A one thousand and one question. Can "he"? I know that we wouldn't have existed without "him", but i make the claim that it goes the other way, too, and i am not being arrogant here.
A one thousand and one question. Can "he"? I know that we wouldn't have existed without "him", but i make the claim that it goes the other way, too, and i am not being arrogant here.
na wa ooooo.
i dont know how som people think, it is the in the bible that before the heavens and the earth were created God has been existing. it is in genesis in case you have not seen it before, please do some research. if you have any other point to prove that God cannot exist without us, i am waiting.
@ porter & all who share your line of reasoning.
Who are these that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Wilt thou disannul God's judgment or make void His words? wilt thou condemn the Lord, that thou mayest be righteous? Where were you before thou was born? Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth & despiseth his God/Creator, let him answer it! You better be wise and repent of your sins before judgement catch up with you. But if you refused God's provision for your salvation through the grace that is in Christ Jesus, you live to remember today that I told you and you'll definately regrett it!
BTW, the opening post was referring to the henotheistic version of the creator known as Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah/Jesus, etc., not the deistic version, so shallow sight was not even supposed to be in this discussion because he is not a henotheistic, as far as i know.
If shallow sight had cared to look at the OP before jumping in with both feet and blood flooding his head, he would've seen that i used the male pronoun "HE" to indicate which version i was referring to. As far as i know, only the henos use male pronoun for their version of the creator. Perhaps the deists refer to their own version as a "HE" too, i can't tell.
But overarching fact remains that without the diverse concepts of a creator entity being put into the consciousness of mankind and maintained there through mostly religions (seems like that is THE central task of theirs), man would have thought far far far less of such an entity and simply just go through their existence like animals do, which equates to non-existence of GOD. What is absent in man's collective consciousness simply does not exist in this plane of physical reality, even if this existence is a reality outside of it.
This is why sentience is an absolutely crucial quality of mankind in this physical universe, because it bestows the ability of abstract thinking that makes us able to contemplate not only the self-existence, but the idea of a creator, thus bringing in all kinds of versions of the creator into our consciousness on our own, hence the act of creation of all kinds of versions of almighty creators in our own existential reality.
Atheists would rather not have such a concept shoved into their collective consciousness, directly or indirectly. Which means that left to them, God would not have existed in the collective consciouness of mankind, which would then mean that God would not have existed at all in this physical existence.
If you could say this regarding cosmic bodies -
Then I give up; you are entirely and irretrievably lost in your delusions if you imagine that the Planet Neptune or the Andromeda galaxy keep popping into and out of existence based on which tiny human being on earth is looking at them through a telescope.
Are you alright?
Please go and study astronomy and the age of these cosmic bodies ol boy. You have NO idea what they are. You state to me that other galaxies do not exist unless we are observing them. I am sorry, but that is simply stark illiteracy.
Maybe when you lock up your bedroom and go out to work, the bedroom ceases to exist since no one is observing it. According to you, it pops back into existence once you return to open the door. Bravo! Aladdin in the Arabian Cave of Wonders!
Na wah for you. You need a medical check-up.
Enjoy, Alice in Wonderland. I am surprised i ever bothered with your delusions.
My responses should have informed you already what my points are. When i talked about the symbiotic dance of creation between the creator and the created, when did i ever alluded to the created coming first before the creator? My arguement is based on the clear logical truth that;
1) creation qualifies any being as a creator. No being can be called a creator(no matter how powerful) without having created something.
2)Sentience can and does bestow upon any being the capability to create. That means, humans are sentient, thus, they do create as well.
3)We humans bring God to life IN THIS PLANE OF EXISTENCE CALLED THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE WHERE IT ACTUALLY COUNT, AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME, AT LEAST FOR US. We bring God into existence on earth by breeding it and holding it in our collective consciousness via our beliefs, and the ability to contemplate abstractly.
Are you getting it now or you are getting more confused?
1) An entity becomes a creator by initiating the creation.
2) The creation(the physical universe, for example) in turn, then bestows the qualification of the title "creator" on that entity.
3)The sentient qualities of beings within that creation then recreate that creator entity(in varyingly diverse versions) and maintain it's continuing existence in their collective consciousness(which is a legitimate act of creation). What do you think that we are both doing right now with this debate? We are keeping and maintaining the existence of this creator being in our consciousness. That is the gift and power of sentience.
This is not about who created whom first. The symbiotic dance of creation between the creator and the created? The single integrated entity? I thought you would have enough contemplative depth to have seen that already. I see that you've lost any depth that you think you might have. Stay off debating too long with shallow minded folks, it has rubbed off on you.
Tell me something, how did you get your concept of who or what God is, sir?
As of now, the INSIDE of our perception is what counts and not what is outside of it. Now, prove to me, if you can, how God can exist within our collective perception(which is what counts now) without us, without our sentience having anything to do with it.
This is why i said that you lack contemplative depth. Please, change your username to "Shallow Sight", henceforth. You have demonstrated that you no longer have any depth. You have lost it all. Stay away from debating with henos and atheists until further notice, perhaps you might get your contemplative depth back by then to stop you from misreading posts.
Again - In your response to me you described the creator as the "initiator" of the creation.
Then in your response to Bastage you asserted that the creator is only the imagination of created beings.
Which is it?
I repeat; you are violently confused and I sincerely warn you to be careful of your sanity. I mean this in a sincere way because I have been there before and I can tell you that you are leading yourself to a state wherein you will become existentially challenged. You will snap. Seriously.
@ Jenwitemi - This quote from YOU -
Summarily proves that your conjecture is not worth any body's attention.
1. You stated that the creator is the INITIATOR who INITIATES creation. This shows that you concede that the creator existed before the creation
2. You CONTRADICT yourself by stating that the creation (after it is initiated by the creator) BRINGS THE CREATOR INTO EXISTENCE.
This is a horrid and irretrievable contradiction as it envisages a creator being brought into existence AFTER it had already initiated the creation (which shows that it existed already before the creation!). Can i ask you how the creator initiated the craetion if it DID NOT EXIST at that point of initiation? Since according to you it could not exist without the cognition of created sentient beings.
Your posts are a comic relief.
Again in your response to Bastage you repeat that nothing can exist without recognition by sentient beings.
I repeat my earlier question to you; did the planet Neptune exist before humans discovered it?
Did uranium exist before humans discovered it?
Did the Andromeda galaxy exist before humans discovered it?
It seems that you do not read at all. I asked you these questions and you ignored them. Of course what these questions ineluctably demonstrate is that things exist OUTSIDE our perception. Thus our cognition is not central to the xistence of anything which is outside our perception. If this is the case then your surmise that God cannot exist without our cognition is bunkum.
I am presonally not interested in words, but more interested in what lies behind words, what they represent. And i have been around long enough to have realized that how words are used defer from individual to individual. It is a thing of subjectivity.
1. If we create God to suit our inner state of spiritual growth, and ‘it’ is whatever each individual makes ‘it’ to be; are you then saying that in your 'perceptions', God does not exist other than in man’s fantasy/imagination? = Yes. That is why the understandings and definitions of what God is is so diverse within humanity. We recreate God in our own image.
2. If God is a product of our own imagination and experiences, as you imply, then what do you mean when you say that the created and the creator ‘create each other simultaneously’? = First of all, in order to understand my response to this question, you will need to know that the act of creation of the universe itself plus all within it, is an ongoing process. Creation is never finished, never completed. Creation is forever happening moment by moment. So because the creation is an ongoing process, this symbiotic dance of simultaneous acts of creation between the creator/initiator and the created is always ongoing. It never stops. The creator is dreaming/imagining the created and the vice versa is also happening, simultaneously. That is the eternal symbiotic dance of creation. It goes on forever.
3. If God is not a product of man’s imagination then does he exist apart from man? = I have already answered that question in my earlier posts. God cannot exist outside our perception, imagination, and contemplation abilities. We bring the creator to life just as it does us. We are one unit.
4. What exactly is the essence of God from your point of view? = God is the initiator. It is the life force of it's own creation, just as you are the life force of all that is in your dreams and imaginations.
5. Is man God? = Man is an expression of God, just like your fingers are the extensions of your hand, or the wave crescents are part of the see. They are inseparable unit. In that line of thought, one can also call man, God. That is why we possess the same creative power that God also possesses. It is one unit of sentience.
6. If man is not God, then what is man? = See above.
I hope i answered your questions satisfactorily.
You assert that; ‘the creator and the created are one inseparable unit. They are not separated by each other, so they create each other simultaneously'. This obviously is just a point of view, borne out of your own personal 'experiences' and exposures. I hope you don't think it's anything more than that!
I notice that in a lot of your posts you implore people to be 'perceptive' (a word which by the way needs defining); yet your response, that ‘God’ is just an ‘English word’, to my question; ‘what is God?’, leaves me wondering what exactly you mean when you use the word 'perceptive', because in my little understanding of what it means, that response would most certainly not qualify.
You then assert confidently that; ‘God is whoever or whatever each individual makes "It" to be through his/her perception, intuition, and worldview. We create God to suit our inner state of spiritual growth. One man's God is another man's blasphemy.’
To avoid any further misunderstanding would you kindly clarify a few questions that linger in me, reading through your statements:
1. If we create God to suit our inner state of spiritual growth, and ‘it’ is whatever each individual makes ‘it’ to be; are you then saying that in your 'perceptions', God does not exist other than in man’s fantasy/imagination?
2. If God is a product of our own imagination and experiences, as you imply, then what do you mean when you say that the created and the creator ‘create each other simultaneously’?
3. If God is not a product of man’s imagination then does he exist apart from man?
4. What exactly is the essence of God from your point of view?
5. Is man God?
6. If man is not God, then what is man?
Please address the issues and stop messing about.
You use the word "creator" for God and "created" for other sentient beings - WHY? ? ? ? Since you claimed they created each other why don't you use the word "creator" for the humans and "created" for God? ? ?
There is a reason that you deploy the word "creator" in reference to God: and everything you have said contradicts that reason.
As for "eternal in the past" It simply means something that has always existed. Infinity has always existed. Have human beings always existed? Can you prove that? ? ? ?
You are violently confused: and the tragedy of your confusion is that you imagine anything exotic or contradictory to be symptomatic of perceptiveness.
The creator and the created are one inseparable unit. They are not separated from each other, so they create each other simultaneously. There is no before and after, no linearity.
If God should pull the plug on this universe now, we will all seize to exist and so will "he". We, the universe, and God will all vanish into nothingness, and that's that. And that is why the plug will not be pulled, and that is also why the sentients will always be at the top of creation.
To answer the question, God is whoever or whatever each individual makes "It" to be through his/her perception, intuition, and worldview. We create God to suit our inner state of spiritual growth. One man's God is another man's is another man's blasphemy. The word, "GOD", in itself is not of any significant importance, but the concept behind it is. That was why i made that statement that "God" is just a manmade english word. Satisfied now? I was hoping you guys would be a bit more perceptive, but you were obviously not.
It is all good.
This does nothing to answer the question "What is God." This escapist response may be given in respect of everything. If I am asked what a TABLE is, I could toe your path and state - "Table is a man made English word." That of course does not tell me what a table is, because the word "table" refers to something, just as surely as the word "God" refers to something.
What is a Car. Your answer - "it is a man made English word." Ol boy you go fail exam o. Because the word "car" refers to something - an automated vehicle moving on wheels.
Ridiculous. Hocus pocus. Bunkum. This only works if humans are eternal in the past - i:e have always existed. There is no way you can assert or prove that that is the case. Accordingly it is prepostrerous to state that God created us and that simultaenously we created God - for the simple reason that if God created us, then naturally this implies that we came into existence AFTER God - and as such could not have been there to create God before we even existed. Quit the absurdities, Jenwitem.
Jenwitemi,i know u re a theist&do know how powerful God is.I read in the bible how balaams donkey spoke to balaam.If God wants amoeba to talk,he can/could do so.If u believed that the complex universe was created by God,dont u think he can make less complex animals/non animals to praise him?
The topic is both perceptive on one level and yet tragically ill conceived on another level.
The very nature of God by necessity expresses itself in terms of creation. In this sense I might say that God's very existence naturally and necessarily expands outward as creation. What this implies is that God cannot cease to "create" - creation is a mere manifestation of the eternal and infinite mind of the Godhead. Thus in answer to the OP: there is a sense in which it may be said that God does not, and cannot "be" without the natural expression of God's mind: to wit: creation.
But one must be most careful in this observation. This in no way implies that God "needs" anybody, race, species or entity for anything. It simply means that all that exists is a necessary manifestation of God's mind - which cannot but be the case. It could not be otherwise.
Jenwitemi makes alarmingly contradictory statements.
The above, for example, is absolutely ridiculous.
If i create a work of art, the fact remains that I have created a work of art - whether or not ANY third party observes it. I cannot see how the affirmation or validation of a third party is required in any terms whatsoever. The fact remains that I have created that work of art. If I am a conscious and aware being, I would be aware that I have created a work of art. It is ridiculous in the extreme to argue that I am not an artist unless a third party sees my work. That is a pure logical fallacy. It seems Jenwitemi imagines a God who is despoerate for fame.
But the bizzareness does not stop there. If we consider strictly the question in the OP, it should be noted that the OP implies that the failure of any third party to observe my art not only renders me a non-artist - but in fact means that i do not exist. I submit that that is ridiculous in the extreme. It amounts to a suggestion that if the universe was not observed by mankind, then the creator ceases to exist. Or there was never a creator. This is unimaginably ridiculous.
Worse still, Jenwitemi concedes that he makes no point when he states -
This utterly closes the OP's case against himself.
I am tempted to say that you actually answered your own question. But I think it's not really that simple, if you were looking for a philosophical answer to the question; 'Can God exist without us?'
Your earlier write-up about our 'sentience' and the whole act of acknowledging God on earth presupposes that we already know what 'God' and 'sentience' are. But in all honesty, I think that nobody really knows. The Holy books give to us shadows of God, while the Neurosciences are still struggling to come to grips with what 'consciousness' is really all about.
So until we are clear without any ambiguity what I mean when I say; I am, ', or what I am saying when I affirm; 'God is, ', it will be difficult to fully answer the question you pose. And until then, our responses are but primitive grunts and aberrations of the truth, clouded by our own beliefs, unbelief’s, life experiences and the cultures where-in we became ‘sentient’.
In my belief system, the relationship between God and man is not symbiotic. The spirit of Man from which consciousness seeps is a blurred expression of the ineffable one. Man's 'worship and praise' of God is for man's benefit alone and not for God's. Our 'spiritual' exercises of attempting to 'walk with’ Him are for our own benefit, but God can do without man.
God does not need man to exist as God is self-sufficient. He just is.
To be a creator, one needs to have created something observed by another sentient being capable of acknowledgement. So, the created does not necessarily have to imagine it's creator in order for the creator to exist, even though this might be the case if the created is sentient enough, like humans for example. It can go both ways. The relationship between the created and the creator is always symbiotic, they both compliment each other. It is a dance of symbiosis.
Story story. You're boring. Just because you don't have an husband doesn't give you the privilege to make a married person doubt the existence of marriage, or love or what marriage entails. Don't waste my time. Believing is seeing. Thank God, I believe and I see. Which level you dey? Go and start something profitable.
Did I just see brilliant? I'm sure you don't know the meaning of the word 'fanatic'.
So you confirmed that you don't know God, little wonder. Well, I know Him and He told me that He's eternal, from endless ages to endless ages, and I trust Him and I love Him. And humans are not his only or first creation. His fulfilment or happiness is not centred on earth(which he formed long time before man), not to talk of man who is very young and falls short of God's standard.
If you want to know God, you should talk more with people who know Him, and less with the ilk of mockers and haters, gerrit?
If you think i am thinking all wrong, then explain to me how a being can be a creator without his/her creation(s)? And while you are at it, explain clearly to me, how a creator who does not create sentient beings that can independently perceive him/her as "their" creator, can claim to be a God?
If a creator creates, for example, a universe with unicellular organisms as the only life forms in it, how does the existence of that creator being get acknowledged? Unicellular organisms are not going to acknowledge him as a creator because they are not sentient. They are not going to form a religion to worship him, praise him, neither will they write scriptures about him and beat themselves in the head about who has the right interpretations of those scriptures or who does not.
Without the sentient beings to do all that, without a sentient third party to witness the process of creation being carried out by God, then God simply does not exist. That is why there are still atheists. . .
Yes God can exist without us. I read in my bible that man was created only after the angel was already in existence with God. Remember what david said in Psalm 8 vs
4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all [things] under his feet:
7 All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field;
8 The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, [and whatsoever] passeth through the paths of the seas.
So God created man out of Love and nothing more