If "God" exists, has he always created?

[Perceiver]

Has God, Source, The Tao or whatever you call it - always created or did it begin to create at some point?

#1 God has always existed and always created.

 

But how can an act of creation have no beginning? The physical is finite and transient. Surely it must have some beginning? Being does not need a beginning but creation does?

 

#2 God has always existed. But at some point he decided to create.

 

But wouldn't time and thoughts then apply to God? If God "decided" to create he would be subject to time: There was a time before and after God created. Time would now apply to God, yet God is supposed to be outside of time. Decisions, and therefore thinking would also apply to God. Yet God is outside of thinking due to his perfection. He simply is, and does not engage in choice-based decisions.

 

I've been thinking about this the past two days and I can't find the right answer. It's driving me crazy . And I sense there is great wisdom about the nature of infinity hidden somewhere within in it..

Edited August 28, 2014 by Perceiver

[Anoesjka]

But wouldn't time and thoughts then apply to God? If God "decided" to create he would be subject to time: There was a time before and after God created. Time would now apply to God, yet God is supposed to be outside of time. Decisions, and therefore thinking would also apply to God. Yet God is outside of thinking due to his perfection. He simply is, and does not engage in choice-based decisions.

 

Well, if the universe, space and time are parts of the Source, the Source is still all encompassing and not subject to it's parts. Time is an aspect of the Source, so outside of the Source there's no time. Or space. Or matter, for that matter.

[Protector]

There are a few fun conditions for god's existence

Let's define god real quick: it's the most powerful being, period, and that has a few interesting implications

For god to stay powerful wise and perfect, all that must stay true and never be possible to challenge

Yet, our nature and imagination wants to compare it to other things. Say, god shows up and it's stronger then a cow. After the cow looses to god, we can imagine the competition going in cow's favor if the cow lifted more then god did, then we can go back to imagining god winning by listing more then the cow lifted during the second competition and that can keeps going and going in circles. In the end, if the god showed its god power as proof, we can easily one up god with our imagination and our imagination of god would be more powerful then real god and the real god will stop being the real god. Basically, tao that can be spoken is not the eternal tao quote.

 

Now, if the real god without any limit showed up in our universe, the universe would be destroyed. The logic behind god destroys the laws of reality and it cannot exist, unless it's an imaginary concept. Consider the duality of existence and nonexistence, god is such a powerful example of nonexistence that it might even define it. So, before the universe, there was god. The universe came into existence and god went out. The only action god can take at any point is to be. It's ingredient of creation and a fun thought experiment.

[Silent Answers]

Infinity is a funny thing. Even if you could find a beginning, it would at the same time be the end. Before there was anything, everything existed as pure potential....and it continues thus in either direction.

 

As one, it is everything, yet can do nothing...it HAS to create so that it can be. It's ironic that as we strive for non-doing in Taoism, the Tao itself can only rest through it's wisest manifestations.

 

I may write more about this when I get home from work later... where the internet is not pre-dial-up speed ...

Edited August 29, 2014 by Silent Answers

[Perceiver]

Anoesejka:

 

Yes, Time would per definition be God too. Because what is time after all? It is the witnessing of particles changing form, and then applying your own standards to that.

 

But that still raises the question: Have particles always existed and have the always been changing form? Or did they start from "something". And if they did not start from something then how can something come from nothing? And if that nothing is God, then we're still stuck with the scenario that God one "day" decided to create?

[Protector]

Well...

 

[Silent Answers]

Anoesejka:

 

Yes, Time would per definition be God too. Because what is time after all? It is the witnessing of particles changing form, and then applying your own standards to that.

Time is the result of motion, which is the result energetic forces caused by matter. Time only exists when the Tao is creating.

[Anoesjka]

What is your definition of god? Maybe it's a good idea to define that first.

 

When you research matter, you come up with nothing tangible. It can only described as a certain state of energy. Or it can be described in terms of interactions particles have with each other and electromagnetic energy. Matter (and thus energy) can be created out of a vacuum, leaving you with matter and anti matter. The reverse is also true.

 

Matter, +1, antimatter,-1.

(+1)+(-1)==0 and viceversa

 

So, probably consciousness creates space/time and space/time creates consciousness. But in the end it's just nothing. And god doesn't care if he exists or not.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Anoesjka

[soaring crane]

And god doesn't care if he exists or not.

 

I guess that would be Dao?

[Protector]

So, probably consciousness creates space/time and space/time creates consciousness. But in the end it's just nothing. And god doesn't care if he exists or not.

 

Humans care immensely

[Perceiver]

Anoesejka:

 

What I can't figure out is the following: How can something come from nothing? Something can only come from something. Yet if that is true, how can something always have been and have no origin?

 

Your writing on matter and anti-matter is interesting, but has this been scientifically proved? To my knowledge, an absolute void has not been proven to exist. Space is, as you probably know, not an absolute void either.

My definition of a God would be the following: A first cause which is not a cause. He simply is and always has been. Ultimately, everything arises from him as he is the frame from which reality arises. He knows it all and nothing is not within his gaze. He possesses intelligence.

 

The world is and we are. Reality is.

 

Now, has reality always been? Have particles always been changing form? Has consciousness always been emerging? Has God always created or did he decide to do so?

[Seeker of Wisdom]

...What I can't figure out is the following: How can something come from nothing? Something can only come from something. Yet if that is true, how can something always have been and have no origin?...

I think reality functions as a multiverse or something, where everything that exists is caused by prior things and this goes back infinitely. So no need for a God or first cause IMHO, which removes confusing questions.

[3bob]

Has God, Source, The Tao or whatever you call it - always created or did it begin to create at some point?

 

#1 God has always existed and always created.

 

But how can an act of creation have no beginning? The physical is finite and transient. Surely it must have some beginning? Being does not need a beginning but creation does?

 

#2 God has always existed. But at some point he decided to create.

 

But wouldn't time and thoughts then apply to God? If God "decided" to create he would be subject to time: There was a time before and after God created. Time would now apply to God, yet God is supposed to be outside of time. Decisions, and therefore thinking would also apply to God. Yet God is outside of thinking due to his perfection. He simply is, and does not engage in choice-based decisions.

 

I've been thinking about this the past two days and I can't find the right answer. It's driving me crazy . And I sense there is great wisdom about the nature of infinity hidden somewhere within in it..

 

Suggest along the lines of both transcendent and immanent, and along the lines of Panentheism.

[GrandmasterP]

Sublime indifference.

Tao just is.

We know from the TTC that Tao can't be defined with any degree of accuracy.

No point in trying IMO.

Edited August 29, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Anoesjka]

Sublime indifference.

Tao just is.

We know from the TTC that Tao can't be defined with any degree of accuracy.

No point in trying IMO.

Just like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

[Anoesjka]

 

Your writing on matter and anti-matter is interesting, but has this been scientifically proved? To my knowledge, an absolute void has not been proven to exist. Space is, as you probably know, not an absolute void either.

In a vacuum matter is constantly created in the form of particles and anti particles. Those are called virtual particles. They exist for a very short amount of time, before they collide and annihilate each other. This is main stream science.

 

Nothing gets lost and nothing is gained, except when near a black hole. Then it causes what is known as Hawking radiation. (one of the particles gets sucked in to the black hole and the other one escapes)

[dawei]

I think this belongs in General if we're not talking really about Tao.

IMO, Tao doesn't really create; it is the master blueprint in creation of things arise, evolve, create, return.

Thus, it "shows up" in the beginning of things.

IMO, Tao comes from ONE (Singularity, pre-manifest).

[GrandmasterP]

Just like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

 

Maybe.

Maybe not.

I'm not sure.

 

[Daeluin]

Can the true function of God remain true when described with words? The key seems to be in understanding how to demonstrate what is hidden, using hidden methods.

 

The operation of God is beyond the scope of discussion - if you want to understand God, become God.

 

Book Ziporyn, Zhuangzi, Ch 2, on the subtlety of God and creation, and how the Sage operates within:

 

Now I will try some words here about "this." But I don't know if it belongs in the same category as "this" or not. For belonging in a category and not belonging in that category themselves form a single category! Being similar is so similar to being dissimilar! So there is finally no way to keep it different from "That."

 

Nevertheless, let me try to say it. There is a beginning. There is a not-yet-beginning-to-be-a-beginning. There is a not-yet-beginning-to-not-yet-begin-to-be-a-beginning. There is existence. There is nonexistence. There is a not-yet-beginning-to-be-nonexistence. There is a not-yet-beginning-to-not-yet-beginning-to-be-nonexistence. Suddenly there is nonexistence. But I do not-yet know whether "the existence of nonexistence" is ultimately existence or nonexistence.

 

Now I have said something. But I do not-yet know: has what I have said really said anything? Or has it not really said anything?

 

Nothing in the world is larger than the tip of a hair in autumn, and Mt. Tai is small. No one lives longer than a dead child, and old Pengzu died an early death. Heaven and earth are born together with me, and the ten thousand things and I are one.

 

But if we are all one, can there be any words? But since I have already declared that we are "one," can there be no words? The one and the word are already two, and the two and the original unnamed one are three. Going on like this, even a skilled chronicler could not keep up with it, not to mention a lesser man. So even moving from nonexistence to existence we already arrive at three - how much more when we move from existence to existence! Rather than moving from anywhere to anywhere, then, let us just go by the rightness of whatever is before us as the present "this."

 

Now, courses have never had any sealed borders between them, and words have never had any constant sustainability. It is by establishing definitions of what is "this," what is "right," that boundaries are made. Let me explain what I mean by boundaries: There are right and left, then there are classes of things and ideas of the proper responses to them, then there are roles and disputes, then there are competitions and struggles. Let's call these the Eight Virtues! As for the sage, he may admit that something exists beyond the six limits of the known world, but he does not further discuss it. As for what is within the known world, he will discuss it but not express an opinion on it. As for historical events, he will give an opinion but not debate it. For wherever a division is made, something is left undivided. Wherever debate shows one of two alternatives to be right, something remains undistinguished and unshown. What is it? The sage hides it in his embrace, while the masses of people debate it, trying to demonstrate it to one another. Thus I say that demonstration by debate always leaves something unseen.

 

The Great Course is unproclaimed. Great demonstration uses no words. Great humanity is not humane. Great rectitude is not fastidious. Great courage is not invasive. For when the Course becomes explicit, it ceases to be the Course. When words demonstrate by debate, they fail to communicate. When Humanity is constantly sustained, it cannot reach its maturity. When rectitude is pure, it cannot extend itself to others. When courage is invasive, it cannot succeed. These five are originally round, but they are forced toward squareness.

 

Hence, when the understanding consciousness comes to rest in what it does not know, it has reached its utmost. The demonstration that uses no words, the Course that is not a course - who "understands" these things? If there is something able to "understand" them [in this sense], it can be called the Heavenly Reservoir - poured into without ever getting full, ladled out of without ever running out, ever not-knowing its own source.

 

This is called the Shadowy Splendor.

[Silent Answers]

 

I think this belongs in General if we're not talking really about Tao.

 

IMO, Tao doesn't really create; it is the master blueprint in creation of things arise, evolve, create, return.

 

Thus, it "shows up" in the beginning of things.

 

IMO, Tao comes from ONE (Singularity, pre-manifest).

I never understand the argument that Tao can come from One, instead of being the One ... Surely if there is a two in all of this, it's Yin and Yang. Combined, they are Tao. No?

 

Not trying to pick faults in your belief. I'm just interested to know why you believe this instead of the more apparent link in translation.

[dawei]

I never understand the argument that Tao can come from One, instead of being the One ... Surely if there is a two in all of this, it's Yin and Yang. Combined, they are Tao. No?

 

I used to hold more to the idea of Tao as One but it seems to get too much of assigning Dao as *something* but it is not. I don't think we should try to give Dao a form either; it is intangible.

 

For Dao to be One, it must be that which holds the One together... prior to the manifest unfolding... which would mean that Dao is static/dormant/inert... This is another reason why I moved away from this idea, which in my head was as: Dao was similar to the 5 elements transforming in phases.

 

Visiting a Daoist temple changed all this for me. I can't really explain why. Let's just say I saw the inverse. . Dao is an idea which arose with all things.

 

The ONE I talk of is more like "not-two; not-one" but I don't have any other word but Pre-manifest One.

 

 

Not trying to pick faults in your belief. I'm just interested to know why you believe this instead of the more apparent link in translation.

 

What do you mean by 'more apparent link in translation' ?

[3bob]

I used to hold more to the idea of Tao as One but it seems to get too much of assigning Dao as *something* but it is not. I don't think we should try to give Dao a form either; it is intangible.

 

For Dao to be One, it must be that which holds the One together... prior to the manifest unfolding... which would mean that Dao is static/dormant/inert... This is another reason why I moved away from this idea, which in my head was as: Dao was similar to the 5 elements transforming in phases.

 

Visiting a Daoist temple changed all this for me. I can't really explain why. Let's just say I saw the inverse. . Dao is an idea which arose with all things.

 

The ONE I talk of is more like "not-two; not-one" but I don't have any other word but Pre-manifest One.

 

 

 

What do you mean by 'more apparent link in translation' ?

 

It's well that that can not really be explained for the explanation would never cover or equal it,

thus only aspects can be more or less explained or talked about and after that we need to let it be.

Edited August 29, 2014 by 3bob

[Silent Answers]

 

I used to hold more to the idea of Tao as One but it seems to get too much of assigning Dao as *something* but it is not. I don't think we should try to give Dao a form either; it is intangible.

 

For Dao to be One, it must be that which holds the One together... prior to the manifest unfolding... which would mean that Dao is static/dormant/inert... This is another reason why I moved away from this idea, which in my head was as: Dao was similar to the 5 elements transforming in phases.

 

Visiting a Daoist temple changed all this for me. I can't really explain why. Let's just say I saw the inverse. . Dao is an idea which arose with all things.

 

The ONE I talk of is more like "not-two; not-one" but I don't have any other word but Pre-manifest One.

 

 

 

What do you mean by 'more apparent link in translation' ?

I meant that in most translations of Taoist material, they usually give the impression that Tao is One, or the primal energy. But that is open to translation and interpretation.

 

When you say changing elements, do you mean alternating phases of Yin and Yang? (I know you've said that was a previous belief)....and ....Is another way to describe how you see Tao a bit like a star? (Hydrogen fusing into Helium, resulting in radiation, the light ((radiation)) being you're Tao, like a side effect of gravity)

 

That comparison sprang to mind, and sounds intriguing. Or maybe I'm just over thinking at 4am

[Perceiver]

The post by Daeluin - especially his copy-paste - is a golden nugget of wisdom. I suggest everyone to read it. Here's what I gained from it:

In order for god to be he cannot know where he came from. Why? Because he cannot know where he started. He cannot have started because the start would always imply a first cause behind which lies a cause-behind-first-cause and so on per infinity. God could never know this first cause as it would mean the undoing of everything that is. In order for something to be, there must be, by definition, a cosmic mystery. God's existence is that mystery and he cannot know why he came about or why, as it would imply something out of god, whereby he would not be god. That is why he is doing the only thing he can do: manifesting, and moving the mystery to ever greater heights of understanding about itself.

 

But that still leaves one question: did god do this all the time, or did he decide to do so at one point?

[Gerard]

Has God, Source, The Tao or whatever you call it - always created or did it begin to create at some point?

 

Sorry but no one will give you an answer to this question, not even a Buddha. Focus on more important things like: have I found a good method to purify my mind? This quest can take you years if not decades...if you are lucky/have good karma.

Edited August 30, 2014 by Gerard