Who created God?

[Yorda]

It's called the conservation of angular momentum.

It probably only works on earth, not in space.

 

[Darkman]

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.

It's a very intersting thought but (in my opinion) God must still have a beginning. Perhaps He has no creator and He simply willed himself into existence, but then to do so Her must have already been 'alive'.

 

[Enigma'07]

even if God willed himself into existance, the idea still suports his eternal being

 

[Darkman]

I'm sorry but I can't get my head around something always existing. He just can't have existed forever!

 

[Enigma'07]

What if he is in a dimention higher than the ones we exist in, kind of like drawing a square, but only looking at so that the paper and your eyes form perpendicular angles. the square appears as a single line. But, change the angle, and you can see the other lines as well.

 

[jayleew]

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.

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.

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

~Raithere

You are correct with your logic and knowledge of what Christianity is about. But, you are missing two things in your understanding. One, you say we do not face the consequences of our actions, and two, you understand the bible without the Holy Spirit.

You say we do not face the consequences, yet Moses was punished. He had, in anger, struck the rock that split to give the Isrealites water to drink. God said because of that, Moses will not get to go to the promised land. He was forgiven, but he still paid the price for his sin.

Again, Adam made the mistake of taking the apple. He was forgiven, but punishment was given to all parties involved.

If I went to kill someone and got put in jail and I repented. I would be forgiven, but I would still serve the time. He wouldn't save me if I asked.

God forgives, but we still face consequences.

People who go to hell face consequences AND judgement. We are not judged because Jesus came to free us from the law (this part is what you were saying).

Christians face the consequences like Moses, Adam, and the Isrealites, but they are not judged as one who had the law and rebelled against it.

You may have read the bible 5 times, but it does not convince you because you lack the Holy Spirit. Scripture says that things spiritual are spiritually discerned by the Holy Spirit.

 

[jayleew]

Because it is supported by evidence and contradicted by none.

I agree that it is supported by evidence, but if it were not contradicted, it would be the truth and majority of people in the US have been confused at best, deceived and worst.

What is it again? Somewhere about 80% of registered voters are "proclaimed" Christians? Even if it were 40%, the subject is obviously controversial with two sides and two sets of VALID evidence.

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.

Your belief is still a belief that you hope is true, just like us Christians.
A good question is, is your belief also a "religion"?

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.

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

I never throw away my belief unless I come to an epitomy. I reached one when I found out that evolution was a theory and not fact as my perspective told me.

I once believed in evolution, but I had found this amazing website that was objective and scientific. I went in with the perspective of evolution as truth, I went out throwing it away as theory, so the Christianity I was taught became my truth. The arguments and logic were undeniable. It was a well thought and supported argument. That was ten years ago, I couldn't hope to find it today, but I'll try. It might enlighten us all.

 

[jayleew]

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:

First of all, you need to prove that they are witholding the evidence, then your argument will make me wonder.

Second of all, I cannot prove that God exists, just as you cannot prove he doesn't. If you could, then call up the press.

We both have our own perspectives. I tire of trying to put my perspective on others, and I myself have not received any valid evidence that you all say is there. In fact, I haven't even heard any evidence that I can even digest...except for a rebuttal of Behe's work, which is not proof of anything, but that Behe may be reaching.

 

[Sarkus]

and I myself have not received any valid evidence that you all say is there. In fact, I haven't even heard any evidence that I can even digest...except for a rebuttal of Behe's work, which is not proof of anything, but that Behe may be reaching.

What evidence do you seek from us? The evidence supporting evolution?
Where do you want to start: http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
Or maybe: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/tutorials/The_evidence_for_evolution1.asp
Then again, maybe here:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

But please, begin to show evidence for an alternative theory?

 

[Godless]

I cannot prove that God exists, just as you cannot prove he doesn't. If you could, then call up the press.

First of all you need to identify what god is, what is god/God?

To me is a word with no identity, The buybull does not say what god is, it only explains what god is not. God is not man, though we supposed to believe that he borne a son. God is beyond men's comprehesion, So why the hell are there so many advocates?.

So I ask what is god? What identity can you posibly give this character? Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnivolent, Omnipresent, are only characterestics of this being, yet no identity is given for such a being able to be so many contradictory omni's everything.

If I were to state as an atheist, that there's no such thing as a god, I would be under the same scrutiny as any theist, who claims the existence of this being. For one If I claim that God does not exist, I assume responsibility to give this entity an identity, and that it does not exist.
Since I canot give an identity to this entity, I can't make the claim that God does not exist. As an a-theist all I claim is that I don't believe in the theory of god, I don't believe this concept to be true, for the mere lack of evidence to it's identiy & existence.

I too was a theist and believe in creationism till one day, "reason" sneaked in my head and completely debunked what I thought once to be true.
Creation science debunked
Click
Immoral Pseudoscience
Talk Reason
Against Creationism

That should keep you busy studing some real science for a change :bugeye:

 

[psycho-sth-african]

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.



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

Yorda, If you want to talk about science please study it first. I know I allready replied about your magnetism thing but its not the magnetism that keeps the plants in motion its gravity around the sun. And alose you post about angular momentum. Did you not know know conservation of angular momentm is actually one of those universal laws, it is just an extension of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, and it does work everywhere

Alos matter does dissapear in blackholes, to a certain extend, as it becomes a singularity, there is not realy matter nor energy.
So pls when you talk about science get your facts straight first
Bye Jako

 

[Lawdog]

God is uncreated being, that is, being through (by means of itself), totally necessary, the the ground of all being. Hence he told Moses "I am that am". All other beings are created beings, angels, men, other animals, plants, rocks, etc. Created being is contingent being, not of necessity, that is, it is not necessary that you or I or anything else exist. The only necessary being is God, the source of all being, all good, truth. All reality is without abyss or void, all reality can be understood as the Non-void.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

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"
*************
M*W: Although LaVey may have stated that, but the idea that man creates his gods has been around a lot longer than The Satanic Bible.

 

[Raithere]

Well Firstly 97% of an eye wont help at all

Sure it will. For instance, if you had an eye without, let's say a lens, you could still see. You just wouldn't be able to focus as well. There are many 'stages' of eye development in the animal kingdom that are not 'complete' from the standpoint of a mammal's eye yet still have a useful function. Everything from 'eye spots', to concave eye spots, to pinhole cameras.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html

The beetle the sprays a explosive chemical, how did evolve if not designed??

Step by step.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

~Raithere

 

[jayleew]

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?

It may be arrogance, but it is the truth. It is evident in your lack of understanding of Christianity. You may know a little, but Raithere I can tell knows more (but even he is a tiny bit askew in his understanding of scriptures). I can tell when someone takes scripture out of context of other scriptures. The Bible is a whole and depends upon the whole for (at best) human undestanding.

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.

I could learn much more of Evolution, and I only know what people smarter than me say.
Everything else you speak of, especially Christianity, I am well versed.

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.

1. True.
2. How many years have we done archeology and paleontology? In all the years, in all the places, the number of fossils, not a shred? We don't have much more to go. We have dug more of the surface than you realize, and why do we not see so many intermediate stages of life still in existence anyway? Isn't it more likely that they never existed than that they ALL died off? For you to say "I know they are there", it is the same as me saying "I know God is there trust me, we just haven't discovered him." It is a weak argument and wishful thinking.

And the micro can lead to the macro.

Says who? Do we have proof? Don't answer that I don't want to frustrate you, you might pull something.
I know I am frustrating you with my Evolution experience, just as you are frustrating me with your knowledge of Christianity. We ought to both do our homework, eh? It's been so long that I have forgotten. I chose to erase the thoughts of evolution from my mind 10 years ago when I preceived it to be a useless theory. I used to believe it.

I can see I am going to have to visit it before I come here again. Drag.

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

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.

Every scientist I named from the Case for a Creator is just the surface of the evidence. Yes, the evidence needs to be rebuttled AND countered, but it is there nonetheless. It is the same as your evidence. We are in the same boat.

I have books of evidence. Christian scientists exist Sarkus. There is as much evidence either way, I can't help it you perceive there to be none. Get off your butt and look.

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.

Good point. So, when we reach the unexaplainable we just hope that someday we can find the answer. How many years have I heard that we are close to a cure for cancer, but it is still rampant.

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).
It is only a fallacy if I am using it in a logical statement as proof. Unfortunately, I was making an observation here, so it is not logical or illogical, but an observation and theory that is based on the degradation of our society's old morals because we lack objective morality. Of course, my morals are not the same as yours, so morality depends on whose viewpoint your talking from. A democracy, by nature, lacks objective morality.

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.

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.

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.

Agreed.

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.

Opinons are not fact, but I respect yours.

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.

If anyone brainwashed me, it was me because I push my doubts aside in faith.

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.

If life is futile, then why deny anything of yourself? I mean if you are going to die anyway, might as well live it up. What a world if people realized this.

 

[Lawdog]

God is uncreated being, that is, being through (by means of itself), totally necessary, the the ground of all being. Hence he told Moses "I am that am". All other beings are created beings, angels, men, other animals, plants, rocks, etc. Created being is contingent being, not of necessity, that is, it is not necessary that you or I or anything else exist. The only necessary being is God, the source of all being, all good, truth. All reality is without abyss or void, all reality can be understood as the Non-void.

 

[Lawdog]

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

A Christian cannot argue that God is the beginning of all creation, but rather, must confess that God/Christ is divine, uncreated. If he were created, he would be subsequent and secondary to his Creator. God must be Creator and Eternal, by definition.

Understand that Time falls within the category of creation. Eternity, which is God, is uncreated.

The atheist falls into absurdity, unable to posit an original cause, an uncaused cause, he trys to say that the universe was always there, and so, by definition the universe is Eternal, therefore divine. Hence this claim is not true atheist, but pantheist.

Keep thy eyes away from the works of evil.

 

[psycho-sth-african]

Sure it will. For instance, if you had an eye without, let's say a lens, you could still see. You just wouldn't be able to focus as well. There are many 'stages' of eye development in the animal kingdom that are not 'complete' from the standpoint of a mammal's eye yet still have a useful function. Everything from 'eye spots', to concave eye spots, to pinhole cameras.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html

Step by step.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

~Raithere

Hi
Well Your website doesnt help much to support your argument, there are many medical doctors and proffesors who would disagree with you on those points, even some secular ones like Michel Behe, see sites such as www.answersingenesis.org, www.icr.org
there are 2 or 3 others but i cant remeber their names right now, but if you want i can come back to you on that
Bye
Jako

 

[wesmorris]

If Everything must have a cause (causes) in order to exist, then, who created God?

God is a word. Interestingly enough, it's a word that I'd guess all intelligent beings would share, as the concept is (I believe) a necessary consequence of intelligence/consciousness. I would hypothesize that any species that survives and advances enough to develop a formal language would in short order, develop some word for "god".

It is necessary because any developing species will be posed with questions for which there are no answers, and conceptually, the idea of "omnipotent being x" is an obvious explanation. "Why does is rain?" "Uhm, uh... Hmm... Well, it must be the will of some being more powerful than I, for I cannot make it rain yet it is raining". This is the consequence of a POV. By its nature, it processes its stimulous by projecting it onto the amalgum of its history that resides in the moment. In human terms, we call it anthropomorphization, but I think it indicative the geometric relationship of a conscious being to its environment.

If God does not need to be created, then how can he exist?

The existence of god is forever inconclusive unless you choose to believe otherwise, in which case you are unreasonable from my perspective.

 

[jayleew]

First of all you need to identify what god is, what is god/God?

To me is a word with no identity, The buybull does not say what god is, it only explains what god is not. God is not man, though we supposed to believe that he borne a son. God is beyond men's comprehesion, So why the hell are there so many advocates?.

So I ask what is god? What identity can you posibly give this character? Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnivolent, Omnipresent, are only characterestics of this being, yet no identity is given for such a being able to be so many contradictory omni's everything.

If I were to state as an atheist, that there's no such thing as a god, I would be under the same scrutiny as any theist, who claims the existence of this being. For one If I claim that God does not exist, I assume responsibility to give this entity an identity, and that it does not exist.
Since I canot give an identity to this entity, I can't make the claim that God does not exist. As an a-theist all I claim is that I don't believe in the theory of god, I don't believe this concept to be true, for the mere lack of evidence to it's identiy & existence.

I too was a theist and believe in creationism till one day, "reason" sneaked in my head and completely debunked what I thought once to be true.
Creation science debunked
Click
Immoral Pseudoscience
Talk Reason
Against Creationism

That should keep you busy studing some real science for a change :bugeye:

I am a Christian and reason is in my head, but I am doing the insane thing and going against reason for my own safety. I'd rather be wrong and dead, than dead-wrong about God :m: .