What or who created the universe?

[Bogey]

Genesis 1:1 takes care of this question for me.  I do not have an internal longing to question it further.  However, I applaud the dialogue here simply due to this quote that I recently heard and have embraced:

Kneel before the creator over the stars, but for answers, turn to one another.

[arkiv]

I could always refer to a Prime Mover, a Transcendent Being,

Trascendent Being would be an approximate term, but maybe we human beings are also trascendent in another dimension.

[71 dB]

Genesis 1:1 takes care of this question for me.

Day 1: God creates light.
Day 2: God creates the heavens.
Day 3: God creates dry land and sea.
Day 4: God creates lights in the heavens.
Day 5: God creates sea creatures and birds.
Day 6: God creates the land animals and human beings.
Day 7: Day of rest.

Really? What does "day" mean here? Is it 24 hours? Is it a God day? Can God create in darkness? I suppose he can because he was able to create light (is this our Sun?) in darkness. When did he create time? Can time be created when there is no "time" to do that? "Lights in the heavens" must mean stars but when did he create planets? Where was God lurking before he created the world? Is this "week" the only time period God created something? So, Genesis 1:1 really takes care of this question for you? For me it raises tons of questions!

I do not have an internal longing to question it further.

I hope you do question other important things in life further instead of just accepting what it "indoctrinated" to you.

[71 dB]

In what numerical base? 

Any. You can always write 10₂ + 10₂ = 100₂ in binary base.

Hello 71db in answer to your post
I am not Lazy and I am not explaining things with “God“, I note btw that you use a capital G?? and to the contrary it is people that have done a hell of a lot of thinking that come to the conclusion that we just do not know and more than likely never will, now if you want to stick a label [agnostic] onto this group, Fair enough your prerogative.

We don't know for sure but that doesn't mean we don't have a clue. Scientific search doesn't indicate in the direction of a god described in religion. The existence of "Einsteinian" god is much more probable but such god doesn't give a damn if we worshipped him or not. For religious people the non-existence of god must be proven. For me it's the opposite, the existence of god must be proven. Why should I believe a rumour of god's existence without evidence? People can (and has) come up with all kind of irrational, crazy, inhuman, harmful and immoral claims. Agnostic people are so certain that we will never know for sure. That's a point of view I don't share. I HOPE we will know for sure soon (before the year 2050 would be nice). Even if we can't know for sure we should try, try and try... 

Really!! HOW??

I don't mean matter or energy can be removed from our universe just like that. I mean it is easy to imagine an universe with less energy and matter. Try to imagine a universe with less logical rules!

Again you are falling into the trap that the laws that govern this bit of our UV will apply every where and for all time You are also attributing reason, and an identity to LOGIC???

When you say something applies it means it's logical. Without logic the word "apply" is meaningless. And yes, I think logic is independent from everything else. It's the other way around; all possible universies must be logical.. Logic is an abstraction, not an identity.
   

Do not think of God as a entity,  You are only going so far, try and push a bit further and you will come to a brick wall, this is because IMHO our brains are limited to what we experience, I consider it is not possible for us to understand…..

So, are you saying that because it's "impossible" to know about God, it's rational to be 100 % sure that God exists and despise people who don't share that conviction? That's what religions are doing.

I don't understand why you are so certain we can't solve the God question someday. Evolution has created amazing brains for us. Let's us them!

[Bogey]

I hope you do question other important things in life further instead of just accepting what it "indoctrinated" to you.

Absolutely.  Always have, and always will.  This includes aspects of my spirituality.  I have found by questioning and digging for answers concerning my faith it has only strengthened it.  But, for the specific question posed here, I am content.

Day 1: God creates light.
Day 2: God creates the heavens.
Day 3: God creates dry land and sea.
Day 4: God creates lights in the heavens.
Day 5: God creates sea creatures and birds.
Day 6: God creates the land animals and human beings.
Day 7: Day of rest.

Really? What does "day" mean here? Is it 24 hours? Is it a God day? Can God create in darkness? I suppose he can because he was able to create light (is this our Sun?) in darkness. When did he create time? Can time be created when there is no "time" to do that? "Lights in the heavens" must mean stars but when did he create planets? Where was God lurking before he created the world? Is this "week" the only time period God created something? So, Genesis 1:1 really takes care of this question for you? For me it raises tons of questions

Nothing wrong, in my opinion, of this raising many questions for you.  However, the further questions you posed above are ones that though they may cause me a level of "wonderment" from time to time do not burden my desire for answers to them in the least bit.  I guess we differ on this point.  In short, your spiritual path will be unique to you as it is for me.  I do hope you find your answers along the way.

[DavidW]

Really? What does "day" mean here? Is it 24 hours? Is it a God day? Can God create in darkness? I suppose he can because he was able to create light (is this our Sun?) in darkness. When did he create time? Can time be created when there is no "time" to do that? "Lights in the heavens" must mean stars but when did he create planets? Where was God lurking before he created the world? Is this "week" the only time period God created something? So, Genesis 1:1 really takes care of this question for you? For me it raises tons of questions!

I hope you do question other important things in life further instead of just accepting what it "indoctrinated" to you.

You know since it's clear from your probability post that you reject the very notion of qualitative assessment, it also becomes clear that you can't grasp the concept that most people seek truth and understanding from the bible, and not a literal reading to be scrutinized and analyzed.

I can't dig it up now, but Asimov had addressed this point brilliantly in a short story.  If God were to pass on an exact accounting of the history of the universe up to this point, the book of Genesis would be so big that we could have to cut down all of the forests in the world to publish it.  And people would gain little from reading it.  The bible is meant to be parables that outline spiritual meaning and give guidance.

I'm an atheist, Asimov was an atheist, but I bet we would both agree that your Genesis argument is a non-start.

[Bogey]

Again David, it is always a pleasure to read your posts, no matter how far apart we may be on this issue.  In short, your words a written with intelligence and kindness that clearly state your position without attacking others' beliefs, but maintaining the integrity of your own.  A large reason I refer to you as "friend".

I would like to add another quote of recent read that also helps capsulates my view on my faith that may further clarify for you 71 dB my take on questioning it.  It comes from Edward M. Yamauchi (credentials here: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Edwin-M.-Yamauchi):

"This doesn't mean that I don't recognize that there are some issues that still remain: within this lifetime we will not have full knowledge.  But these issues do not even begin to undermine my faith in the essential trustworthiness of the gospels and the rest of the New Testament."

[71 dB]

You know since it's clear from your probability post that you reject the very notion of qualitative assessment, it also becomes clear that you can't grasp the concept that most people seek truth and understanding from the bible, and not a literal reading to be scrutinized and analyzed.

I can't grasp? This sounds like the comment if you don't like a movie you don't "get" it. The bible is a messy collection of conlifting stories and instructions for leaders about how to control people, women and slaves. It has very little to do with 21th century. Seeking truth and understanding from it is not only stupid but also destructive for the society. 

I can't dig it up now, but Asimov had addressed this point brilliantly in a short story.  If God were to pass on an exact accounting of the history of the universe up to this point, the book of Genesis would be so big that we could have to cut down all of the forests in the world to publish it.  And people would gain little from reading it.  The bible is meant to be parables that outline spiritual meaning and give guidance.

I am no expecting an exact accounting of the history of the universe from the bible. I am not expecting any kind of relevant accounting from it. It's clear such information was not available at the time the bible was constructed. That's the point. Genesis 1:1 is a funny naive old "theory" about how the world was created. It's insane that millions of people today take such BS seriously (why would many people be against scientifically proved evolution theory if it wasn't for bible and believing in it?). Even the spiritual meaning and give guidance aspect is very weak.

I'm an atheist, Asimov was an atheist, but I bet we would both agree that your Genesis argument is a non-start.

What's the problem with it? I explained why it is stupid to accept Genesis 1:1 as the explanation of how the world was created. I can't see why Asimov (or any other atheist for that matter) would not support my view. 

[DavidW]

I can't grasp? This sounds like the comment if you don't like a movie you don't "get" it.

No really it doesn't sound like that at all.  Your analogy doesn't work because you're equating your lack of understanding (there is a disparity between what you consider important, and what the average christian would consider important) with a difference in taste.  There is a difference between dislike, and contempt due to a lack of understanding.  You're showing contempt for christians based on the book of Genesis, I hardly consider that a noteworthy issue.

I am no expecting an exact accounting of the history of the universe from the bible. I am not expecting any kind of relevant accounting from it. It's clear such information was not available at the time the bible was constructed. That's the point. Genesis 1:1 is a funny naive old "theory" about how the world was created. It's insane that millions of people today take such BS seriously (why would many people be against scientifically proved evolution theory if it wasn't for bible and believing in it?).

I think this gets down to the matter, certainly there are many people that do interpret the bible literally, however the majority of christians as a whole do not.  And this is why pointing out the obvious flaws in the book of Genesis is not a good starting point for criticizing christianity as a whole.

What's the problem with it? I explained why it is stupid to accept Genesis 1:1 as the explanation of how the world was created. I can't see why Asimov (or any other atheist for that matter) would not support my view. 

The problem is that you point out the obvious in an issue that's not terribly important, and expect that your criticism shakes the very foundations of that religion.  You lack perspective.

[71 dB]

No really it doesn't sound like that at all.  Your analogy doesn't work because you're equating your lack of understanding (there is a disparity between what you consider important, and what the average christian would consider important) with a difference in taste.  There is a difference between dislike, and contempt due to a lack of understanding.  You're showing contempt for christians based on the book of Genesis, I hardly consider that a noteworthy issue.

I think this gets down to the matter, certainly there are many people that do interpret the bible literally, however the majority of christians as a whole do not.  And this is why pointing out the obvious flaws in the book of Genesis is not a good starting point for criticizing christianity as a whole.

The problem is that you point out the obvious in an issue that's not terribly important, and expect that your criticism shakes the very foundations of that religion.  You lack perspective.

Bogey said: "Genesis 1:1 takes care of this question for me."

I said that for me Genesis 1:1 raises tons of questions instead of taking care of anything. I was trying to tell Bogey that maybe he should not be happy with the answers of the bible. I recommend to seek for a more intellectual explanation.

Now you accuse me for trying to criticize whole christianity with Genesis 1:1! Wow! What a jump! 

Shaking the very foundations of religion is laughable easy but it takes much more than Genesis 1:1.

[DavidW]

Bogey said: "Genesis 1:1 takes care of this question for me."

That was simply his clever way of saying he calls the what/who (of the thread question) God.  Your response was to confuse Genesis 1:1 with Genesis 1, and thus miss the point.  I suppose now I understand that you weren't using the excuse of Genesis being named for your tirade, instead you simply misread Bogey's post.  That's understandable.

[71 dB]

That was simply his clever way of saying he calls the what/who (of the thread question) God.  Your response was to confuse Genesis 1:1 with Genesis 1, and thus miss the point.  I suppose now I understand that you weren't using the excuse of Genesis being named for your tirade, instead you simply misread Bogey's post.  That's understandable.

Sorry, I don't know what is the difference between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1. I though we were talking about the former. I am not a bible expert. It's new to me that bible really takes care of this question and we who don't believe in god are simply wrong. I will certainly go to hell for this. Damn! 

[Bogey]

Sorry, I don't know what is the difference between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1. I though we were talking about the former. I am not a bible expert. It's new to me that bible really takes care of this question and we who don't believe in god are simply wrong. I will certainly go to hell for this. Damn! 

I do not believe I stated you were wrong.  I simply stated what works for me.  We obviously disagree, but "wrong" was never entered into the conversation at my end.  I even believe I was careful enough in my previous posts to use pronouns like "I" and "me".  In fact I even underlined "my" in one of the sentences.  However, if you are trying to be confrontational for a reaction from me, please do not take this post as a rebuttal, but rather a clarification on my part.  However, in regard to being wrong, are you absolutely sure that I am? 

[Sarastro]

Your
you're
You're
you
your
You
his
he

Sorry for off-topic, but I've noticed that you like to speak for others, distort their posts, and assign them things they've never said. Or simply jump to hasty conclusions never reading the posts thoroughly enough?

[DavidW]

Sorry for off-topic, but I've noticed that you like to speak for others, distort their posts, and assign them things they've never said. Or simply jump to hasty conclusions never reading the posts thoroughly enough?

Don't troll.  If you want to respond to a post that I've written, then do so.

[Joe_Campbell]

Don't troll.  If you want to respond to a post that I've written, then do so.

Perhaps he was hoping you wouldn't call him out on that?

oh dear! Am I also trolling?

[arkiv]

Joe Campbell, do you practice cyclism?

[Joe_Campbell]

Only when the weather's nice.

[arkiv]

Only when the weather's nice.

This invernal station does make us think profoundly in the greatness of the creator entity, does not it?

[The new erato]

I will certainly go to hell for this. Damn! 

Relax. We can meet and have a good time. I will bring my Elgar discs!