Is there creator god actually there?just asking

[confusedlayman]

can someone create something from nothing?

acc to physics its impossible some to come in a bang or boom but what if creation of universe and god is beyond physics and does not obey law of physics?

[Dhammanando]

Not there, not here, not anywhere.

Dharmakīrti's Refutation of Theism

[Sam Vara]

can someone create something from nothing?

acc to physics its impossible some to come in a bang or boom but what if creation of universe and god is beyond physics and does not obey law of physics?

There is no reason to assume that the universe was "created". And if we do, then that assumption requires us to ask what created the creator. So we are no better off. This is one reason why we ought to heed the Buddha's advice to not bother ourselves with questions of the origin of the world.

[SDC]

can someone create something from nothing?

acc to physics its impossible some to come in a bang or boom but what if creation of universe and god is beyond physics and does not obey law of physics?

The fundamental issue with trying to discern a beginning is that it is always conflated and bound up with the origin of "you". The notion that things begin is the very same notion that "after" it begins, it exists. The two ideas are inseparable. Things endure experientially, but degrees of endurance are all that is found. The assumption that "within" the experience of endurance there is a beginning is the wrong direction. You cannot alter endurance. You can not trace it back to a beginning.

You can, however, discern the origin of beliefs in the sense that all things depend on other things for meaning and significance. For instance, you will not find the beginning of Self, but you most definitely can discern the context within which it is meaningful and significant. (For example, if you want to know about why a cup has significance, would you try and trace its beginning down to the physical beginnings and atomic construction? Of course you wouldn't. A cup is a cup because it already has the significance of being cup because you can put water in it and drink it. You don't need the linear information to know that immediately.)

Remember, if you trace out the beginning of Self or world it means that you fundamentally assume that such ideas are existentially valid in that way, so no matter what you gather from that search, it all feeds the notion that "I am" and that the beginning is "somewhere". But if you go the other way and accept the possibility that tracing and proliferating through data will actual never lead anywhere, you can start to see that the entire idea of linear and temporal significance is founded upon misplaced priority.

Existence and beginnings etc., these ideas all stand upon the acceptance that our Being is there amongst the remnants of what we experience. That the seer is seen. That the seer is seen while seeing the seer of seeing; and that it is acceptable to find a Self within the full scope of what we experience. Furthermore, it is acceptable to trace back and forth in a linear/temporal fashion through that idea of ourselves in order to gather and rely upon the most valid explanations of who and what we are.

But why? Why does this happen? Because the tendency to do so is thrust into the forefront. It is desire and lust in regard to things in the world that pushes this mode. There is craving in regards to Being - even if it is craving to not Be. The point is that there is a constant offer of the existence of Self and World. The Self and World arise with the significance of being fundamentally valid as the baseline mode of operation. Assumed as such, the experience is bound by a certain order. And that order demands linear and temporal grounds, not only within which I exist, but also separate from that which I am. In other words, "I" has traces both within that order and beyond it (which is why it always seems to be in two places all at once, or in neither).

So...yeah, God and the universe. Those two ideas are just proliferated Self and world. Because of the assumed order of things, it seems perfectly acceptable to find a ground to that order. Yet the further the tracing goes, the more aggressively fantastic the explanations become, the more complex and overwhelming they become. Then "me" seems powerless and insignificant to those explanations. Yet, if we find a way to look at those things as the context of things rather than the beginning of them, they begin to lose significance. So it isn't so much that you want to overcome God itself, but the entire idea of creation can only stand when Self is acceptable. Once it is made unacceptable, God and the beginning of the world are meaningless -- to the extent that, even if you were given the "secret" it would not make a bit of difference in terms of suffering.

Sorry for long-winded SDC post. I suppose you could say, I SDC'd you...

[binocular]

can someone create something from nothing?

acc to physics its impossible some to come in a bang or boom but what if creation of universe and god is beyond physics and does not obey law of physics?

1. How does this topic relate to Theravada?


2. In mainstream monotheisms, God doesn't "create something from nothing", instead he "expresses himself", "expresses his powers", that is how he "creates". Also, he is said to have always existed, and owns everything; that's how he is defined. As such, a question like "Who or what created God?" doesn't apply.
As such, the concept of God is unprovable, irrefutable.
A basic premise in the major monotheisms is that God is in control and nothing happens without his will. If anything, this premise makes monotheism moot, irrelevant, superfluous, as it has no explanatory power.


The actual problem with monotheisms aren't the supposed contradictions in the concept of "God" itself, but in how various monotheists are trying to gain power over people by advocating for their particular brand of monotheism.

If God is in control and nothing happens without his will, then there's no problem: because then people who don't believe in God do so because it's God's will that they don't believe in God; if people believe in God, it's God's will that people believe in him. As such, there is no need for preaching monotheism to people. But again, if people do preach, then that's God's will, too.

In short, the concept of God doesn't explain anything. It gains relevance only on the metatheistic psycho-social level, where it becomes a tool for people to keep eachother in check and to (attempt to) control eachother.

[confusedlayman]

can someone create something from nothing?

acc to physics its impossible some to come in a bang or boom but what if creation of universe and god is beyond physics and does not obey law of physics?

1. How does this topic relate to Theravada?


2. In mainstream monotheisms, God doesn't "create something from nothing", instead he "expresses himself", "expresses his powers", that is how he "creates". Also, he is said to have always existed, and owns everything; that's how he is defined. As such, a question like "Who or what created God?" doesn't apply.
As such, the concept of God is unprovable, irrefutable.
A basic premise in the major monotheisms is that God is in control and nothing happens without his will. If anything, this premise makes monotheism moot, irrelevant, superfluous, as it has no explanatory power.


The actual problem with monotheisms aren't the supposed contradictions in the concept of "God" itself, but in how various monotheists are trying to gain power over people by advocating for their particular brand of monotheism.

If God is in control and nothing happens without his will, then there's no problem: because then people who don't believe in God do so because it's God's will that they don't believe in God; if people believe in God, it's God's will that people believe in him. As such, there is no need for preaching monotheism to people. But again, if people do preach, then that's God's will, too.

In short, the concept of God doesn't explain anything. It gains relevance only on the metatheistic psycho-social level, where it becomes a tool for people to keep eachother in check and to (attempt to) control eachother.

Thanks.

[WindDancer]

can someone create something from nothing?

acc to physics its impossible some to come in a bang or boom but what if creation of universe and god is beyond physics and does not obey law of physics?

1. How does this topic relate to Theravada?


2. In mainstream monotheisms, God doesn't "create something from nothing", instead he "expresses himself", "expresses his powers", that is how he "creates". Also, he is said to have always existed, and owns everything; that's how he is defined. As such, a question like "Who or what created God?" doesn't apply.
As such, the concept of God is unprovable, irrefutable.
A basic premise in the major monotheisms is that God is in control and nothing happens without his will. If anything, this premise makes monotheism moot, irrelevant, superfluous, as it has no explanatory power.


The actual problem with monotheisms aren't the supposed contradictions in the concept of "God" itself, but in how various monotheists are trying to gain power over people by advocating for their particular brand of monotheism.

If God is in control and nothing happens without his will, then there's no problem: because then people who don't believe in God do so because it's God's will that they don't believe in God; if people believe in God, it's God's will that people believe in him. As such, there is no need for preaching monotheism to people. But again, if people do preach, then that's God's will, too.

In short, the concept of God doesn't explain anything. It gains relevance only on the metatheistic psycho-social level, where it becomes a tool for people to keep eachother in check and to (attempt to) control eachother.

binocular,

This is well written. I have experienced what you shared many times in the real world in 12 Step groups and in Christian organizations in the rural communities where I have lived in the USA. I have heard a man with 28 years of recovery repeatedly share with newcomers that once he turns his will over to God in the morning, what happens the rest of the day is none of his business. If he lies, steals, rapes someone, it was God's will. He would have no responsibility and would have no need to make amends. I cringe when I hear him preach this this to younger people in early recovery.

Similarly I have witnessed and experienced numerous people who call themselves Christians, criticize and condemn others for things that are equal to or not as bad as things they do themselves. These same people use the principles of their particular denomination to control others instead of living by these principles themselves. Many subscribe to the belief that they have no responsibility for their actions, because everything is predetermined by God's plan.

Though there are some spiritual principles I have found in the rooms of recovery and in Christianity that have been helpful, the beliefs I described above do not work for me. I know from the Buddha's teaching and by personal experience and by observing the lives of others that the law of kamma exists. There is great hope found in knowing that our words and actions make a difference. I would feel hopeless to find freedom from suffering if everything were predetermined and my words, thoughts and actions made no difference in my life or in the lives of others.

[bryozoa]

can someone create something from nothing?

acc to physics its impossible some to come in a bang or boom but what if creation of universe and god is beyond physics and does not obey law of physics?

'The problem of evil' discounts the possibility of a omnibenevolent and omnipotent monotheistic Abrahamic God. I have yet to read a convincing theodicy which reconciles the pain and suffering in the natural world with a loving creator god who is capable of directly intervening in worldly affairs. The idea of such a powerful yet merciful being who can but rarely does intervene would be offensive if it wasn't so laughable and contradicted by the abject reality of a world full of suffering. Surely such a being would have had the foresight to divine the suffering that permeates every strata of biological life and quickly nip life in the bud?

However I cannot discount the possibility that the deistic conception of God as the 'prime mover' or 'uncaused cause' may exist. The deist God, if anything is worse than the theist one which is patently not true. Deism says that God is remote and utterly indifferent to the universe it was responsible for. If the deist God exists it's not one I want to know. Although many European thinkers during the Enlightenment were self-professed deists.

[DooDoot]

'The problem of evil' discounts the possibility of a omnibenevolent and omnipotent monotheistic Abrahamic God. I have yet to read a convincing theodicy which reconciles the pain and suffering in the natural world with a loving creator god who is capable of directly intervening in worldly affairs.

My impression is the Jewish god was never meant to be omnibenevolent. As for Christianity, it introduced Satan and redefined "God" as love. Its probably the Christians that misinterpret Judaism that create the idea of a omnibenevolent Creator god. However, in both Judaism & Islam, there appear to be notions that god, somehow, creates both good & evil.

[binocular]

'The problem of evil' discounts the possibility of a omnibenevolent and omnipotent monotheistic Abrahamic God.

Not at all. Of course the Abrahamic God can be seen as omnibenevolent. All that is needed for that is to distance oneself from the humanistic notions of "good".

[bryozoa]

'The problem of evil' discounts the possibility of a omnibenevolent and omnipotent monotheistic Abrahamic God.

Not at all. Of course the Abrahamic God can be seen as omnibenevolent. All that is needed for that is to distance oneself from the humanistic notions of "good".

Nature is amoral so if nature is intelligently designed then the designer must also be amoral?

'Nature is red in tooth and claw'. Couldn't the Great Architect have designed all life-forms to be photosynthetic autotrophs like plants? That why heterotrophic predation would be negated. To put it simply, a large number of life-forms depend upon killing other life-forms to survive because they cannot produce their own food. Nature confers an immediate advantage upon a carnivore in an environment populated by herbivores.

If nature is 'fine-tuned' for life and the 'best possible-world' then the universe has one lousy creator.

The only thing nature is fine-tuned for is a constant 'struggle for existence', competition for limited and finite resources and brutal efficiency.

A benevolent god would have ensured life never got started in the first place.

Some creationists have tried to feebly answer this by muttering about the 'Fall from the garden of Eden' but that just seems like a poor excuse to cover up the reality that the natural world is a very dangerous place and one life-form invariably prospers at the expense of another.

The personal omnipotent/omnibenevolent Abrahamic god doesn't exist.

[binocular]

Nature is amoral so if nature is intelligently designed then the designer must also be amoral?

No, just moral in a way that doesn't happen to please you.

If nature is 'fine-tuned' for life and the 'best possible-world' then the universe has one lousy creator.

And that is your opinion against the opinion of monotheists ...

The only thing nature is fine-tuned for is a constant 'struggle for existence', competition for limited and finite resources and brutal efficiency.

Which doesn't preclude it from being designed by a benevolent, omnipotent creator.
Being on the losing end of the struggle and hating it only makes one a sore loser, but it doesn't make one right.

Some creationists have tried to feebly answer this by muttering about the 'Fall from the garden of Eden' but that just seems like a poor excuse to cover up the reality that the natural world is a very dangerous place and one life-form invariably prospers at the expense of another.

The thing is that those creationists probably don't care about you and your counterarguments to theirs. So in that sense, they are better off than you, they have won that part of the evolutionary battle for survival. Here you are, wondering about these things, spending your time and energy and money, and the monotheists don't care. In the evolutionary struggle for survival, monotheists with their belief that this universe, as it is, with all its brutality, is essentially good and evidence of intelligent creation, are better equipped for survival than secular humanist atheists (who are held back by their dilemmas and moral qualms).

The personal omnipotent/omnibenevolent Abrahamic god doesn't exist.

Why does that matter to you?

[bryozoa]

No, just moral in a way that doesn't happen to please you.

'Survival of the fittest' doesn't please me but I have to accept it as true. However I don't see anything remotely moral about the natural order so for me it is an accident which a benevolent god would have averted by blowing life out before it properly began. If nature is teleological then I want nothing to do with the deist god who could have guided evolution in a more gentle way. I am an anti-deist first and foremost and Freemasonry is the deist religion.

Which doesn't preclude it from being designed by a benevolent, omnipotent creator.
Being on the losing end of the struggle and hating it only makes one a sore loser, but it doesn't make one right.

A benevolent god would ensure there were no 'winners or losers' in life.

The thing is that those creationists probably don't care about you and your counterarguments to theirs. So in that sense, they are better off than you, they have won that part of the evolutionary battle for survival. Here you are, wondering about these things, spending your time and energy and money, and the monotheists don't care. In the evolutionary struggle for survival, monotheists with their belief that this universe, as it is, with all its brutality, is essentially good and evidence of intelligent creation, are better equipped for survival than secular humanist atheists (who are held back by their dilemmas and moral qualms).

I don't see any evidence for intelligent design. Nothing in nature is created ex nilho so I prefer to believe the universe has always existed. I look to 'Plasma Cosmology' and 'Steady-State theory' to support this view (even though both theories have fallen out of favour). My own largely uninformed suspicion is that the concept of god was conflated with solar worship and maybe even veneration and worship of the planet Saturn which the Earth may once have orbited.

Why does that matter to you?

It matters because I find the concept of a moral universe governed by a benevolent god offensive and contradicting reality.

[cappuccino]

lions and eagles are what God compares himself to


that's just a helpful metaphor

[Sam Vara]

lions and eagles are what God compares himself to


that's just a helpful metaphor

Isn't it more correct that lions and eagles are what people compare God to?