Did god create us or did we create God?

Again, the idea of a definitive "answer" does not even really make sense. Science is about againing progressive knowledge, which is very possible in terms of our origin. It doesnt even really make sense to discuss an "answer of the origin" at this point. Its a false concept. We can only gain more knowledge.

Oh, I know. I'm just saying why there is faith and religious belief, and why it will always remain. Regardless of how much knowledge we may have, we'll never know if our theories about anything in general will ever be 100% correct, and that's why faith and religion will always exist in some way. So in that sense of not having complete knowledge about something, is it wrong to have a tad bit of doubt in regards to science and let one's faith and personal philosophy linger about in regards to certain things? This is mainly directed towards those that say faith/religious faith is bad and science should be the only way of thought/life.

- N
 
Well, i agree that science doesnt answer everything.....and i agree thats one reason religion exists. Its The God of the Gaps. Whenever science cant' explain something, God must have done it. We just have to be careful of making the mistake of thinking that just because something can not be explained at this point in time, it must be due to something supernatural. There are many other (and more likely) possibilities.
Science, logic and reason are not the only way of thought, but i would argue they are the only valid ways. To believe otherwise is, well, just faith.

Greg
 
Well, i agree that science doesnt answer everything.....and i agree thats one reason religion exists. Its The God of the Gaps. Whenever science cant' explain something, God must have done it. We just have to be careful of making the mistake of thinking that just because something can not be explained at this point in time, it must be due to something supernatural. There are many other (and more likely) possibilities.
Science, logic and reason are not the only way of thought, but i would argue they are the only valid ways. To believe otherwise is, well, just faith.

Oh, and just so ya know, me personally, I don't toss everything unexplainable as to being an act of God. The only unexplained I equate to God is the infinity loop (never-ending creation, laws of nature, etc) of the first moment of creation (not creation as is mentioned in holy texts). For anything else unexplainable, I just toss that up to us not knowing what it is at the moment.

- N
 
When you speak of the first moment of creation that could be equated with god, which creation are you speaking of? Creation of the universe? I think that is quite feasable that we may someday understand the creation of this universe.In the future, we may have knowledge of other universes the way we have knowledge of other galaxies right now. If it turns out that we discover some super universe which our universe and others reside in, then will god be equated with the creation of that superuniverse? And when we discover how that one was formed.......and so on...
My point here is that there is really no reason, other than pure faith, to equate a god with anything.
But i believe you are correct, gaps in science is a main reason for the existence of religion.

Greg
 
When you speak of the first moment of creation that could be equated with god, which creation are you speaking of? Creation of the universe? I think that is quite feasable that we may someday understand the creation of this universe.In the future, we may have knowledge of other universes the way we have knowledge of other galaxies right now. If it turns out that we discover some super universe which our universe and others reside in, then will god be equated with the creation of that superuniverse? And when we discover how that one was formed.......and so on...

I'm referring to the first moment of creation which made everything as it is. Take the Big Bang for example, that's a first moment of creation, but implies we're the first and only universe. Now the question in regards to the Big Bang is, who or what was the Big Bang? We know what happened when it exploded, but what was it when everything was condensed into that one moment? What was that cosmic firecracker, was that God? And when everything exploded to become atoms and everything to intereact with one another to create all that we see here, why do they interact the way they do? Who or what wrote those laws of nature to say that this atom will do this with that atom to create this and that? Those are questions to the origins of creation, the very begining.

And yes, if we find more universes, I will continue to ask that question because another universe does not answer my question, it only makes it harder for you to answer my question. I doubt this is the only universe, I can almost guarantee it although you guys don't like "faith" as a guarantee, heh. I believe everything to be a spherical, relative, infinity. We have tiny atoms, which are spherical, we have atoms smaller and bigger than that, which are spherical. We have planets which are spherical, which I believe to be in a sense a bigger atom, and I'm sure once we discover our whole universe, it will be spherical as well trapped inside another much bigger spherical universe just as the atom is trapped in the Earth and the Earth is trapped in our universe. I bet in regards to size and scale, our universe is as big as an atom is to Earth, as the Earth is to our universe. And the same will apply to our universe compared to the other universe it's in. Atoms are atoms that make up planets and planets are atoms which make up universes. It's all on relative quantum and [whatever the opposite word for quantum is] scales.

We can find billions upon billions of other universes but that won't tell us anything about how everything came together and was first created. All a super infinite universe will show is that indeed, everything is an infinity, but still, how did things become that way and who and what decided to make it like that, we'll never know. And who and what wrote the laws of nature as they are to make everything create non-stop into infinity? That's why I say there's some sort of originating, jump-starting creator -- God, for lack of a better word. Science doesn't give us answers, it merely gives us more questions. And when we do get answers, it's towards things that have nothing to do with our question. And people wonder why other's have faith? At least discover something that at least remotely comes close to answering our question.

If I ask about creation and later in the future someone says our universe was created by another universe and we're part of an infinite super universe, that's not answering the question as to the origins of all creation, it's just helping make that question go on forever. That infinite question is the question scientists have, not those with faith. Those with faith say there was a begining which sparked off the infinite. But when we say that, the non-believers then ask "So if God started creation, who created God" which would then be "If so-and-so created God, then who created that person/thing", ad nauseum. Those with faith don't have to know what it is or was, we just have faith that there was something that sparked it all off. It's the scientists that HAVE to know. Too bad they hate philosophy so much.

Knowledge such as knowing about infinite universes is actually making it harder to answer the question, not easier. Those scientists seeking the infinite become an insect trapped in a spider's web. They continue seeking, fighting, and struggling which only tangles them up even more in the web of knowledge, and that's when death finally comes around and makes its move.

If you continue to chase those never-ending infinite universes, you'll never get your answer but those with faith had their answer before that second universe was ever discovered. Those with faith were able to answer their own question because it was in much simpler, less blinded, terms whereas the seeking scientists are making it harder on themselves. Scientists complain about having to sift through all the garbage to make sense of it all, but heh, by gaining more knowledge itself, that's adding to that garbage especially if it deals with infinity. If the answer to the origins of all creation is God, it is in simple terms to one with faith such as 10^10 whereas for the scientist is winds up being 10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10, except it goes on for infinity. One with faith says that there was a begining, simple as that, but that scientist foolishly thinks he can chase infinity. I bet after finding fifty universes within universes, scientists will still be stubborn and won't admit to saying that the universe is infinite. That next universe is like a carrot on a stick to them.

It's quite amusing, yet sad, because scientists thrive off knowledge, but what happens when they will never know everything? They become trapped in their own little infinite seeking Hell. Ahh, so that's what a lost soul must be. I at least know when I've met my match.

My point here is that there is really no reason, other than pure faith, to equate a god with anything.

Yes, there is. The biggest reason is when it comes to the past. And, heh, asking about the origins of all creation is the number one, most hardests question there is. It is absolutely the oldest moment in time. If it's impossible to figure out completely what went on a million years ago, do you honestly think we'll ever even remotely come close to figuring out what happened the exact first moment of creation? Lol, you're putting waaaaaay too much "faith" in science. ;) Science will have figured out a way to grant immortality to everyone, the ability to teleport, to explore every known planet in all the universe, to have conquered all and become Gods ourselves, before we ever have the answer to the origins of all creation.

Science only gives an understanding of how things work. When it comes to the past, it's still 90% assumption, 10% evidence. And most of the evidence mainly has to deal with the final outcome of the event, not how the event went down or what came before it.

Even assuming the Big Bang is what caused all of creation, and we have super duper ungodly good telescopes which could look back so far into the universe to see that exact moment (pretending this is all possible), all we would see is an explosion and that would still leave us with the main question. We would see the action and the outcome, but not what happened before. It would be like trying to unpuzzle an archaelogical dig. We see a bunch of bones, weapons, dead bodies, and all that. One could say a war happened and we could guess that one side won since the other side had the most casualties. Assuming all that was correct, we still wouldn't know why it happened. We have the event, the war, and the outcome, one side winning, but nothing to know what went on before that event. Just like with the Big Bang, we have the event, the explosion, and the outcome, life as we see it, but not the details before then as to why it happened. There's just some things we will never know. You seem to think we'll be able to eventually figure everything out, but we won't in regards to the past. So, well, have some faith. ;)

- N

P.S. Sorry, ugh, that was way too long.
 
There is still no reason to equate that which we dont know to God. You have successfully shown there is much about the creation of our universe and origin that we dont know yet. However, there is no evidence that we should be equating this to god. There's no reason to assume that just because we cant explain it yet (or even if we can never explain it) that it must need a supernatural explanation. There are likely laws of physics that operated near the origin of our universe that we dont know yet...but we can rest assured they were perfectly natural. No reason to believe otherwise (except faith, again)

Neildo "if you continue to chase those never-ending infinite universes, you'll never get your answer.....

Why do they have to be neverending?? Why infinite?? By labeling them with terms like this, you are claiming to "know" something about the exact things you are claiming we can never know about.

Neildo: "Those with faith were able to answer their own question because it was in much simpler, less blinded, terms whereas the seeking scientists are making it harder on themselves." (emphyses added)

This statement was perplexing to me.
People with faith are less blinded than science?? They are only less blinded to themselves, because to them religion is always right. In reality, they couldnt be more blind if we removed their occipital lobe. And scientists are making it harder on themselves?? Unfortunately the path to the truth is not easy. Definately not as easy as those with faith would like us to believe. Science is tough, you are right. And finding the truth of the origins, as you have stated yourself, is a tough task. But a noble one.

You make the point that faith is much simplier than science. I couldnt agree more. Unfortunately the simple answer is not necessarily the correct one. If simple is what we are looking for, faith is the way to go. If truth is what we are looking for, put your money on science.
Also, you are falling into a trap here. You seem to think that science is chasing infinities. But if you chalk it all up to God, then you still have to explain who created God. And who created the creater of God, and so on. And if you say that god has existed for infinity, then why cant we say the universe have existed for infinity? God does not solve the infinity problem.

Scientists trapped in there own infinite seeking hell?? A powerful picture, but based in fact? unlikely. Most scientists I know are quite happy, many even take dancing lessons. I think that might be because most are willing to find answers in a stepwise progressive fashion, which is what science is all about. Its religion and faith that try to jump too far ahead and find answers to origins right away, not science.

Neildo: "LOl, you are putting waaaaaay too much faith in science"

I"m glad you brought this up. Alot of modern creationists and religious people like to use the angle that science is also just a form of faith. This is misleading. Religious faith is blind faith. Its faith in something we have no evidence for, or even more accurate, its faith in something we have evidence AGAINST. The type of faith we have in science is a totally different concept. It just happens to have the same name as religious faith. Its like having faith that your friend will repay the 20 bucks he owes you. That is not faith in the same way that religion is faith, because evidence and logic can be used to affirm he/she will pay you back. No evidence and logic can be used in religion. At least not valid evidence and logic.

You managed very nicely to prove that there are things in the universe which we dont know about, and may never know. But this is already obvious. What you havent shown is why we should chalk this up to God. Dont feel bad, its not your fault. No one can show us any evidence as to why we should chalk anything up to God.
Because there isnt any.
 
MW on your original post it looks like you are asking for a Christian prespective but I am not sure......when you say God created man or vice versa you mean Christians and how they created God or any religion in general?

2) Is it a mutually exclusive question of
a) god created man
or
b) man created god or is there a
c) god created man and man created a different god via belief that is different than the god that created him?

Neildo I think your aruguement is ST Thomas Aquinas outside mover arguement. I was wondering has anyone ever seen a rebuttal on the net for that arguement?
 
Medicine Woman,

M*W: I've always pondered the idea, that if God created the human race, he should have made himself known to all,

He is known to all.

I never could believe that a creator god could be so negligent.

You have everything you need don't you?

I've also believed that the whole concept of a higher power has evolved over the course of our existence.

What makes you believe this?

buddhafish,

As our science and knowledge of human nature, and the nature of reality advances,

Which scientific advances reveal the nature of reality?

I think it's becoming simply undeniable that the idea of a god or gods is just that, an idea

This is your opinion.

Skeptic,

all the evidence points to the non-existence of God.

It doesn't, indeed it cannot. The so-called evidence acts as a comfort to those who do not want to believe in God.

Those who believe in God base their belief on Faith, not logic. So many times its pointless to argue with believers using logic.

Your belief that all evidences points to non existent of God is based on faith, but you may use logic to show your points, it is the same with someone who believe in God. There are many logical arguments which support the existence of God, but belief in God Himself is initially based on faith.

Jan Ardena.
 
*************
M*W: God is not the same for everybody; therefore, God is not known to everybody in the same way. God is whatever the individual needs God to be.
 
Medicine Woman said:
*************
M*W: God is not the same for everybody; therefore, God is not known to everybody in the same way. God is whatever the individual needs God to be.

If he is not known to everybody in the same way -- is that proof that God created man or that man created God?
 
RosaMagika]If he is not known to everybody in the same way -- is that proof that God created man or that man created God?
*************
M*W: It's proof that man created God based on individual needs for the supernatural.
 
M*W: It's proof that man created God based on individual needs for the supernatural.

And where did these needs come from? Are they simply innate? Are they irremovable, undeniable and uncontrollable?
 
RosaMagika: And where did these needs come from? Are they simply innate? Are they irremovable, undeniable and uncontrollable?
*************
M*W: Rosa, these issues have been discussed so many times in other threads. As the brain developed through evolution, it had the ability to understand a higher power, possibly through stimulation. It's also been found in epileptics such as Paul and Muhammad. There is a molecule in the brain called DMT. Research has been done on this 'spirit' molecule. The need for the supernatural is innate, but these needs are removeable, deniable and controllable just as in one who sees visions and dreams of the Queen of Heaven which is just a manifestation of yet another sick mind.
 
Medicine Woman said:
*************
M*W: I've always pondered the idea, that if God created the human race, he should have made himself known to all, so there would be no confusion or doubt. I never could believe that a creator god could be so negligent. I've also believed that the whole concept of a higher power has evolved over the course of our existence. Why else would Christianity be dying worldwide? So, I searched the Internet and found this website that confirmed what I've always known.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/god_devel.htm

What was especially interesting was several Christian scholars reported that one reason Christianity is dying is because of the grossly outdated doctrines of the trinity, virgin birth, and even the resurrection!


The current concepts of God are nothing but the product of human imagination. Your linked article confirms this fact.

I also somewhat agree with what you said at the beginning of your post.

* If there is a god who created us,
* and if this god wants to be known or desires to be found by inquiring humans

then he would have left authentic evidences that points towards his existence. No necessarily an absolute proof. But sufficient & realistic evidences will do.

Not like any of those unverifiable books embodying various jumbles of errors, contradictions & injustices as are the Torah, New Testament & Quran.
 
mw
in your case i think you were created by the devil
so i think it rules you out of the did god create us dilemma
 
The only gods that are real are those made up by the believers.

My argument has always been,if gods purpose was to create man,what was he doing for the 14 billion years or whatever before we arrived,and what was he doing in the INFINITE time before the universe was created?

So theres nothingness,god sits on his clouds for billions and billions of years or *god* knows how long,then decides while looking in a mirror "you know what,i reckon im gonna create some beings that are like me"
so there he goes on his 14 billion year crusade,we appear acting like retards cos weve not evolved,speaking languages that would make a monkey blush,we evolve and have tonnes of wars do lots of killing,so on and so on,then he sends christ whos the son of god,he acts like a lunatic,theres some so called miracles but our only evidence is the totalitarian/authoritarian brainwashing roman church today,
he gets stuck on a cross,the death penalty at the time,hes failed to do anything except make humans more like arseholes than holymen,we have more wars,killing,rubbish,invent weapons of mass destruction,more killing more shit,god does nothing,only which god?
the catholic one,the muslim,apparently they all say theres a god but not all the same.

You know,way i see it if god made man in his image then god must be the dumbest fuck ever or we just screwed up big time and hes washed his hands of it all.

Plus why do people refer to god as if IT has a sex,why would GOD need a penis?
seriously is thier a mrs god,is HE married,i mean hes apparently had kids,why isnt god a women,i mean biologically all MEN start off as women,thats right,look it up according to current theory,we start as female as XX chromos,one of the X turn to a Y and you have XY male!

So if all humans begin life as female id say that was a decent blow against insisting god is male.

Not that i could believe he/she/it as either.
 
Jan Ardena:
"Your belief that all evidences points to non existent of God is based on faith..."

Actually this is misleading. It is not accurate to say that those who do not believe in God do so based on faith. Faith is only required for belief in something there is no evidence for, not the disbelief in something there is no evidence for. For example, I do not need to have faith that there is NOT a giraffe hiding in my basement. I can use logic to show there is no girraffe. For instance, i've never seen any giraffe poop down there, and I dont smell a giraffe. There are no funny noises coming from my basement at nite, and giraffes are not indigenous to the area I live in (buffalo, NY). Therefore, even without checking behind every stack of boxes, I can safely say there is no giraffe (without faith). However, if someone chooses to believe there IS a giraffe down there....well, they need alot of faith.
Creationists and the religious love to use the angle that science and the disbelief in god need as much faith as religion. This is not true.

Greg
 
a good clue...or clues to exploring about this--i feel, is looking more closely at mythology...not just ours...the Judaic-Christian myth, or the Abrahamic religious mythos.....but ancinet Greek, atc etc

heard of GODDESS...? heard of the Babylonian god upstart Marduk, who split the Goddess in two....'heaven and earth'? well, that myth shows a clue of her standing before that mythic act. ie., that myth is doing something. it it usurping power onto the male.....for Marduk then 'claims' to have created...wait for it....why, heaven and earth of course! then you have the gods that birth goddesses and gods who were originally sons of the Godess. so for example you have the patriarchal father Olympian Greek god Zeus birthing Athena and Dionysos.......oh yeah, remember Adam birthing Eve. another hint at the patriarchal coopting of the very ancinet understanding of the primal being of the universe being feminine, or bettter HERMAPHRODITE. apparently the oldest sculpted image found in the UK was of a haermaphrodite with breasts and penis

But the primary insight is BIRTH. we see women give birth, and females of all animal species giove birth.......in innere
states, modern consciousness research --including of course ancient imagery-associations....show how experiencers experiencing being born from wombs, etc. so this image goes really deep. think of the ancient --most ancient image of the spiral. have any here had hallucinogenic experience. well that is like a spiral effect...ie., when you close eyes you feel a going inwards. like the propulsion of a womblike experince

so when we DO re-member Goddess, and ask such questions as who made us etc. then differnt assocations will come up, for as i am saying, when you study myth you see stuff that male mythic writers have done, which is denigrate the Feminine. unless we understand this actual occurence in the history of ideas, we inquire quite blindly into this DEEP question....don't you think?
 
MedicineWoman said:
M*W: Rosa, these issues have been discussed so many times in other threads.

You have started this thread with this topic, one naturally expects you to be willing to discuss it.


MedicineWoman said:
As the brain developed through evolution, it had the ability to understand a higher power, possibly through stimulation. It's also been found in epileptics such as Paul and Muhammad. There is a molecule in the brain called DMT. Research has been done on this 'spirit' molecule. The need for the supernatural is innate, but these needs are removeable, deniable and controllable just as in one who sees visions and dreams of the Queen of Heaven which is just a manifestation of yet another sick mind.

By "controllable", you mean that those innate needs are manipulized by reason/wishful thinking?
 
People with faith are less blinded than science??

And scientists are making it harder on themselves??

I meant people with faith are less blinded than science due to the overwhelming knowledge that we find (I agree those that heavily rely on faith are blinded by ignorance). Science finds many awesome and weird things, which only adds to our list of questions, making it harder on themselves as opposed to the ones with faith. So while one with faith simply has to say "there was a begining", a scientist has to account for everything learned and put all the pieces together which they may even forget about the original question they asked about. The one with faith had a few piece puzzle which is easily assembled whereas the scientist had a multi-million piece puzzle. You know that saying about taking a few harmless steps forward, and then a little more (since they're just small steps afterward), later on you look back and you went so far ahead without realizing it things are just so totally different.

Also, you are falling into a trap here. You seem to think that science is chasing infinities. But if you chalk it all up to God, then you still have to explain who created God. And who created the creater of God, and so on. And if you say that god has existed for infinity, then why cant we say the universe have existed for infinity? God does not solve the infinity problem.

That's what the scientists ever-seeking endless hell of knowledge is. That whole "what came before God" question. The same applies to the universe. It's all symantics really. Saying that the universe has always existed requires just as much faith as saying God has always existed. It's a question we'll never be able to answer and that's where faith comes in. And religious faith about God is basically just submitting that they at least know when they're way over their head. Some stuff will never be known. Science has met it's match in regards to knowing the true past.

- N
 
Back
Top