What is god and how did he/she/it get made?

[_Chap]

I lol'd

Just making humor from an unfortunate thread title.

Actually, to answer the question, God is a homo sapiens according to LDS theology. Since the doctrine also is that matter and intelligence have always been around, I postulate that the Gods were made by evolutionary processes and then through a series of Tower of Babel like experiences, uplifted themselves to Godhood. Many casualties along the way. But now they have perfected and refined the process and we have Agency vis a vis the Atonement.

I have to say that one of the things I do like about Mormon theology is that their deity doesn't have the mainstream Judeo/Christian/Islamic deity's crazed metaphysical pretensions about being an uncaused cause, an uncreated creator, and all the rest of the god-babble that some people still trot out for our edification.

[_Ceeboo]

Dear Chap,

I am really becoming exhausted by you always answering my questions by asking me more questions. I think (correct me if I am wrong) that I always try my best to answer your questions (In an effort to share, learn, and gain better understanding from those who believe differently than I do). I am fine that we don't believe the same thing. Are you?

I have clearly told you that I believe that God is the cause of the creation and existence of the universe.

Would you like to share your belief with me? (You don't have to)

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Chap]

Dear Chap,

I am really becoming exhausted by you always answering my questions by asking me more questions. I think (correct me if I am wrong) that I always try my best to answer your questions (In an effort to share, learn, and gain better understanding from those who believe differently than I do). I am fine that we don't believe the same thing. Are you?

I have clearly told you that I believe that God is the cause of the creation and existence of the universe.

Would you like to share your belief with me? (You don't have to)

Peace,
Ceeboo

I ask you questions because I keep wondering how you can make sense of the beliefs you claim to hold. Evidently you find that a strange thing to do; perhaps it doesn't bother you if your beliefs don't make sense?

I believe, on the contrary, that questioning one's own beliefs and those of others is an essential part of being human.

So there's one for you to share, if you want to.

[_Ceeboo]

Dear Chap,

I am really becoming exhausted by you always answering my questions by asking me more questions. I think (correct me if I am wrong) that I always try my best to answer your questions (In an effort to share, learn, and gain better understanding from those who believe differently than I do). I am fine that we don't believe the same thing. Are you?

I have clearly told you that I believe that God is the cause of the creation and existence of the universe.

Would you like to share your belief with me? (You don't have to)

Peace,
Ceeboo

I ask you questions because I keep wondering how you can make sense of the beliefs you claim to hold. Evidently you find that a strange thing to do; perhaps it doesn't bother you if your beliefs don't make sense?

I believe, on the contrary, that questioning one's own beliefs and those of others is an essential part of being human.

So there's one for you to share, if you want to.

Unbelievable!!!!!!!

Good night and peace to all. :)

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_bcspace]

Fascinating take. So, you believe that man exalted himself, if I understand you correctly.

I postulate (not believe) that the first Gods uplifted (exalted) themselves yes. I think it is unlikely that our God was one of those though technically it is possible. But I think the doctrinal fact that God was once a mortal man like us seems to point more towards a God who went the same process we are going through now.

God has not always existed as a god?

Yes. Think of larger and smaller infinities. God has always been God relative to us (smaller infinity). Yet at some point in time, God was not God (larger infinity). It is possible to diagram this on a number line.

[_Chap]

I ask you questions because I keep wondering how you can make sense of the beliefs you claim to hold. Evidently you find that a strange thing to do; perhaps it doesn't bother you if your beliefs don't make sense?

I believe, on the contrary, that questioning one's own beliefs and those of others is an essential part of being human.

So there's one for you to share, if you want to.

Unbelievable!!!!!!!

Hmm. Ceeboo evidently has a criterion for deciding what beliefs are believable.

Now if only he would tell us what it is, that would be really useful to know ...

[_Hoops]

Hmm. Ceeboo evidently has a criterion for deciding what beliefs are believable.

Now if only he would tell us what it is, that would be really useful to know ...

Oh, the irony!

[_honorentheos]

What is god (to you) and how did it come into existence? Is it alive?

Thanks!

What is God: the sublime, the god of Job, Nature with a capital "N", a placeholder for the transcendent or that which we can not explain but that elevates man while reminding us that we are, in the end, here for a short while and conditions here are mold-able.

Is it alive: I defer to NASA, and in particular the response to this question -

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/life's_working_definition.html

Q: In the category of what is "alive," would you exclude what you call the "borderline" cases - viruses, self-replicating proteins, or even non-traditional objects that have some information content, reproduce, consume, and die (like computer programs, forest fires, etc.)?

This is a complex question. Language is vague, and all terms face borderline cases. Is an unmarried twelve-year-old boy a "bachelor?" How about an eighteen year old? How many hairs does it take to turn a "bald" man into a man who is "not bald?" 20 or 100 or 1,000 hairs?

The fact that there are border line cases -- that we can't come up with a precise cut-off -- doesn't mean there isn't a difference between a bachelor and a married man, or a bald man and a man who is not bald. These difficulties don't represent profound difficulties; they merely represent the fact that language has a certain degree of flexibility. So I don't think that entities like viruses provide very interesting challenges to definitions of "life."

On the other hand, I don't think that defining "life" is a very useful activity for scientists to pursue since it is not going to tell us what we really want to know, which is "what is life." A scientific theory of life (which is not the same as a definition of life) would be able to answer these questions in a satisfying way.

As an analogy, the medieval alchemists classified many different kinds of substances as water, including nitric acid (which was called "aqua fortis"). They did this because nitric acid exhibited many of the sensible properties of water, and perhaps most importantly, it was a good solvent. It wasn't until the advent of molecular theory that scientists could understand why nitric acid, which has many of the properties of water, is nonetheless not water. Molecular theory clearly and convincingly explains why this is the case: water is H2O -- two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Nitric acid has a different molecular composition.

A good theory of life would do the same for the cases that you mention, such as computer programs. Merely defining "life" in such a way that it incorporates one's favorite non-traditional "living" entity does not at all advance this project.

In the NASA working definition of life, objects like stars could be described as alive. I'm not sure at this point if "God" meets this definition or not.