Philosophy Now Forum

This is an example portrayal of God. Below you can read the sketching of a small but invaluable non-fiction writing which I title God : Religion explained.
In the beginning, there was God. God was but did not think, and without thought he could not do or act. There was no creation. Nothing was beside God and as Time passed, God began to think. Ideas were already formed: I, Time, passage, stasis thought, ideas, dialogue or grouped ideas and so on. God was able to do and act.
And so we know that God, blessed be his creation, the creator of Heaven and Earth created us humans in his image as the Bible claims without explaining none of the facts constituting the rational vision of the beginning of Time. For we humans too, think and see (objects, or ideas).
Heaven is the land of the dead, the resting place. Earth is the land of the living, where Time passes, I's act and life is. Woman and Man are no different and are equal before God. Woman is not supernatural and neither is Man for both are of nature. Super, or more, can be used to create the supernatural, or more than nature, and this would be God.
In summary I have proven the scientific theory of creationism by modernizing it and ridding it of what was false. God was existence itself and there was nothing. Time is a part of nothing as it was when nothing was. And it was only after God begun his stasis that Creation became.
From what I gather, creationism based itself on description of God creating light, darkness, earth. This is either an old metaphor or simply a fault of ancient writers. Creationism should instead be based on description of beginning of Time, and description of God creating the garden of Eden.
Maybe, it might be that my work simply presents creationism in a more inquisitive version, so that we can understand what was in stead of hearing that there was darkness and that then there was light. A question that I'd like to ask, what drove those people to invent this? How do we proceed from basically, the Big Bang in creationist form?

I'm looking forward to reading any replies.

Gabriel wrote:This is an example portrayal of God. Below you can read the sketching of a small but invaluable non-fiction writing which I title God : Religion explained.
In the beginning, there was God. God was but did not think, and without thought he could not do or act. There was no creation. Nothing was beside God and as Time passed, God began to think. Ideas were already formed: I, Time, passage, stasis thought, ideas, dialogue or grouped ideas and so on. God was able to do and act.
And so we know that God, blessed be his creation, the creator of Heaven and Earth created us humans in his image as the Bible claims without explaining none of the facts constituting the rational vision of the beginning of Time. For we humans too, think and see (objects, or ideas).
Heaven is the land of the dead, the resting place. Earth is the land of the living, where Time passes, I's act and life is. Woman and Man are no different and are equal before God. Woman is not supernatural and neither is Man for both are of nature. Super, or more, can be used to create the supernatural, or more than nature, and this would be God.
In summary I have proven the scientific theory of creationism by modernizing it and ridding it of what was false. God was existence itself and there was nothing. Time is a part of nothing as it was when nothing was. And it was only after God begun his stasis that Creation became.
From what I gather, creationism based itself on description of God creating light, darkness, earth. This is either an old metaphor or simply a fault of ancient writers. Creationism should instead be based on description of beginning of Time, and description of God creating the garden of Eden.
Maybe, it might be that my work simply presents creationism in a more inquisitive version, so that we can understand what was in stead of hearing that there was darkness and that then there was light. A question that I'd like to ask, what drove those people to invent this? How do we proceed from basically, the Big Bang in creationist form?

I'm looking forward to reading any replies.

Hard to answer in a couple of paragraphs, but the origin of these ideas can ultimately be traced to Aristotle's formulation of causation. The early Christian scholars borrowed from Plato and Aristotle. Basically, creation is ex nihilo (out of nothing). God created time, space and matter out of nothing, so we can see that God is the efficient and first cause of everything.

The other important point is that science does not use Aristotle's causes. In other words, science does not deal in first causes. Some people mistakenly think the Big Bang is a scientific theory of first cause- it isn't.

Tons of things to address there. I'll just start with the first one:

"In the beginning, there was God."

Are you saying that God suddenly appeared at the beginning? How? Just spontaneously "from nothing"? Otherwise, if he was already there, it's not a beginning, is it?

Terrapin Station wrote:Tons of things to address there. I'll just start with the first one:

"In the beginning, there was God."

Are you saying that God suddenly appeared at the beginning? How? Just spontaneously "from nothing"? Otherwise, if he was already there, it's not a beginning, is it?

I am probably referring to "scholasticism" and "classical theism" for the want of a better explanation. God in these sense is the ultimate cause of everything other than himself. God did not summon the universe into existence using pre-existing time, space and matter, so we could say that God exists outside of these things.

Ginkgo wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:Tons of things to address there. I'll just start with the first one:

"In the beginning, there was God."

Are you saying that God suddenly appeared at the beginning? How? Just spontaneously "from nothing"? Otherwise, if he was already there, it's not a beginning, is it?

I am probably referring to "scholasticism" and "classical theism" for the want of a better explanation. God in these sense is the ultimate cause of everything other than himself. God did not summon the universe into existence using pre-existing time, space and matter, so we could say that God exists outside of these things.

I'm familiar with that, but the problem is that it doesn't really make any sense. Under the guise of philosophy, we can be critical of claims like this, we can critically examine them, analyze them, see if they really make sense.

Terrapin Station wrote:Tons of things to address there. I'll just start with the first one:

"In the beginning, there was God."

Are you saying that God suddenly appeared at the beginning? How? Just spontaneously "from nothing"? Otherwise, if he was already there, it's not a beginning, is it?

To give a direct answer - God is the creationist start of all. It's described below. But no, he did not appear at the beginning. He was already there because he was the start of all. While a being, also a situation because of a reaction to his action.

First of all, sorry if it seemed a bit like a ramble but I tried merging the rational portrayal of said 'beginning' situation with some religious back stories that are most prevalent through time. As the world of the dead and the living is the most important philosophical dilemma to be rationalized after existence itself. As we perceive it, as other life forms might perceive it. The whole thing needs a lot of discussion anyway.

Let's call this situation that we are trying to describe the Origin. We have either 1.Nothing. 2.Nothing and God. 3.God.

Ad1. There is nothigness, without constrictions, eternal, void of anything.
Ad2. There is Ad1. and there is a being that is beside it.
Ad3. There is only God and nothing is his creation.

It's a curious case, nothing was observed by God as he gave birth to himself? This would suggest that the origin was in fact nothing and something coexisting. Then, something began to change and became different from nothing. Something was nothing beside nothing until it became different from nothing.

You see, the idea came to me and I decided to discuss it because it seems strangely rational. God was asleep in his omnibeing. He was effectively nothing. But the passage of time/life proved to be noticeable. And so he became separate from nothing.

There was nothing and it was everything. This is the Origin. A point before Time that we can mark on the Axis of Time. The Origin is formed. It is a human creation meant for better understanding of the situation. God is everything if we want to approach the philosophical discourse from any possible way. Prevalent through time that the monotheistic deity is everything. We can do some maths and come up with this result : At the beginning, everything was. It included only nothing. This was God. For he is everything, and at the beginning there was nothing. And so, if you read the previous sentence, you will agree with me that nothing was beside God as "Time" began to flow.

If you'd like to, help me rewrite the original post in a form more suitable for a work that is supposed to inform without creating doubt and place for questions. So, a work completely suitable by itself for informing a reader how the world began and leaving him with a complete and clear view of said situation.

Right now, after reading what was written I'd start like this:

In the beginning there was existence and this was everything. You will find reader, that existence is God. For such is the origin of it. And existence arose from nothing. For everything, was nothing. And as there was nothing, God did not act, see, think or speak. But eventually he began to think, and so, he became separate from nothing, and Time began to flow. For when Time flowed, God thought.

What caused God to think if he was nothing. Nothing exists, because of this God noticed that he too exists. He realized being separate from nothing. And so noticed his thought. Having noticed both nothing and himself. For if God noticed his existence as nothing, he realized that he is not nothing. He also had to see that said occurrences happened after one another. And so Time was a realization. Nothing evolved into God awake, aware of nothing, Time and changes. And so creation began. And it fits in with the first version.

I think, therefore I am, atheism and such might have arose from a lack of conclusion to the dialogue that I present. Oh my God, the idea of creating out of something is false as can be. A creator creates as easily as humans think of images. Humans create things out of things. Also out of nothing. God creates as a being that was first to have a mind. And so his mind is closest to existence, and supernatural. For nature was invented and created by God for him to have the companions humans are.

Perhaps, it is a Rubick's Cube invented as a mockery.

To understand who we are we need to know what is, and what constitutes to be life. To do this we can assume we are a race created in the image of God. This will allow us to simplify said explanation to a description of the Beginning of Existence and who God was, or what his form was. Because we seem to be what God once was. We are minds, entities that think.

Gabriel wrote:To give a direct answer - God is the creationist start of all. It's described below. But no, he did not appear at the beginning. He was already there because he was the start of all.

He can't be, though, because if he already exists, it's not starting--creation has already started.

We have either 1.Nothing. 2.Nothing and God. 3.God.

I'd say that (2) isn't really possible, at least not if we mean "nothing" in any universal sense. Maybe you just mean it in the sense that there are always "bits of nothing" around though, in which case it would work but then (3) is the same thing.

God as he gave birth to himself?

Which is a logical impossibility in my view.

He was effectively nothing.

Again, that just seems incoherent to me.

There was nothing and it was everything.

C'mon, man.

A point before Time that we can mark on the Axis of Time.

Just endless incoherencies.

At the beginning, everything was. It included only nothing.

Argh!

This was God. For he is everything, and at the beginning there was nothing. And so, if you read the previous sentence, you will agree with me that nothing was beside God as "Time" began to flow.

Haha--now that's optimistic.

If you'd like to, help me rewrite the original post in a form more suitable for a work that is supposed to inform without creating doubt and place for questions.

I'm an atheist who is extremely unlikely to believe that any of this sort of stuff can make any sense.

A coherent and rational explanation of life from a philosophical point of view is what I'm looking for. I presented a theist one, I'd love to read an atheist one.

Another interesting form, the paradox of a dialogue that was started yet, there is no proof of it existing. Any writings based on a thought monologue don't prove said monologue to have been a dialogue. Basically, the paradox of a human's monologue being a dialogue or not.

Terrapin Station wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:Tons of things to address there. I'll just start with the first one:

"In the beginning, there was God."

Are you saying that God suddenly appeared at the beginning? How? Just spontaneously "from nothing"? Otherwise, if he was already there, it's not a beginning, is it?

I am probably referring to "scholasticism" and "classical theism" for the want of a better explanation. God in these sense is the ultimate cause of everything other than himself. God did not summon the universe into existence using pre-existing time, space and matter, so we could say that God exists outside of these things.

I'm familiar with that, but the problem is that it doesn't really make any sense. Under the guise of philosophy, we can be critical of claims like this, we can critically examine them, analyze them, see if they really make sense.

I don't think this is philosophy of religion, it would come under the heading of 'theology'. I agree that it doesn't make much sense.

Religion is simply a part of philosophy. If philosophy is simply life, as we experience through our minds, philosophy being the practice of thought and experiences. Religion is practice of thought and experiences related to the idea of God.

I am pretty satisfied with the original post. There is not much else to add to it. Nothing changed with Time. How do we note? It is an experience. Nothing experienced passage of self. Having experienced passage of self it became something and this is the Big Bang in common wording, a philosophic explanation rather than a scientific one.

Gabriel wrote:A coherent and rational explanation of life from a philosophical point of view is what I'm looking for. I presented a theist one,

I wouldn't say that you're anywhere in the vicinity of a coherent and rational "explanation of life."

I'd love to read an atheist one.

There would be explanations that do not reference God, but as I'm sure many people have told you over the years, atheism only refers to a lack of belief or disbelief in the existence of God. As such, an "atheist explanation of life" doesn't make much sense.

A religious explanation of a being and it's existence from the point of view of a human is not coherent or rational. Atheism is not scientific after all, and instead it is belief in God without belief in God. This is the kind of a contradiction that you tried to sell in my honest opinion.

A non-religious explanation of a being and it's existence from the point of view of a human "doesn't make much sense". I disagree whole heartedly. Would it not solidify and finalise the academic research of humanity on Earth? We are to explore and colonise space while the US swarms the Internet with special effects of aliens refueling at the Sun. Or it's the aliens for real.

Gabriel wrote:To understand who we are we need to know what is, and what constitutes to be life. To do this we can assume we are a race created in the image of God. ...

'God' is a hermaphrodite?

You've written of a scenario where God created man in his image, then ripped his cockles and penis off creating a woman. Very unproductive.