of course]. In this way, It's uncertain if science will ever be able to disprove God. It's just a question of whether or not the opposite is true.

Your post has also added another word to my vocabulary, I thank you for this =P

[Gman]

I highly doubt that finding the origin of life will disprove god in any way. Evolution can cause people to rethink Creationist Theories, yet the theories themselves hold no ground in disproving intelligent creation of some form.

How did life form? If the final reality is impersonal matter or energy shaped into its current form by impersonal chance then what you have is materialism/naturalism.. No designer required...

[Enginseer]

I highly doubt that finding the origin of life will disprove god in any way. Evolution can cause people to rethink Creationist Theories, yet the theories themselves hold no ground in disproving intelligent creation of some form.

How did life form? If the final reality is impersonal matter or energy shaped into its current form by impersonal chance then what you have is materialism/naturalism.. No designer required...

Why could one not say that an intelligent designer created impersonal matter with the intention for it to evolve into humans?

[Gman]

Why could one not say that an intelligent designer created impersonal matter with the intention for it to evolve into humans?

It's possible... It's called theistic evolution. However if you don't imply a designer or only give naturalistic explanations of life you give greater overtones of atheistic evolution or naturalism. Naturalism is based on the premise that nature is all there is. It is based on the premise on metaphysical naturalism. One assumes that in the beginning was nothing but matter and mindless motion. It follows from this starting point assumption is that impersonal unintelligent purposeless forces must have been capable of doing all the creation because there wasn't anything else..

Technically you really can't divorce science from philosophy.. Philosophy and science must conflict. Why? Because science and philosophy deal with the same thing. Human life. But they try to understand it under different types of considerations. One physical or natural and the other philosophical or spiritual. And that is why they conflict because that are trying to come to an understanding of the same thing, human life, from two different points of view. People try to divide them where they don't interfere, but you can't do that. As an example, scientific research into human life will want to account for it in terms of events dealt with the so called natural sciences. Physics, chemistry, biology and the likes.. Philosophy or religion on the other hand supposedly tries to operate in the equally important but utterly different realm of human purposes meanings and values. Something that science could illuminate but never resolve.

[Gman]

I think there is much evidence that certain sciences are committed to philosophical naturalism.