what made God? - Page 2

From a purely speculative position you are correct. But we are not operating in a 100% speculative plain here. We do have some definitive answers. For one, no one has ever observed life arising from non-life be it naturally or in a controlled laboratory environment. On the other hand we observe life on a continuous bases coming from life.

Another thing is to think that anything is possible with or without orchestration of some kind is very presumptuous and simply denies the idea of conscious intent being behind creation.

I agree it's sad to see young minds closed. But I don't think the problem isn't that they can't admit not knowing. The problem is we tend to disbelieve the possibility that someone else knows because we haven't been enlightened yet. That is more the problem, especially when it comes to truths only known through divine intervention. That doesn't just apply to atheists, it applies to all of us who tend to reject the idea that we may be held accountable by something not of ourselves and not with our standards.

My open ended speculation doesn't deny anything, its all inclusive, its a paradoxical infinity point.

And I can't be certain that life from nothing hasn't been seen, whether understood, recognized or not.

Indeed, how perspectives change once experience replaces definitives derived by limitation. That's why I love to introduce anything practical, like research into conspiracy from validated sources and things like lucid dreaming and obe's.

Nothing beats experience.

True, experience is the best evidence though it's not always completetly understood. But I believe with the power of reason comes the responsibility of drawing logical conclusions. Where there isn't of yet a definitive answer that is. And to give the same weight to something that maybe, could have happened as to something observed frequently neglects/abuses that responsibility. I do understand your point that we have no first hand knowledge, but then that opens another can of worms! We are creatures of faith after all.

I don't feel the faith part as you do. Its not exactly faith that existance and its consistency will continue and continue to make some semblance of reasonable sense, nor faith in a speculation of just what is behind it all.

It just is.

But this does not detract from the wonder of the adventure for we are creatures of curiosity more than faith. We secretly test and challenge things we have so called faith in, because we are always curious untill we "know", for there is always doubt.

And if there is paradoxical infinitude, well, both faith and doubt are warranted, but the point is to live and grow which means overcoming both.

For that is enlightenment, to move beyond doubt or even faith, to knowledge.

Or so it seems to my sleepy mind that just woke up

reply to manbible, i was told at school many years ago by a chemistry teacher that you can artificially create and maintain microrganisms such as plankton and bacteria by smearing agar jelly in a petri dish and introduing amino acids to the vial. of course the vital part of the experiment was related to the variables - how much sunlight and warmth does the experiment need, what humidity is required for an organism to grow and maintain its vital signs? so the primordial sludge theory is entirely reasonable.

my own thoughts on this are that of douglas adams (HHGTTG):

quote:

---

a sentient puddle who wakes up one morning and thinks, "This is an interesting world I find myself in-an interesting hole I find myself in-fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"[

---

it would seem to me the vital signs of life are ours to preserve, destroy, or to send into outer space searching for (alien?) life.

we know technology has allowed us to play at being God, so who knows if we aren't building planets and black holes in a hundred years from now. maybe God was a human being from way before antiquity and he left his legacy for us to learn from?

i would insert a biblical allusion here but can't quote one that directly refers to my train of thought... but i was thinking knowledge is power/God is love. the wisdom is in the deciding.

deadcitystreets,

What we're talking about is the removal of proteins and agar both of which defy mathematical odds for self existence in the first place. Then observing life arise from nothing but sub particles which is the bases for the ultimate emergence of the proteins and agar that you would start with in your argument. You see? That is how this "primordial soup" is theorized to have emerged.

Your ancient man theory suggest life comes from intelligent life (which is what I believe) but in the end is just self worship, in affect calling ourselves God instead of acknowledging God, thereby giving him the credit. And I believe he deserves the credit.

quote:

---

proteins and agar both of which defy mathematical odds for self existence in the first place

---

I love protein. And not just because the whey protein I buy from costco is great. Every single known life form on the planet has protein in there DNA 'sludge'.

And agar is so cool too - deadcitystreets, the experiment you're talking about sounds spot on, we had to create similar micro environments in bio class at uni. (I've always had an appreciation for agar since then. )

The notion that protein and agar defy mathematical odds is pretty umm.. incorrect.. i mean, if you're going to use math which (from as far as we know) is something we've created on our planet, then how on earth can you say that all protein which is more abundant than all math formulas available on the planet is defying mathematical odds? hmmm.. makes no sense.

Quote:

"The notion that protein and agar defy mathematical odds is pretty umm.. incorrect.. i mean, if you're going to use math which (from as far as we know) is something we've created on our planet, then how on earth can you say that all protein which is more abundant than all math formulas available on the planet is defying mathematical odds? hmmm.. makes no sense."

Dawn,

The chance of a protein emerging on it's own is about one chance in 5 X 10191. Someone said they only accept scientific theory as for the emergence of life. Scientific theory excluding an intelligent creator of course. So I was inquiring for such a theory that explains it. With one building block shown to be mathematically impossible to be self existent, not to mention the even greater odds against life spontaneously existing, from him or anyone. I'd be interested in how your theory explains the existence of such things. Your theory being basically, we're here, there are a lot of us and protein covers the earth so primordial soup must be correct. Am I right in assuming that is your point? If so, it would be the same as saying "we're here so that proves God created us." Would you be swayed by such an argument? I wouldn't think so. Funny how we will believe these types of arguments from the "scientific" community though.

manbible is right to say that philosophically, some unknown quantity may well have been a witness to the spontaneous creation of the first lifeforms. and those of a religous or spiritual persuasion would call this unknown quantifying principle, 'God'.

however, unless we can agree philosophically that we have prior knowledge (a priori) of the Godhead/adam kadmon/spiritual being, then we make a nonsense of all we have discussed.

therefore, all that remains are the first cause argument (big bang=consciousness), and the design argument, which may well fit into a religous doctrine, but then again - without any proofs of monothetism being the correct interpretation for our observation...

ps. i don't know this off by heart i had to look it up :¬)

Ironwood,

I did overlook the possibility that God may have used what appears to be random to create, thanks. But I still contend that that randomness alone could not have created, not to mention complex life. If God used it to mold life that by default rules out the possibility, would you think?

Ps, deadcitystreets, there is no absolute proof of any theory out there concerning this, it's all on faith.

manbible;

you're right and i don't doubt faith and supposition are core to all our beliefs. however, just to make things problematic and fun, i have to add that this also presents us with a whole bunch of philosophical problems that philsophers have attempted to tackle over the centuries, most of which have thought experiments to prove some force or consciousness is superior to us puny earthlings. of course i don't know what these thought experiments are*, but i thought you would enjoy the feedback.

*pascal's wager is one of them though

Schrödinger's cat is another good one. And yes, I did enjoy the feed back, thanks.

I'm apologise if my communication was not clear.. What I meant is this.. in order to come to conclusive answers about anything to do with the universe at large, and that includes discovering whether a 'god' exists or not, you must use what is known to explore the unknown. That is logical to me. Math is logical. Protein and agar is logical. They are known and their existence is a tool that should be used to further knowledge into the unknown. It was natural logical progressions in discovery that taught us about math and science which taught us about particles and molecules... To add 'god' to this discovery equation is illogical as 'god' has not been proven (..yet, if there is indeed a god). I find it extremely disrespectful to disregard that which is there right before us and make it inferior to something that has no proof. And then to make evaluations about something that has no proof, such as 'god' being a creator of something - I find it hard to adhere to such evaluations.

What is unknown must be agreed upon. And what is known must be agreed upon. Then use the information you 'know' to go further and make discoveries about the 'unknown', which is something we are all interested in.

In regards to the initial question posed in this thread.. I have a few ideas, but in the end all those ideas are based on human 'mind' experiences leading them to conclude 'god' exists. One of the ideas is that people created 'god' as a superior entity for themselves to believe in during times of extreme struggle and unhappiness - when they were not equipped to deal with harsh life conditions, where they could not foresee anything in the future to look forward to - so their imagination created a mechanism for them to help them cope - making 'god' a coping mechanism.

Another idea is..

People wrongly conclude their powers in deduction as being a higher power providing them with a gift/information. Like, a person makes a prediction about something that will occur in their environment... say that it's going to rain later today. And then it rains later that day. Instead of understanding that it is their mental calculations, based on observations of day in day out patterns that their brain sees in the environment, they conclude it was something beyond their normal capacity - 'god' - which told them the answer. The lack of knowledge about ones own mind and what it can do, makes them conclude 'it has to be a greater power than me - 'god'.

Quote:

quote:

---

To add 'god' to this discovery equation is illogical as 'god' has not been proven

---

Dawn,

As a Christian I'm compelled to share my perspective. The progression of logic you bring up is right on. We must use the known to explore the unknown. But where we differ is when you express that what is known is "logical." Their existence can not be "logical" in of themselves. What is logical is their function or purpose behind the existence of the "known." Protein exist and the logic behind that fact becomes apparent when we understand it's role as a basic element of life.This may seem like slitting hairs at first glance but if you think about it more deeply you will see where I'm going. God as a proven fact would require no faith. God has a requirement of faith precisely because everyone has a proclivity to disbelieve.The reason for that is everyone is more comfortable with their own standards then those of one thought to be perfect and good. And that makes all of us evil by default. ( From the perspective of a believer.) I realize you can simply choose not to believe. But back to my main point...the conclusion that God exist is not one of blind faith but of a faith born from logical deduction. Not just in the physical realm but with what's known about ourselves, privately as well. The secrete matters of the heart. We're all tempted from within and that is a universal "known" fact And God's standard is that we are not tempted at all. That is goodness in pure form. Not the ability to resist evil, but to never be tempted in the first place. Thus the purpose of faith is realized.

So to summize the conclusion that God exist is from the logical conclusions deduced from known facts declaring 'purpose' in both the physical and spiritual realms. "Spiritual" being the absolution of truth. Because of the current state proclivity of individuals to believe one way or the other; we will never agree on what is known and unknown at this present time. So it will be illogical to peruse such a path in the search for truth.

Your other points I come across all the time. First, yes as a believer I believe God is a "crutch." But not an imaginary one. He's the real deal. There are other "crutches" people latch on to that range from intellect to drug use. In death they all fail but one, I believe anyway.

Secondly the mind is truly an amazing tool and we can do a lot with it. But to believe it happened to us through some form of natural evolution is most illogical to me. The gift of reason is uniquely human despite animals that have larger brains both proportionally with their body masses as well as having actually larger brains outright. We create and that is evidence of being in the image of a creator.

In closing I know you will believe what you will. I just wanted to let you know that believing in God isn't just an unsubstantiated whim.

What made God?
The first premise has to do with origins.
Either something always existed or there is a way something can come from nothing. Nothing is commonly thought of as a complete lack of anything but in the case of "nothingness" from which something can develop, the definition is "a dynamic state of balance yielding zero contrast".

This dynamic balance can fail to maintain balance yielding imbalance.
The nature of the imbalance would yield a contrast over a period of time...Without going into details, at this time, this is equivalent to a spiral wave.

The nature of balance would be to return the spiral to a virtual line by closing the radius of contrast.

My theory is that a spiral wave was created through chance but it developed a self-awareness, a consciousness, a will to survive.

This is in effect, the birth of God.

The theory continues leading the spiral to form a closed loop which grows into the universe.

The entire universe is made from repetitions of this basic energy spiral wave of consciousness.