Guest guest Posted May 23, 2006 Report Share Posted May 23, 2006 "" a- The claim that God created this world is a fallacy. This implies that God acted in time and therefore he must be subject to time and as such he can't be the creator of it. b- It also implies that the creation falls outside the creator and as the result he is limited in space and not the creator of it. Where the creation is, God can't be. This belies the claim of his omnipresence. A god limited by time and by space is in itself a limited being and not infinite. c- If there was a time that the universe did not exist, then prior to its creation, God could not have been called creator. He became a creator after he created, just as you are not a father until you conceive your child, or you are not a painter until you paint. This means that God is gaining attributes, he is improving. As the result he can't be perfect. If at anytime God existed without his creation, then prior to the creation he could not have been a creator. d- If the creation and the creator co-existed always and the existence is as old as its creator, then the existence of the creator becomes superfluous "" http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina60521p2.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2006 Report Share Posted May 23, 2006 I dont know if you are specifically talking about the Judeo-Christian God, but I am giving a reply from a more general perspective also. > a- The claim that God created this world is a fallacy. This > implies that God acted in time and therefore he must be subject to > time and as such he can't be the creator of it. What if time itself is God? Reminds me of Krishna in the gIta. That changes the situation. Then God is subject to himself/herself/itself, which is hardly a fallacy. Actually, even to say that God created time is not a fallacy even though it is mentally incomprehensible (atleast to me). For the very "first" thought or action of God is synonymous with the creation of time. Moreover, the fact that God "has acted" in time does not imply that God "must be" subject to time. So even from a Judeo-Christian perspective, I am not convinced that this is a fallacy at all. > b- It also implies that the creation falls outside the creator > and as the result he is limited in space and not the creator of it. > Where the creation is, God can't be. This belies the claim of his > omnipresence. A god limited by time and by space is in itself a > limited being and not infinite. The above argument can be wrong in (atleast) two ways - 1. If the creation is the imagination of God, then creation is not external to God. 2. Space itself is not limited in space and there is nothing external to space. Why can't God also be unlimited in space and there being nothing external to God? (I admit I dont fully understand the nature of space and time). If space can have such qualities, why not God? Is it only because God created the world (including space)? This is hardly convincing. There is no obvious reason as to why being the creator should bar God from omnipresence. So this is not a fallacy even from the Judeo-Christian perspective. > c- If there was a time that the universe did not exist, then > prior to its creation, God could not have been called creator. He > became a creator after he created, just as you are not a father > until you conceive your child, or you are not a painter until you > paint. This means that God is gaining attributes, he is improving. > As the result he can't be perfect. If at anytime God existed without > his creation, then prior to the creation he could not have been a > creator. In Vedic religion creation and annihilaiton are eternal cycles. So God is eternally the creator and annihilator. So his/her/its arrtibutes are neither growing nor decreasing. Even from a Judeo-Christian perspective, I am not sure this poses a problem. For if God created time, then the term "prior to creation of time" a meaningless. So God was/is always the creator. > d- If the creation and the creator co-existed always and the > existence is as old as its creator, then the existence of the > creator becomes superfluous The above points must be sufficient to show that this last argument need not hold water. (If anyone thinks otherwise, we can discuss). Best Regards Lakshminarayana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2006 Report Share Posted May 23, 2006 I dont know if you are specifically talking about the Judeo-Christian God, but I am giving a reply from a more general perspective also. > a- The claim that God created this world is a fallacy. This > implies that God acted in time and therefore he must be subject to > time and as such he can't be the creator of it. What if time itself is God? Reminds me of Krishna in the gIta. That changes the situation. Then God is subject to himself/herself/itself, which is hardly a fallacy. Actually, even to say that God created time is not a fallacy even though it is mentally incomprehensible (atleast to me). For the very "first" thought or action of God is synonymous with the creation of time. Moreover, the fact that God "has acted" in time does not imply that God "must be" subject to time. So even from a Judeo-Christian perspective, I am not convinced that this is a fallacy at all. > b- It also implies that the creation falls outside the creator > and as the result he is limited in space and not the creator of it. > Where the creation is, God can't be. This belies the claim of his > omnipresence. A god limited by time and by space is in itself a > limited being and not infinite. The above argument can be wrong in (atleast) two ways - 1. If the creation is the imagination of God, then creation is not external to God. 2. Space itself is not limited in space and there is nothing external to space. Why can't God also be unlimited in space and there being nothing external to God? (I admit I dont fully understand the nature of space and time). If space can have such qualities, why not God? Is it only because God created the world (including space)? This is hardly convincing. There is no obvious reason as to why being the creator should bar God from omnipresence. So this is not a fallacy even from the Judeo-Christian perspective. > c- If there was a time that the universe did not exist, then > prior to its creation, God could not have been called creator. He > became a creator after he created, just as you are not a father > until you conceive your child, or you are not a painter until you > paint. This means that God is gaining attributes, he is improving. > As the result he can't be perfect. If at anytime God existed without > his creation, then prior to the creation he could not have been a > creator. In Vedic religion creation and annihilaiton are eternal cycles. So God is eternally the creator and annihilator. So his/her/its arrtibutes are neither growing nor decreasing. Even from a Judeo-Christian perspective, I am not sure this poses a problem. For if God created time, then the term "prior to creation of time" a meaningless. So God was/is always the creator. > d- If the creation and the creator co-existed always and the > existence is as old as its creator, then the existence of the > creator becomes superfluous The above points must be sufficient to show that this last argument need not hold water. (If anyone thinks otherwise, we can discuss). Best Regards Lakshminarayana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2006 Report Share Posted May 23, 2006 Hari OM! > Where is the space and time? it is only in our minds? How does a Creation happens like GOD seperate from it, since in the presence of Brahman alone things happens. Like with out water how can the ocean exist? " God with aphostraphy s is creation" is not acceptable here and it is a false scholarly Kutarka! to counter argue. Thinking people will never say that everything is GOD's creation, like we can never say, Ocean is Water's creation because Water itself is the ocean. With Love & OM! Krishna Prasad > d- If the creation and the creator co-existed always and the > > existence is as old as its creator, then the existence of the > > creator becomes superfluous > > > The above points must be sufficient to show that this last argument > need not hold water. (If anyone thinks otherwise, we can discuss). > > > Best Regards > Lakshminarayana > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2006 Report Share Posted May 24, 2006 "I dont know if you are specifically talking about the Judeo-Christian God" Title my post says it clearly. Yes i mean Judeo-Chrsitian God. advaitin, "narayana_kl_71" <narayana_kl_71> wrote: > > I dont know if you are specifically talking about the Judeo-Christian > God, but I am giving a reply from a more general perspective also. > > > > a- The claim that God created this world is a fallacy. This > > implies that God acted in time and therefore he must be subject to > > time and as such he can't be the creator of it. > > > What if time itself is God? Reminds me of Krishna in the gIta. That > changes the situation. Then God is subject to himself/herself/itself, > which is hardly a fallacy. > > Actually, even to say that God created time is not a fallacy even > though it is mentally incomprehensible (atleast to me). For the very > "first" thought or action of God is synonymous with the creation of > time. Moreover, the fact that God "has acted" in time does not imply > that God "must be" subject to time. So even from a Judeo-Christian > perspective, I am not convinced that this is a fallacy at all. > > > > b- It also implies that the creation falls outside the creator > > and as the result he is limited in space and not the creator of it. > > Where the creation is, God can't be. This belies the claim of his > > omnipresence. A god limited by time and by space is in itself a > > limited being and not infinite. > > > The above argument can be wrong in (atleast) two ways - > > 1. If the creation is the imagination of God, then creation is not > external to God. > > 2. Space itself is not limited in space and there is nothing external > to space. Why can't God also be unlimited in space and there being > nothing external to God? (I admit I dont fully understand the nature > of space and time). If space can have such qualities, why not God? Is > it only because God created the world (including space)? This is > hardly convincing. There is no obvious reason as to why being the > creator should bar God from omnipresence. So this is not a fallacy > even from the Judeo-Christian perspective. > > > > > c- If there was a time that the universe did not exist, then > > prior to its creation, God could not have been called creator. He > > became a creator after he created, just as you are not a father > > until you conceive your child, or you are not a painter until you > > paint. This means that God is gaining attributes, he is improving. > > As the result he can't be perfect. If at anytime God existed without > > his creation, then prior to the creation he could not have been a > > creator. > > > In Vedic religion creation and annihilaiton are eternal cycles. So God > is eternally the creator and annihilator. So his/her/its arrtibutes > are neither growing nor decreasing. > > Even from a Judeo-Christian perspective, I am not sure this poses a > problem. For if God created time, then the term "prior to creation of > time" a meaningless. So God was/is always the creator. > > > > > d- If the creation and the creator co-existed always and the > > existence is as old as its creator, then the existence of the > > creator becomes superfluous > > > The above points must be sufficient to show that this last argument > need not hold water. (If anyone thinks otherwise, we can discuss). > > > Best Regards > Lakshminarayana > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2006 Report Share Posted May 24, 2006 Hari OM! You are almost talking like a Orthodox Catholic Church priest, we do not require a Saviour to save us and we are not sinners. Please study Advaita Vedanta properly, without wasting time. Jai Jai Shankara, Hara Hara Shankara, Kaladi Shankara With Love & OM! Krishna Prasad > > Thus God identifies Himself with the human incarnation. From this angle > the human incarnation and the God are one and the same. There is another > angle in which the human incarnation is not the original God but a part and > parcel of God. In this angle God and the human incarnation are treated as > father and son. You can experience the Father only through this Son. In the > third angle the human incarnation is just sent by God into this world as a > messenger with some power. Jesus talked this truth in all the three angles. > Jesus can save any human being who has any one of these three angles. > Acceptance of Jesus as your saviour is the essential step in the spiritual > effort. Here Jesus means the human incarnation in general. Only God is the > saviour. But you cannot approach God directly. Only through the human > incarnation you can approach God. This means you should accept the human > incarnation as that very God. In such case only the human incarnation > becomes your saviour. > > at the lotus feet of shri datta swami > surya > www.universal-spirituality.org > > Krishna Prasad <rkrishp99 > wrote: > Where is the space and time? it is only in our minds? How does a > Creation > happens like GOD seperate from it, since in the presence of Brahman alone > things happens. Like with out water how can the ocean exist? " God with > aphostraphy s is creation" is not acceptable here and it is a false > scholarly Kutarka! to counter argue. Thinking people will never say that > everything is GOD's creation, like we can never say, Ocean is Water's > creation because Water itself is the ocean. > With Love & OM! > Krishna Prasad > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.