Why can God be uncaused and uncreated? And why can't the Universe itself?
@Larry: i never said i was an atheist, i'm a pantheist. and the cosmic microwave background doesn't prove the big bang is the beginning and not a simple change
Does the physical universe depend upon the existence of an immaterial creator?
It certainly doesn't appear to, and there are some serious logical problems with the notion that it would. The first, and possibly most obvious, is the source of that supposed "creator." A creator intelligence, if we suppose such a thing exists, would of course have to be of an order of complexity greater than its creation - which makes that creator even less likely to exist than the "creation" we are considering. So in supposing this creator, you've ready just pushed the question of "where did this all come from?" back a step and made it considerably more difficult. If the response to "but where did the creator come from?" is "this creator doesn't require his/her/its own creator," then you are special-casing this supposed creator with no justification at all; you might as well have simply said that the physical universe doesn't require a creator in the first place, and be done with it, rather than introducing this additional entity for no good reason and then hand-waving the question of that entity's own creation away.
Does GOD have a physical body?
God the Father, like His Son, Jesus Christ, has a perfected, incorruptable body of flesh and bone. Joseph Smith, Jr., learned that in his first vision of those Holy Beings. He saw that They are tangible with bodies of flesh and bone--no blood. The Plan of Salvation, authored by the Father, promises that we all will be resurrected at a certain time and that our spirits will reunite with our bodies, becoming perfected in the prime of our lives. This was made possible through the great Atonement made by Jesus Christ.
Is God an anthropomorphised euphemism for the Universe?
I'm Zen Buddhist, and I would agree with your statement. It seems to offend both Xians and atheists, however - each of them for different reasons. Xians seems to think God has a human consciousness, and uses human language to communicate with his favortie vermin (the human race), while the atheists I've known find the word "God" so annoying, I can't get past it when I talk with them. I'll say, "Oh, it just a convenient way of referring to everything, and they'll insist I use the word 'everything' if that's what I mean. Well, in this case, I mean time, space, energy, matter, gravity, and all the other forces in play, known or unknown. Since 'everything' has a more generally accepted, specific definition, I say 'God' to identity the more all-encompassing, transcendental concept of everything. Whether or not this God has a brain or a will or anything anthropomorphic seems to be the important theological issue to Xians and atheists, but not one that Zen requires me to take a position pro or con. We know 'everything' exists, but we don't know if it cares. Zen doesn't care if it cares...
Is God a physical entity?
To answer your question, accurately and precisely, we must, first, define what God is and what a physical or bodily entity is; then we can answer this question that is it possible to ascribe some physical attributes or properties to God, the Almighty, or not? In fact, by presenting a clear definition of God's existence and making comparisons between His existence and physical entity's existence, we understand that God, the Exalted, can never be a physical entity.A bodily substance or physical entity is a sensible substance which is extended in three dimensions. But the important point is that it is finite and limited; because, scientifically talking, this bodily substance is made of some very small atomic parts which consist of some nucleus particles at their centers. Logically, the thing which is made of some finite or limited particles (atoms) is, itself, finite and limited. As a limited cause cannot have limitless effects.A finite and limited entity has its own limited place and location in the space and time that is why we (humans) as some limited and restricted entities could perceive and apprehend the physical entities. Had the physical entities been unlimited or infinite we have not been able to perceive them because in that case they were beyond our knowledge realm. As there is no doubt that the limit cannot cover the unlimited realm. That is why God's existence is beyond our sensual realm of knowledge and we cannot perceive it like the physical beings, at the same time, we cannot deny the existence of a thing that is beyond or outside our knowledge.Finally, God the Almighty, is not a physical entity; because He is the creator of both physical (sensible) and nonphysical (transcendent) worlds, and He is also not limited because the limited thing is imperfect and deficient, whereas God, the Exalted, is not deficient.see:Can you prove why God should be unlimited?
Why not believe in the term God the Creator, transformer, and follow all physical laws in the world where we exist? There is no need for a label here.
Why not believe in the term God the Creator, transformer, and follow all physical laws in the world where we exist? There is no need for a label here.Because you haven’t given me any good reason that I should believe in a single God, or any set of Gods or that there is a “god the creator”.“Why not” is a really sucky reason to form a belief. Why not believe in a million tiny pink teapots, sentient, of course, who are actually in charge of the universe?Really, why not?Doesn’t it make more sense to have knowledge about something before you start having an opinion about it?I have no evidence that a god or gods exist or a million sentient tiny pink teapots either. They could, but without evidence I have no choice but to act as if they aren’t there because there is no way I could possibly know what they want or need or think until I know that they exist.So tell me what would be the point of pretending to believe in something for which I have no evidence to actually believe in? And which version of this something should I believe in?It’s never as simple as some of you may think it is. You can not just pretend or make yourself believe in something you do not. You can not wave a magic wand and come up with some all encompassing solution for everyone. Reality is messy and complex and involves a wide and infinite variety of perspectives.Also, some of us simply don’t believe in a creator God and that is, like it or not, a perfectly good reason not agree with you. We don’t owe you an explanation and we shouldn’t be forced to conform to make you feel better.Finally, it wouldn’t stop there. It never does, from there, suddenly all kinds of people will start telling every one else what they think this creator God wants, thinks, or needs, who is good and who is evil. All without any evidence, exactly like they do right now.
Is Hell physical torture or mental torture or emotional torture?
both
Who created God, and don't cop out by claiming that he always was. That is the answer of a faulty mind!?
Some people think man had to have a creator, but then they look like fools when they say God did not have to have a creator. Could anything be more illogical? Then some claim that the world so complex, God had to do it, or is it more logical to postulate that a complex world would require millions of years of evolution to attain it?