How do you imagine God created Adam?

[sumofighter]

Have you ever thought about how God did it? I mean did God start with the sceleton and then he put on the muscles and then the organs or do you think God simply formed the shape of Adam using dust and then the holy spirit simply came into Adam and all of a sudden the dust turned into living tissue?
Somehow this is so hard to imagine, isn't it? I cannot grasp this. But the problem is that when I cannot grasp something in my mind and imagine how it happened or visualize it then it seems so abstract and unreal to me.
It's the same with God creating the universe. It's also impossible to grasp. Or God being able to read our thoughts. How does he do this?

[Adam Knowlden]

That's an excellent question.

The concept is called Ex nihilo.

It means created from nothing.

As difficult as it is to wrap our minds around this concept, whether you believe in the biblical explanation of the universe or the big bang you must adhere to this concept at some point.

[ QUOTE ]
Or God being able to read our thoughts. How does he do this?

[/ QUOTE ]

God's mind is infinite. He is not limited in any capacity.

[sumofighter]

So you think God already had everything in his mind and then he simply executed it?
But then I ask myself did God need to come up with good ideas or did he always knew how he would design humans?
What I also ask myself is wether God looks like us because the bible says he created us in his image. Some christians say this means that God looks like a human. He sits on a throne, he has hands, a mouth, a nose, ears and so on. Somehow I find this hard to imagine. If God looks like us then does God also have a heart, a lung, a liver, a digestive system?
Or when God created the universe with his words then does this mean that the elements obey him and do what he says or does it rather mean that God speaks and then the Holy Spirit executes his command?

[Down 2 Die]

He did create us in his image. However, this also meant that humans lived hundreds of years, most around 650-700 years I believe. When the human race became too wicked and were going against his wishes, God flooded the Earth and decided we would be more mortal, meaning that we would die at a younger age.

I don't know that you can say God has a look necessarily. To be honest, none of us can know. I believe the founding Jehovah's Witnesses claimed to know what he looked like. I doubt there is much need for a digestive system or anything of the sort. Do you believe that God excretes waste the way humans do, whether its by urination, oils, sweat, etc.? I certainly don't.

[aricho]

i wonder if he has massive muscles?........nar but seriously, since jesus IS god (or thats what ive been taught) then we are created in the image of jesus?

i dont know lol.

also, where is god? i know about the universe and how its forever expanding and stuff, but where is god, sitting out side of it?

and how was the big bang created, and why is the universe so big??

lol just a few of my questions!

[l0stsheep]

Interesting question and I know that we all wonder what God looks like. The main verse that talks about what God looks like is found in Genesis Chapter 1:

“Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness;” (vv 26)

Some people take this mean that God looks like a human being; he has a nose, eyes, ears…and so on. But we have to remember what Jesus said about the Father: “God is Spirit” (John 4:24) Therefore a spirit would not be confined to a certain form or a certain way of appearing. He simultaneously appears as everything. (But this goes more into God living outside our time domain.)

Anyway, I do not think that Genesis 1:26 talks about God’s appearance but, rather, God’s make-up. That verse has little clues about this. First, more plainly to us, we see that God said, “Let <u> us</u> make man in <u>our</u> image according to <u>our</u> likeness.” Some scholars like to claim this is God using the “Royal We” but I don’t see any evidence for that since God doesn’t use this so called “Royal We” any other time, which would make sense if this were the normal way God addressed himself. But no, God says, “us, our, our” to emphasize something to us. This emphasis is seen in the actual word for God in this passage. In this passage the word “Elohiym” is used for God. Interestingly this word carries with it plurality. In other words, it speaks of at least three being the plural of “El.” Thus we see, built into the text, God’s triune nature; we see the Trinity! (cf. Matt. 3:16, 17; 28:19) This adds to what the text is saying. Essentially, God describes himself as a trinity and, therefore making us in His image, makes us as a trinity.

This is a little difficult to swallow, I know. But God is a Higher Trinity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. We are a lesser trinity: Body, Soul/Mind, Spirit. Look here:

In Genesis 2:17 God said, “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." But, now, we know the story here. Adam and Eve ate from the tree but then it doesn’t look like they died! Was God lying then? No: we think they didn’t die because we can’t see all of them. In fact, they did die that day; they Spirit died. Our Spirit is what connects us with God (as a Spirit) and this is why when they ate the fruit, thus disobeying God, they were withdrawn from God’s presence. Direct connection with God was now impossible because sin was in the world.

But fast forward a few thousand years and look at what Jesus says, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God […] Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (John 3:3,5,6) We are all born of flesh; we have bodies. But our spirit needs to be reborn so that we can reconnect with God and have eternal life with Him. How does this happen? Well the guy Jesus was talking to asked the same thing. How do we re-connect with God? Jesus replies, “For God so loved the world, that he gave is only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16)

We are a triune being, just like God. We have a body, mind, and a Spirit. And it is only through Spirit that we can commune with God; Adam and Eve, when their spirit dies, lost that connection with God. Not by God’s choosing, but by the simple fact that man had become a sinful being. But now that Jesus died, and rose from the dead, we have the opportunity to cleanse ourselves from our sins. And NOW, our Spirit takes life and we have a perfect connection with God, just as he intended.

[ QUOTE ]
also, where is god? i know about the universe and how its forever expanding and stuff, but where is god, sitting out side of it?


[/ QUOTE ]
Scientists are discovering that our Universe has more than the 4 dimensions(if you include time) that we can perceive. Therefore, there are things we cannot feel/see that exist. Interesting, huh?! The only way we might be able to see these un-perceivable things is indirectly by seeing how things react to them.

Where is God? God is everywhere in our world, but he is also outside of our Universe. Think: Space is expanding, this is proven by science, but what is it expanding into? God is in these other dimensions, ~10, therefore his existence cannot be comprehended by us, who can only comprehend 4. How can God be everywhere at once? Well, look at a picture of two stick figures on a piece of paper. They have 2 dimensions, while you have at least 3 (time doesn't apply to this example). And since you are in more dimensions then the two stick figures, you can be more intimate with EACH of them than they can be with each other. Moreover, if you put them in a comic, you can view the beginning AND the end simultaneously.

Science tells us that there are more dimensions than we can know. Since God is in these dimensions, this is why God can be everywhere at once, know everything...and so on.

[ QUOTE ]
and how was the big bang created, and why is the universe so big??

[/ QUOTE ]

This IS the question of the ages! And there is no answer! No scientist can tell you, with full-proof explanation, how the Big Band occurred. They say the Universe started with NO matter but was infinitely hot. But since the 1st law of thermodynamics says energy cannot be created or destroyed, where did the energy for INFINITE heat come from. Even the Big Bang theory implies an outside source for this energy.

Evolutionists will also say that, given time, things will become more complex. But any child can tell you that in this Universe, that is not correct. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that things go from order to disorder. Write your name in protein powder on the backseat of your car and drive around for a few hours. Check on it again and will your name still be written? Of course not! You will be cleaning up protein powder from your carpet for a while because your unique design broke down. That's what happens. This is because intricate things cannot come about from time. In our Universe, things break down with time, not become more complex. Thus, the complex human, cannot come from the Ape...and so on.

[slackie911]

Venom you posed the question refuting the big bang, "where did this energy come from?"

i've always wondered, why did it have to come from anything? could it always just have been there, the same way we believe God has always just been there?

[rnunez03]

[ QUOTE ]
Venom you posed the question refuting the big bang, "where did this energy come from?"

i've always wondered, why did it have to come from anything? could it always just have been there, the same way we believe God has always just been there?

[/ QUOTE ]

But I think that would make this energy equal to God. Since God has always "been around", he is unique. No other thing could be existent along with God. I don't know if that makes sense.

[Venom]

[ QUOTE ]
Venom you posed the question refuting the big bang, "where did this energy come from?"

i've always wondered, why did it have to come from anything? could it always just have been there, the same way we believe God has always just been there?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure if you actually meant to refer to me here. But I have a possible answer. [img]/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Here are some quotes from Jonathan Sarfati explaining why the universe had to be created:

1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

It’s important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below...In addition, Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space.

There is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.

1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.

If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy — the ‘heat death’ of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible. So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.

Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause — no-one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. So would all law enforcement, if the police didn’t think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house. Also, the universe cannot be self-caused — nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity.

IN SUMMARY
The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.

It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.

The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.

1) Does the universe have a beginning?
Oscillating universe ideas were popularized by atheists like the late Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov solely to avoid the notion of a beginning, with its implications of a Creator. But as shown above, the Laws of Thermodynamics undercut that argument. Even an oscillating universe cannot overcome those laws. Each one of the hypothetical cycles would exhaust more and more usable energy. This means every cycle would be larger and longer than the previous one, so looking back in time there would be smaller and smaller cycles. So the multicycle model could have an infinite future, but can only have a finite past.2

Also, there are many lines of evidence showing that there is far too little mass for gravity to stop expansion and allow cycling in the first place, i.e., the universe is ‘open’. According to the best estimates (even granting old-earth assumptions), the universe still has only about half the mass needed for re-contraction. This includes the combined total of both luminous matter and non-luminous matter (found in galactic halos), as well as any possible contribution of neutrinos to total mass.3 Some recent evidence for an ‘open’ universe comes from the number of light-bending ‘gravitational lenses’ in the sky.4 Also, analysis of Type Ia supernovae shows that the universe’s expansion rate is not slowing enough for a closed universe.5,6 It seems like there is only 40-80% of the required matter to cause a ‘big crunch’. Incidentally, this low mass is also a major problem for the currently fashionable ‘inflationary’ version of the ‘big bang’ theory, as this predicts a mass density just on the threshold of collapse — a ‘flat’ universe.

Finally, no known mechanism would allow a bounce back after a hypothetical ‘big crunch’.7 As the late Professor Beatrice Tinsley of Yale explained, even though the mathematics says that the universe oscillates, ‘There is no known physical mechanism to reverse a catastrophic big crunch.’ Off the paper and into the real world of physics, those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, and that’s the end.8

2) Denial of cause and effect
Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates this cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writes:

… spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition. … Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation … Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing.9

But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario ‘should not be taken too seriously.’

Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate — their ‘quantum vacuum’ is a lot of matter-antimatter potential — not ‘nothing’. Also, I have plenty of theoretical and practical experience at quantum mechanics (QM) from my doctoral thesis work. For example, Raman spectroscopy is a QM phenomenon, but from the wavenumber and intensity of the spectral bands, we can work out the masses of the atoms and force constants of the bonds causing the bands. To help the atheist position that the universe came into existence without a cause, one would need to find Raman bands appearing without being caused by transitions in vibrational quantum states, or alpha particles appearing without pre-existing nuclei, etc. If QM was as acausal as some people think, then we should not assume that these phenomena have a cause. Then I may as well burn my Ph.D. thesis, and all the spectroscopy journals should quit, as should any nuclear physics research.

Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. This universe can't have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldn't have any properties until it actually came into existence.


Here are some good sources.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...modynamics.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/news...c_american.asp

[l0stsheep]

Great, Venom!