Who made God? One Big Circle.

Gondolin said:
Full article here

Being an Atheist, I've researched this topic over and over again, and can never get a solid answer of where God (any god, if he/she/they) came from. They all say he/she/they just is/are. This seems like a cheap way out.

That article says God has always existed, but where did the material for this god come from?

They argue themselves into one big circle.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? You're looking for a solid answer on "where God came from"?

Assume you believed in God, would you have an answer then? No, because noone does. It's something that will forever be unproveable.

You can argue whether or not the Bible is factual, whether or not Jesus existed, etc... but it's pointless to argue the existence of something that is, as we understand it, above existence.

We have to take the evidence that's apparent to us, weigh whether it's for, or against a God, and make up your own mind.
 
mybreathyourlung said:
Are you serious? You're looking for a solid answer on "where God came from"?

Assume you believed in God, would you have an answer then? No, because noone does. It's something that will forever be unproveable.

You can argue whether or not the Bible is factual, whether or not Jesus existed, etc... but it's pointless to argue the existence of something that is, as we understand it, above existence.

We have to take the evidence that's apparent to us, weigh whether it's for, or against a God, and make up your own mind.
Click to expand...

I know there is no solid answer. I was pointing out the theist's point of view and how it's so simple and easy. I'm interested in both sides of the argument, and what both sides believe. It's better to know what you're arguing when faced with such a task.
 
mybreathyourlung said:
Are you serious? You're looking for a solid answer on "where God came from"?

Assume you believed in God, would you have an answer then? No, because noone does. It's something that will forever be unproveable.

You can argue whether or not the Bible is factual, whether or not Jesus existed, etc... but it's pointless to argue the existence of something that is, as we understand it, above existence.

We have to take the evidence that's apparent to us, weigh whether it's for, or against a God, and make up your own mind.
Click to expand...

A claim that is unfalsifiable is to that extent a weak one.
 
mybreathyourlung said:
You can argue whether or not the Bible is factual, whether or not Jesus existed, etc... but it's pointless to argue the existence of something that is, as we understand it, above existence.
Click to expand...

When you use the word "is", you imply existence. Nothing "is" above existence. That makes no sense at all.

God is unprovable? <--- Can you prove this assertion?

I don't think that you can. Stating that "God can not be disproved" is just as without foundation as "God can be disproved". We don't get to say such things and just pretend they are true, we need to hash them out, discuss them, see who has a stronger argument.
 
Sarkus said:
Not really.
Time is nothing but a relative property of existence.
Once you know where everything else comes from (or didn't) - you know where time comes from.

The same can not be said for a God.
Click to expand...
erm - why not?

Why are theists apparently happy to assume that their "God" has always existed
Click to expand...
why are atheists apparently happy to assume that their view of god's non-existence has always existed ? (and do so without explanation via sophistry)
and yet can not accept the possibility that the Universe might also have always existed
Click to expand...
I guess we might accept that if there was a shred of evidence of matter being self directed .... (if you can't accept that a crayon picture of the sun was manifested by chance elements bereft of consciousness, how the hell can you assume that the actual sun was created by chance elements bereft of consciousness)

- and that, for many theists - their "God" might just be a personification of the "Universe" (i.e. of everything, of reality)?
Click to expand...
perhaps now would be a good opportunity for you to elaborate on essential differences between the descriptions of god in say Christianity and the vedas
 
Sarkus said:
I can accept it.
I accept it as one possibility among many.
As do the majority of atheists on this site.
We just don't have the belief in it - due to the lack of evidence -
Click to expand...
the next question is whether or not you believe that evidence is inextricably linked to qualification

"God" introduces an unnecessary level of complexity - another "unknown" - and as such fails Occam's Razor (from a rational view-point).
Click to expand...
rational view point?
even science operates with one or two unknowns

Until you can reject everything else and actually require the additional complexity, it remains an irrational inclusion.
Click to expand...
and what actually is this "additional complexity"
:p
 
lightgigantic said:
so deep sea lobsters that have no contact with human society are impervious to the onslaught of time?

Interesting world view you have ....
Click to expand...

:bugeye:
I'm not even going to start with you, I've been convinced by your discussions with me and others that talking to you is pointless.
 
Celpha Fiael said:
:bugeye:
I'm not even going to start with you, I've been convinced by your discussions with me and others that talking to you is pointless.
Click to expand...

Until he reads up on things, it is rather pointless.
I mean.. "how the hell can you assume that the actual sun was created by chance elements bereft of consciousness" :roflmao:

But maybe we should blame his brother :rolleyes:
 
lightgigantic said:
erm - why not?
Click to expand...
So you know where "God" came from? - Oh no - that's right - "he always existed". :rolleyes:

why are atheists apparently happy to assume that their view of god's non-existence has always existed ? (and do so without explanation via sophistry)
Click to expand...
You're arguing against "strong atheists" here, LG - and you probably know it.
The atheist view of "non-belief in existence" HAS always existed - well before man turned up.

I guess we might accept that if there was a shred of evidence of matter being self directed .... (if you can't accept that a crayon picture of the sun was manifested by chance elements bereft of consciousness, how the hell can you assume that the actual sun was created by chance elements bereft of consciousness)
Click to expand...
No assumptions - just lack of evidence for the latter.

perhaps now would be a good opportunity for you to elaborate on essential differences between the descriptions of god in say Christianity and the vedas
Click to expand...
Why - of what use will it be in your understanding of the statement made?

the next question is whether or not you believe that evidence is inextricably linked to qualification
Click to expand...
Nope.

rational view point?
even science operates with one or two unknowns
Click to expand...
Did I say it didn't?
Strawman - logical fallacy.

You don't seem to understand what rationality is, LG - or you wouldn't have made such a statement.

and what actually is this "additional complexity"
It is anything (such as "God") that adds an additional unknown yet adds nothing to the understanding of the thing in question.

If there are two theories and one uses variable/unknown X, and the other uses X and Y - with both fitting the evidence equally - then the former theory (using just variable X) is deemed preferable and it is irrational to do otherwise. Only when you find that another variable / unknown is required in order to fit new evidence is it rational to go with the latter theory.

"God did it" does not answer any questions - it merely pushes it back a level - and thus is an additional level of unnecessary complexity.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Journey0820 said:
When you use the word "is", you imply existence. Nothing "is" above existence. That makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...

I don't really follow the "is" argument, is it a problem with my grammar? I thought I was fine saying nothing is above existence. I guess that's why I was only a 'B' student.

Journey0820 said:
God is unprovable? <--- Can you prove this assertion?

I don't think that you can. Stating that "God can not be disproved" is just as without foundation as "God can be disproved". We don't get to say such things and just pretend they are true, we need to hash them out, discuss them, see who has a stronger argument.
Click to expand...

Touche. Good point, and no, I can't prove that God is unproveable. I think I'm simply one of "those" people that whenever there are gaps in our understanding of the Universe, I just fill that blank in with God until a better suggestion comes along.
 
the next question is whether or not you believe that evidence is inextricably linked to qualification
Click to expand...

So.. one must be a qualified leprechaunist to have evidence that leprechauns exist? Bizarre worldview you have.
 
I'm thinking the entity that made god was the last master of the universe, the guy that caused the big crunch.

Just a random brain fart for your viewing pleasure.
 
My question is whether or not this seemingly infinite regression, either in terms of a god or just of the universe, can be resolved in our minds at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top