Did God have a beginning?

[mee]

Did God have a beginning?




Ps. 90:2: "Before the mountains themselves were born, or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and the productive land, even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God."


Is that reasonable?

Our minds cannot fully comprehend it. But that is not a sound reason for rejecting it.


Consider examples: (1) Time. No one can point to a certain moment as the beginning of time. And it is a fact that, even though our lives end, time does not. We do not reject the idea of time because there are aspects of it that we do not fully comprehend. Rather, we regulate our lives by it.





(2) Space. Astronomers find no beginning or end to space. The farther they probe into the universe, the more there is. They do not reject what the evidence shows; many refer to space as being infinite. The same principle applies to the existence of God.

 

[wil]

So now mee, did you provide this very same answer at wiki-answers?

WikiAnswers - Where was God before he created earth

or is it true you can't teach old dogs new tricks and you are right back to cutting and pasting, just from a different site? Or did another cut and paste this answer to wiki?

inquiring minds would like to know.

btw the very next wiki answer that you didn't post, did you not agree with it?

Answer


God doesn't exist as anything but a character in mythology. We also didn't come from nothing, it's called a singularity.



Perhaps a relevant quote (approximated): "If people are willing to believe god has always existed or spontaneously came into existence and then created the universe, why can't they conceive of the universe always existing or spontaneously comming into existence? Why not just cut god out of the equation?

just wondering...

 

[Nick_A]

Did God have a beginning?




Ps. 90:2: "Before the mountains themselves were born, or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and the productive land, even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God."


Is that reasonable?

Our minds cannot fully comprehend it. But that is not a sound reason for rejecting it.


Consider examples: (1) Time. No one can point to a certain moment as the beginning of time. And it is a fact that, even though our lives end, time does not. We do not reject the idea of time because there are aspects of it that we do not fully comprehend. Rather, we regulate our lives by it.





(2) Space. Astronomers find no beginning or end to space. The farther they probe into the universe, the more there is. They do not reject what the evidence shows; many refer to space as being infinite. The same principle applies to the existence of God.

Hi Mee

I don't believe God exists because existence is an expression of time and space so for me God "IS" rather then exists.

The difference is that Isness is an attribute of "NOW" which has no beginning and end as necessry for existence. Existence is a function continuing within and apart from NOW. God is NOW. Creation is both within and outside of NOW just as the Son is within the Father and the Father within the Son.

It is ironic then that NOW is the one objective reality but since we exist we experience life in the context of before and after which is within Now and a "subjective" reality.

"Now" becomes a relative experience for us. The greater its conscious quality, the closer it is to NOW, the source of existence itself, outside of time and space.

 

[Joedjr]

G!D can't be anything that the human mind can imagine.
.02

 

[mee]

G!D can't be anything that the human mind can imagine.
.02

He causes to become,

and he will prove to be what he will prove to be .


psalm 83;18

 

[wil]

He causes to become,

and he will prove to be what he will prove to be .


psalm 83;18

Maybe you didn't see the question...

So now mee, did you provide this very same answer at wiki-answers?

WikiAnswers - Where was God before he created earth

It is important as copyright violations without footnoting could jeapordize this forum's existence. Members who willingly, knowingly, intentionally do such a thing could jeapordize their own participation.

Is this your original thought which you posted elsewhere or was it cut and pasted here without reference?

 

[mee]

Maybe you didn't see the question... It is important as copyright violations without footnoting could jeapordize this forum's existence. Members who willingly, knowingly, intentionally do such a thing could jeapordize their own participation.

Is this your original thought which you posted elsewhere or was it cut and pasted here without reference?

i dont look to wicki

 

[Out of the Box]

G!D can't be anything that the human mind can imagine.
.02

Why not? The human mind is very complex, so why wouldn't it be possible to understand the nature of the divine?

 

[c0de]

Why not? The human mind is very complex, so why wouldn't it be possible to understand the nature of the divine?

Does the fish understand the nature of the aquarium??

 

[citizenzen]

Is that reasonable?

No it is not "reasonable". If you can provide the reasons for it you'd be quite famous... maybe even get your own religion named after you.

It is speculative, but certainly not reasonable.

 

[Out of the Box]

Does the fish understand the nature of the aquarium??

I'm not aware of any fish even remotely close to humanity's greatest philosophers in terms of intellect. If such a fish would exist, then maybe he could have the capacity to understand the nature of the aquarium.

 

[c0de]

I'm not aware of any fish even remotely close to humanity's greatest philosophers in terms of intellect. If such a fish would exist, then maybe he could have the capacity to understand the nature of the aquarium.

I think you over-estimate the power of philosophy dude.
Its a very self-negating field of study (refer to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason).

 

[citizenzen]

I'm not aware of any fish even remotely close to humanity's greatest philosophers...

I would suggest that comparatively speaking, a fish figuring out the aquarium is the far easier task.

 

[Out of the Box]

I think you over-estimate the power of philosophy dude.
Its a very self-negating field of study (refer to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason).

When complementing a rational philosophy with a deep knowledge of science, one can develop an understanding of the universe that's still only but a image, but an image that describes reality more than any other image ever contemplated.

I would suggest that comparatively speaking, a fish figuring out the aquarium is the far easier task.

Obviously. However, it's not because something is more difficult that it's impossible. Not so long ago, the Internet, the airplane and the microchip were inventions most people could barely comprehend as a concept, but today they've become a part of everyday life. Man is clearly a limited being, but his imagination is limitless.

 

[c0de]

When complementing a rational philosophy with a deep knowledge of science,

Philosophy and science should be combined with religion to form an
accurate picture of reality, but I believe that the priority should always be
given to religion as it contains revelation which is superior to both Philosophy
and Science. Does that sound stupid? Well let me remind you how limited
science actually is:

Science/Mathematics as it exists today, can not even calculate the
trajectory of 3 objects, (whatever their size) directly connected to
each other. This is called the 3 body problem, or the N body problem
in Physics, where the "N" stands for any number greater then 2.

Imagine a pool table, if I take a cue ball and hit two of the balls
simultaneously, there is no supercomputer which will be able to
"solve" that equation i.e. predict the total path of the three balls
and where they will end up. It is not a a matter of processing speed,
even if you had an infinitely powerful supercomputer, this could not
be done. It is a problem inherent in the structure of mathematics.

This is how limited our knowledge actually is.

We dont even know with more then 20% certainty if it is going to
rain on the weekend dude, let alone knowing the "nature of God".

 

[Out of the Box]

Philosophy and science should be combined with religion to form an
accurate picture of reality

There is no need for any religion that crosses the boundries of philosophy.

Science/Mathematics as it exists today, can not even calculate the
trajectory of 3 objects, (whatever their size) directly connected to
each other. This is called the 3 body problem, or the N body problem
in Physics, where the "N" stands for any number greater then 2.

Imagine a pool table, if I take a cue ball and hit two of the balls
simultaneously, there is no supercomputer which will be able to
"solve" that equation i.e. predict the total path of the three balls
and where they will end up. It is not a a matter of processing speed,
even if you had an infinitely powerful supercomputer, this could not
be done. It is a problem inherent in the structure of mathematics.

This is how limited our knowledge actually is. [/quote]

So? How can religion fill the gaps left by science where philosophy can't?

We dont even know with more then 20% certainty if it is going to
rain on the weekend dude, let alone knowing the "nature of God".

Maybe not, but I'm pretty sure you'll get much closer to an correct point of view than when you rely on blind faith

 

[c0de]

There is no need for any religion that crosses the boundries of philosophy.

hmmm... well, you will have to define where "boundaries" lie rite?
and of course my map will be different then yours.

So? How can religion fill the gaps left by science where philosophy can't?

imo, philosophy itself can't really fill any gaps dude.
as Kant's critique proved it is a self-negating field of study.
It can not be used as a starting point.

Maybe not, but I'm pretty sure you'll get much closer to an correct point of view than when you rely on blind faith

Well, there have been great philosophers who have disagreed with this.

 

[citizenzen]

Man is clearly a limited being, but his imagination is limitless.

Just look at Christianity.

Imagination, indeed.

 

[mee]

Did God have a beginning? NO


But Jesus did have a beginning , he was the beginning of the creation by God .


he was the first-born of creation by God .



he was the first and only one that was created by JEHOVAH alone .



Everything else in the universe was created AFTER that first-born was created .



And everything else that was created was though the first-born son of God


but the power TO CREATE came from the most high JEHOVAH
PSALM 83;18


It is because of God’s will that all things “existed and were created.” (Re 4:11) Jehovah, who has existed for all time, was alone before creation had a beginning.
Psalm 90:1, 2;

1Tim 1:17.

 

[Out of the Box]

Just look at Christianity.

Imagination, indeed.

The post hereabove is a perfect illustration thereof. It's mindboggling that any human being can truely believe all that **** !