Who created God?

[jayleew]

jayleew, I don~t think you under stand. if there are an infinite number of universes, then the chances that at least 1 produces life is 100%. I never said that I knew there were these other universes; I just said that is one theory, out of many, that is equal to or greater than any argument for god.
the reason I said it was flawed was because you claim it as fact when it is not.
you are the one who wont face my argument. Jesus, according to the bible, said that you could have ANYTHING if you prayed for it. how can people be able to have ANYTHING, and not impede the free will of others? so what is it? is god not good, less than all-powerful, or is the bible wrong? (if the bible is wrong, then the whole religion is flawed).

there is nothing that humans can misunderstand, either we don~t have free will, or the bible is wrong, they are in direct contradiction, but you wont admit when you are beaten.

You and I can agree that humans have free will, right? I mean I can go shoot someone if I want, with consequences. Can anyone dispute that?

We have free will, the Holy Ghost can only influence, and only influence those who want influence. So, by your thoughts, if we have free will, the bible is wrong?

God says you can do anything by faith. He has never failed me in my life and numerous Christians that I or you can interview. This does not prove anything to anyone else, but with the number of personal testimonies increasing, the weight of the evidence becomes heavier.

Little off subject:
What is fact? Is it just theories that are widely accepted? Hitler said that a lie told long enough becomes truth. That is a true statement. Is that Christianity? Just a lie told often and long enough? Maybe, if God didn't react to people, I would say yes.

Back on subject:
The Bible is not illogical if it is taken in context of the rest of the Bible. If you understand the nature of God from reading the first half of the Bible, and understand that Jesus said that you can do anything by faith, you will know two things: 1. People are free to choose. (we have history to show the choices made AGAINST God's will) 2. God answers prayers (we have countless testimonies in the Bible and around us.)

Can we put God in a box and say, "God you can't answer prayers without infringing on free will, because it doesn't make sense to me." If he is God, we should not understand everything.

That said, the clues he leaves is that he answers prayer by the influence of the Holy Spirit, who gives you "God glasses." So, you can make the most logical and most moral choice. I still have the choice to blow up at my wife, but I can feel the Holy Spirit tug at my heart and it go soft. For a split second, the thought crosses my mind to go off on her when she makes me angry.

Nothing is for certain. We only have clues, and the Holy Ghost helps decipher them.

 

[jayleew]

I have no problem with this. It is when people try to tell me that they do indeed know the mind of God that I contest.

I've been there and I understand the painful desire for some power to appeal to for help.

I've studied Christianity from many different approaches. The only one that even begins to make sense to me is purely symbolic.

But kneeling, begging, and pleading is sycophantic behavior, self-serving falsehood. I don't feel any need for excuses and pleading, I do the best I can as far as I am able to understand. If I act under mistaken understanding then I regret the mistake and strive to correct it. If I knowingly act falsely I regret the act, I ask for forgiveness, and I strive to act correctly.

To grovel and beg is nothing but an attempt to avoid responsibility for one's actions. This is, in fact, what Christianity teaches.

~Raithere

In fact, what Christianity teaches? In fact, the Bible teaches that we must face the consequences of our actions. It teaches we are perfect. So what does a perfect God want with imperfections? Nothing, so he made us imperfect by his blood. That is a paraphrase of scripture, Raithere. We are broken, God has a plan to fix us, but we still reap what we sow.

You must read and understand the whole Bible before you can profess to know what Christianity teaches. Many in my church have not read the whole, and you say you can tell us what we are about? What made you lose faith?

 

[jayleew]

Were I to presume to know his mind I'd have to say yes.

Well, if you read his work, you would know he uses a mousetrap to conceptualize his findings.

Thus far the scientific community at large has found little or no merit to the argument and reported evidence for irreducible complexity. Certainly not enough to dismiss the robust and well supported field of Evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

Compelling against Behe, the evidence will have to be digested by people smarter than me. I concede and withdraw my Behe arguments until that time.

So, do you believe in the creation of man from a single celled organism?

 

[jayleew]

Magnetism also repels.

This is essentially a description of a black hole, whether you intended it or not: "when the gravity of a large star becomes as great as the resistance of matter". Your conclusion, that matter "disappears" is incorrect.

As to the black, white, and grey analogy; I have no idea what you are trying to say. Resistance is force.

~Raithere

I agree with you, but what proof do we have that matter does not disappear in the occurence of a black hole. Curious, what happens in the process of implosion? Anyone?

 

[Yorda]

Magnetism also repels.

I know. So do planets, but because of the magnetic effects between them, they are in constant motion and the repelling effect is not easily detectable.

This is essentially a description of a black hole, whether you intended it or not: "when the gravity of a large star becomes as great as the resistance of matter". Your conclusion, that matter "disappears" is incorrect.

I know, and I know that matter doesn't "dissapear" in a black hole.

 

[Raithere]

In fact, what Christianity teaches? In fact, the Bible teaches that we must face the consequences of our actions.

Not at all. It states that we cannot redress our imperfections and that the only way to avoid the punishment that we deserve is by God's sacrifice. Therefore the only people that will face the consequence of their actions are those who go to hell. Those who have faith in Christ are absolved, this is coin he demands for his sacrifice. Of course, we might argue whether this message is more Paul's than Jesus's.

You must read and understand the whole Bible before you can profess to know what Christianity teaches. Many in my church have not read the whole, and you say you can tell us what we are about?

I've read the Bible cover to cover 5 times (okay, I did skim through the begats). I've read 4 different versions. I've read the non-canonical gospels and a portion of the dead sea-scrolls. I've read commentaries, interpretations, and histories; I've referenced original Greek and Hebrew passages. And I've gone back to various translations to research and reference particular subjects more times than I can count. Additionally, I was a Christian until around the age of 20. I would say that I have a pretty sound understanding of Christian doctrine and belief.

What made you lose faith?

Reason and ethics. I am unable to reconcile Christian doctrine with either.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Well, if you read his work, you would know he uses a mousetrap to conceptualize his findings.

I am familiar with it. Of course, even this analogy has been rather soundly refuted. A mousetrap is not irreducible.

http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html#behe/miller

So, do you believe in the creation of man from a single celled organism?

You mean, of course, the evolution of man from a single celled organism.
I believe it is a sound theory, yes.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

I agree with you, but what proof do we have that matter does not disappear in the occurence of a black hole.

Because the matter continues to affect the space and matter nearby.

Curious, what happens in the process of implosion? Anyone?

http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/BlackHoleFormation.html

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

I know. So do planets, but because of the magnetic effects between them, they are in constant motion and the repelling effect is not easily detectable.

Planets repel each other? Do tell.

I know, and I know that matter doesn't "dissapear" in a black hole.

Then what did you mean to say?

~Raithere

 

[jayleew]

I am familiar with it. Of course, even this analogy has been rather soundly refuted. A mousetrap is not irreducible.

http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html#behe/miller

You mean, of course, the evolution of man from a single celled organism.
I believe it is a sound theory, yes.

~Raithere

Why is it a sound theory to you?

So, do you believe that we are the result of random chance mutations over millions of years?

Tell me, what are the odds of each transition?

The two methods for determining the age of an object are first selected based on an educated guess by the investigator, depending on how long he thinks the object is. So, how do we know the age of the Earth? Even then, how do we know that the results of the test are accurate because we don't have a reference item that we know 100% is X number of years old?

Again all of this is depending on the chance that nothing went wrong that preserved an item that we didn't know about.

I want to know what your truth is. After all truth is the culmination of experience, theory, and facts. Does anyone know the real truth, or do you agree with me?

Maybe you have the key piece that I am missing to throw my belief away. Seriously, maybe I'm wrong. I doubt it, but maybe. Help me find the truth.

 

[Yorda]

Planets repel each other? Do tell.

Hehe... of course they do, why else would they spin. The whole galaxy spins synchronically because of this 'simple' magnetic force.

Then what did you mean to say?

Don't remember anymore...

 

[Raithere]

Why is it a sound theory to you?

Because it is supported by evidence and contradicted by none.

So, do you believe that we are the result of random chance mutations over millions of years?

That and natural selection. ID proponents tend to over emphasize the randomness of mutation without considering the filtering effect of natural selection. Natural selection is non-random, therefore the results are non-random.

Tell me, what are the odds of each transition?

I'm not sure what you mean by transition.

The two methods for determining the age of an object are first selected based on an educated guess by the investigator, depending on how long he thinks the object is. So, how do we know the age of the Earth? Even then, how do we know that the results of the test are accurate because we don't have a reference item that we know 100% is X number of years old?

There are far more than 2 methods and, more importantly, they are strongly congruent. Some methods, such as Carbon 14 dating, we are indeed able to reference against a certain value. Others are statistical in nature, such as dendrochronology and ice core readings. Yet others rely upon physical constants.

Again all of this is depending on the chance that nothing went wrong that preserved an item that we didn't know about.

This does indeed happen which is why researchers try to use multiple methods of dating an object if they can. Again, strong congruence between results suggests accuracy.

I want to know what your truth is. After all truth is the culmination of experience, theory, and facts. Does anyone know the real truth, or do you agree with me?

That's all? Just the truth? I do agree with you, at least in that what we understand as true is dependent upon experience, theory, and what facts we can discern.

But I also notice that what an individual understands as the truth has a lot to do with their perspective, their world view. Atheist, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu... new data, new 'facts', must be fit in to a larger whole. The existing structure determines what gets accepted or rejected. More importantly, it determines how things get accepted or rejected. They must make sense within the context of other beliefs. The position that I most often attack is not of any particular belief, but certitude in any belief, unwillingness to critically examine any concept.

The only methodology I have for measuring the truth of any concept is how congruent it is with other concepts. Do the facts line up or do they conflict? How well and from how many differing perspectives? It's not a science, there are too many variables, too many fuzzy concepts, and unknowns. But it's workable. It's flexible without being ungrounded.

Maybe you have the key piece that I am missing to throw my belief away. Seriously, maybe I'm wrong. I doubt it, but maybe. Help me find the truth.

Never 'throw your belief away'. Examine it. Test it. Turn it around and look at it from another perspective. Explore alternatives. Allow for adaptation, understanding, and change. Belief should evolve (sorry, couldn't help it). If your path leads you deeper into religiosity, great, if it leads you towards agnosticism or atheism, wonderful. What it should not do is stagnate. If your beliefs only become narrower then you're no longer learning anything new, you're just looking to confirm what you already know.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Hehe... of course they do, why else would they spin.

It's called the conservation of angular momentum.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=416

~Raithere

 

[yank]

I don't think gravity or strong nuclear force exists... or, they do, but they're just different forms... consequences of "magnetism".

is there a laughing smiley???

I have the power, everyone has. But I'm not an individual. Individuals don't have much power.

if you're not an individual then what are you??? common?

 

[psycho-sth-african]

Hi

Firstly waht Magnetic effects between planets?????? Dont you mean Gravitational effects, because the Magnetic effects of planets are way to small to effect each other, and there is supporting eveidnce to show that they do, except during case of prehelion, where there might be s a slight effect.

And Also not enought evidence for irreducible complexity???
Well Firstly 97% of an eye wont help at all, so the evolution would have been a harmful eefect unitl it worked fuly and therefore must have died out. The beetle the sprays a explosive chemical, how did evolve if not designed??

Well If we didnt have ppl over I would go on, so just wait a couple of hours and I'll write another reply similar to the astronomy one I posted about a week ago
Bye
Jako

 

[john smith]

Bold statement, I hope you have proof.

Look around you, you see people that are like sheep, the church dominating their lives, because someone somewhere 2000 or so years ago sed they were the son of 'god' you have people who wont open there minds to the possibility that a vast proportion of the christian faith is complete bull, do you have proof that its not, that God does exist?? Because if you are no going to say the bible, how come the vatican only allow something like 10% to be published, there is supposedly 90% of scriptures-about jesus that we no nothing about, yet THEY do.... makes you wonder, doesnt it? :m:

 

[Sarkus]

We could have a better debate if you knew more of Christian theology.

Logical Fallacy: do not judge the argument on the person who said it, but on the argument itself.
It is also arrogance on your part. You have no idea how much "Christian Theology" I do or do not know. Unless you are claiming to know me, to know my upbringing?

The fact that I am ignorant is your opinion, since you did not prove that I am.

No - your comments did that themselves.
Otherwise you wouldn't have come out with what you did. You appear to be ignorant of both the theory of evolution, of the scientific method, and also seemingly of logical fallacies.
You undoubtedly have heard of all, but your comments are ample proof.

The lack of evidence speaks for itself when we are dealing with so much data. The chances of finding any evidence today are slim to none.

Logical fallacy after logical fallacy.
1. The lack of evidence for a theory does not negate the theory. There has never been evidence to refute it - and so it remains a theory that fits all the facts.
2. Why are the chances of finding any evidence today slim? Where are your references for this? What makes you say this? Have we really dug up that much of the Earth's surface already and found nothing? No.

We are talking about modifiation of DNA over time, not a speicies ability to adapt and mutate. THere is micro and macro evolution.

And the micro can lead to the macro.
Again - ignorance of evolution.
A leads to B leads to C leads all the way through the alphabet to Z.
Each is merely a slightly modified DNA variant of the former through mutation.
A change in environment wipes out B to Y, leaving just A and Z.
Z can't mate with A and is thus a different species by definition.
Voila - a simplified model of a simple method of evolution.
But you would undoubtedly say it must be God, because we haven't found B to Y.

No, they lack enough evidence to sway my decision. Perhaps if you gave me some, I could change my decision.

So you are more content to follow a religion with ZERO evidence over some other explanation with SOME evidence? Hmmm.

I never said that any scientist has proven God. The question posed to me was has any scientists bothered to look to science to prove God. They do, and find evidence.

LOL!
Let me rephrase - no scientist has ever found evidence supporting the existence of God.
Your Christian God is beyond evidence and beyond proof. It relies wholly on blind faith.
Otherwise, where is this evidence they have found? I really am interested to know.

We do put God up to scientific scrutiny, and we find that the unexaplainable is explained by God's account.

Ah - so when we reach the "unexplainable" we are satisfied by "God did it"?
Woohoo - we can happily stop doing all scientific research in the world - because the answer is "God did it!" Now why didn't I think of that. My next scientific journal will be "God did it!" And they'll ask me: "God did what?". And I'll reply: "Everything!" and I'll be hailed as the guru of science.

The problem with this answer, as has been discussed many times on this forum (but not this thread) is that the answer "God did it!" is meaningless and adds no value. It is a lazy response for those that can't be arsed to look deeper.
Maybe our tools aren't yet up to the task of probing further, but to merely say "God did it!" is meaningless.

I'm sorry, I never said that God exists because it would be bad without him. Are you serious? You are reaching for something to say and twisting my words.

I wish I was - but unfortunately your words were quite clear:
“If we continue to live without God, we are not going to like where it's going. The politicians are opening the law. Little by little, inch by inch. We are going to come to a point where everything is legal and anything infringing on that is discrimination. Open your eyes. Do you want to be around 40 years from now if things don't change?”
This is a classic argument from fear (a logical fallacy).
My example of "God exists 'cos I fear the alternative" was merely to highlight the argument from fear that you are using to support your faith.

I stated (as a seperate argument about morality) that morality is relative if there is no third party involved. It is objective, and therefore, irrelevant without a third party.

Who says morality is objective? You do in order to satisfy your belief in your God, but where is your evidence that morality is objective?
You claim it is fact but it is nothing more than a circular argument: God exists because morality is objective. But why is morality objective? - because if morality is objective then I can say that god exists.

You cannot sit here and tell me that without a doubt God doesn't exist just as much I can say he does.

I don’t claim that God doesn’t exist. I never have and never will. I merely claim that he is unprovable. That there is no evidence for him. And thus I choose to have no belief that he exists. That is NOT the same as believing that he doesn’t exist. An infinite possibilities exist as to what is beyond our Universe. Why should I “believe” one of them to be any truer than the others? It is irrational to do so.

Don't get me started on the non-science of Psychology...it is hogwash. ….
Please do not equate the two.

My point here is that Religion of any form has a fundamental psychological benefit to those that need such. I have no issue with it. It is a large “self-help” group with words on how to live your life. It gives your life meaning if you feel you need it. It gives your life purpose if you feel you need it. It is nothing but psychological help.

Anyone can get by just fine without God, but it is harder, and if you want to subject yourself to pain needlessly, that is your business.

Oh, for f**k’s sake – you seem to be severely brainwashed, you truly do.
It might be harder for YOU to go through life without God – and fair enough – use religion, your belief, to help you, as a psychological crutch on which to make the passage of your life easier. But do NOT claim to know whether it is easier or harder for anyone else. You can not speak for everyone. You can not speak for me!
You are nothing but one individual on this planet.

Otherwise, please do tell me where the pain is in my life?
I’d be interested to know.

Sarkus, what do you think happens when we die? Nothing? Then life is futile.

And once again you argue from fear. When will you realise that this is where most of your arguments seem to stem from?
When I die, my consciousness dies with me. My body deteriorates and the chemicals breakdown and are absorbed by the ground (if buried) or they are burnt if I choose to be cremated. That’s it. End of story.
Is life futile? Not to me. I’m quite enjoying being alive. I know that in another 50 years or so I probably won’t be here. It doesn’t bother me. That’s life (or rather, that’s death!)
In the grand scheme of things, is life futile? Probably. Is the Universe futile? Probably. Is everything futile? Probably. But I am quite content to live with that - something you are obviously not, and thus place a belief in something to help you bypass the need to accept it.

 

[killslay]

if you can argue who created God, some christians could argue that God is the begginning of all creation. However the atheist could also say that the universe was just always there just like the religious people say that god was just there
in the words of Anton LaVey (i'll stop quoting satanism soon i promise) "man creates his gods, his gods do not create him"

 

[Darkman]

Man, indeed DID create god, we needed to belive we are here for a purpose, everyone wants to have a reason for existing, and God is pretty much the full stop at the end of that search....

But God does exist.

Matter can neither be created or destroyed

There was a time in history when the laws of physics cease to exist, so something must have created galaxies and solar systems etc.

 

[Enigma'07]

Only things that have a beginning have need of a creator. God always exists (past, present and future) therefore He has no need of a creator.