Who made God? One Big Circle.

[srikar]

Define them and we might be able to provide you with an answer.

What i mean to say that , Explaining the question in the title of this thread is not possible , hands on show is not possible every time.
It is just like filling the whole water of sea into a bucket, You can't research about. It is not possible to explain the god in a physical or any laboratory.
The love, compassion, helpfulness in you is God.
If someone says there is no God, There is no love,kindness, compassion.

 

[ashura]

What i mean to say that , Explaining the question in the title of this thread is not possible , hands on show is not possible every time.
It is just like filling the whole water of sea into a bucket, You can't research about. It is not possible to explain the god in a physical or any laboratory.
The love, compassion, helpfulness in you is God.
If someone says there is no God, There is no love,kindness, compassion.

Wow, and here I thought the love, compassion and helpfulness in me was... well, you know, me. :shrug:

 

[Jan Ardena]

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.

What do mean by "solid answer"?
Do you have a preset answer which must be met, or are you not satisfied with the scriptural explanation?

Jan.

 

[Gondolin]

What do mean by "solid answer"?
Do you have a preset answer which must be met, or are you not satisfied with the scriptural explanation?

Jan.

I'm not satisfied with a scriptual explanation. The explanation I get from theists seems like rubbish to me. More like a cop-out.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I'm not satisfied with a scriptual explanation. The explanation I get from theists seems like rubbish to me. More like a cop-out.

"Rubbish" as opposed to what?
What type of answer would you regard as acceptable?

Jan.

 

[Gondolin]

"Rubbish" as opposed to what?
What type of answer would you regard as acceptable?

Jan.

It's rubbish to me because I don't buy into the theist's point of view.

Would I know an acceptable answer if someone told me? Probably not. I don't know, nobody knows.

No theist has given me an explanation that I'd buy into. That's what I'm trying to get at.

 

[Celpha Fiael]

"Rubbish" as opposed to what?
What type of answer would you regard as acceptable?

Jan.

I think the significance here which Gondolin is emphasizing is that scripture is it's own critic; in other words, any source that is backed by its own claims should not be given full consideration and acceptance. The Bible is given unjustified leverage concerning this and even has internal solutions to piffle this criticism. ("The book is not backed by itself, it is backed by God and the witness of the Holy Spirit as well." Which is a weak justification at best.) This is why the theist will never be able to use scripture effectively against anyone disagreeing with him/her.

 

[nietzschefan]

I like it when the door knocker has trouble explaining old testament VS new testament and start talking about angry god VS forgiving god.

 

[srikar]

Wow, and here I thought the love, compassion and helpfulness in me was... well, you know, me. :shrug:

Yes, I know u

 

[ashura]

Yes, I know u

...what?

 

[lightgigantic]

You can't say that, you're not qualified. If you disagree with this... argue with yourself.

Lol, you're such a hypocrite. I pity you.

behave or I will confiscate your glue stick

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
but you don't know where time came from, so its not clear why you are teh one who gets to wear the smarty pants ...
”
Then I guess you should re-read what has gone before.

I see
no reason in particular
....figures

“
without the foundation of direct perception (of god's non-existence) how can they be strong?
”
By definition they are "strong atheists" - i.e. they believe in the non-existence of God.
"Weak atheists" - by definition - have no position on God's existence or non-existence other than a non-belief in God's existence.
Your statement ("why are atheists apparently happy to assume that their view of god's non-existence has always existed ?") is specifically against STRONG atheists, since WEAK atheists have no view of god's non-existence.
Understand?

so the foundation amongst atheists is belief and the foundation amongst theists is direct perception - glad we cleared that up

“
And if they claim such a foundation, how can they be sane?
”
I suggest you ask them.

if the replies of this forum are anything to go by, madness seems a plausible answer ...

“
so which atheists (preferably one's that are not in mental institutions) claim direct perception of this truth about the history of human knowledge and before?
”
Please tell me you're not claiming that rocks are theist? Is your chair a theist?

no

I am asking which atheists (preferably one's that are not in mental institutions) claim direct perception of this truth about the history of human knowledge and before?

“
(or is it merely another tentative claim we can add to the dung pile?)
”
No - you have filled the pile enough for one day.

I can't help it - you guys supply so much rich composting material

“
evidence to who?
”
Everyone.

I guess you are wrong since there is obviously controversy on the subject

Or are you claiming there is evidence that there was a consciousness behind the creation of the sun -

sure

and not a mere impartial, objective, unconscious obeyance of the laws of this universe? And no appeals to authority, please.

lol - can you show evidence to impartial, unconscious obeyance of the laws of the universe without an appeal to authority?
(BTW - you just shot yourself in the foot the moment you used the words "laws")

“
you said "their god", indicating that there are essential differences between the different references to omnimax descriptions of god - so shoot ....
”
Please feel free to explain how "their god" indicates the essential differences you are seeking details of? "Their" as in "not my"

.
beats me
:shrug:
- its your argument buddy

“
hmmm - certainly doesn't explain why forensic detectives are called to investigate a murder scene as opposed to orchard farmers ....
”
Evidence is evidence, LG - utterly independent of qualification.

ok send in those orchard farmers to the homicide scene (make sure they bring some oranges too)

“
so one or two unknowns in theism makes it automatically mean or nasty or something?
”
Is that really your interpretation of what I have said?
How on earth do you get "mean or nasty" from what I have said?

I guess there is a chance that I have not properly understood your attitude towards positive theistic claims .... but its probably quite slim by now ....

I'm intrigued to know just how your mind works.

sure

if a person posts thousands of posts trying to demerit religion at every twist and turn, i tend to understand that they are not particularly favorable to religion

How people choose to manifest and practice their theism can be "mean or nasty", sure, but theism isn't "mean or nasty" per se - just irrational.

since you have yet to come up with a reason for being irrational (except by warping essential theistic foundations), it certainly seems you are deeply dyed by your value system

“
what gives the status of "unknowns" in science as "non-additional"?
”
Logic.
If I have a straight line on a graph, and need to generate a formula to relate the X and Y coordinates, and I have X = 2Y + C, or X = 2Y + C + D, it is logic that dictates that in the latter the "D" is a "non-additional" (as you refer to it). The former is thus preferred to the latter - through rationality.

thats ok - but what about things like abiogenesis
isn't that just something additional to give reductional physics credibility?

“
according to who?
”
According to those seeking to use the theories.

yes

certainly explains why reductionists see abiogenesis as the only "rational" answer doesn't it ......

“
same with "nature did it"
”
Not quite. By stating that "nature did it" it is at least claiming that the cause is natural and not supernatural, and thus should be measurable.

there is no claim that god is supernatural either

.... transcendental or metaphysical, certainly

 

[lightgigantic]

Emnos
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if you want to talk of the fact of how the sun was formed from chance material combinations, it seems you are more into science fiction than science

If I am wrong, feel free to point me in the direction of peer reviewed journals that state otherwise ....

”
No LG, you are suggesting that something that came into existence by itself came into existence by chance alone.

really?
Last I recall I argued that god is eternal

Chance is not the only alternative to God. It is called the laws of physics.

and until one can grasp something along the lines of a unified field theory, the laws of physics" will remain a sad second to god

 

[Enmos]

Emnos
“
really?
Last I recall I argued that god is eternal


and until one can grasp something along the lines of a unified field theory, the laws of physics" will remain a sad second to god

Snap out of it man...

 

[lightgigantic]

Snap out of it man...

:spank:
I'm sorry
do you feel better now?

 

[Enmos]

:spank:
I'm sorry
do you feel better now?

It depends, were you spanking yourself ?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Gondolin,

It's rubbish to me because I don't buy into the theist's point of view.

Fair enough.

Would I know an acceptable answer if someone told me? Probably not. I don't know, nobody knows.

Then your position is irrational, unreasonable, and based in ignorance.

No theist has given me an explanation that I'd buy into. That's what I'm trying to get at.

Then I suggest you maintain your position.



Celpha Fiael

I think the significance here which Gondolin is emphasizing is that scripture is it's own critic;

Given the subject, and object of them, it would have to be its own critic, leaving the ordinary man to make up his mind. What other critc would suffice?

...in other words, any source that is backed by its own claims should not be given full consideration and acceptance.

Again you fail to apreciate the subject, and object of the scriptures.

The Bible is given unjustified leverage concerning this and even has internal solutions to piffle this criticism. ("The book is not backed by itself, it is backed by God and the witness of the Holy Spirit as well." Which is a weak justification at best.) This is why the theist will never be able to use scripture effectively against anyone disagreeing with him/her.

Why just look at one small section, of one religion?
Why don't you broaden your scope, and mind? Maybe then you will have a good reason to be atheist.

Jan.

 

[Gondolin]

Then your position is irrational, unreasonable, and based in ignorance.

No, you have it all wrong. I don't believe there is a God because the idea of a God seems irrational. I see what "God" does, and it's total bullshit. I have no reason to believe in a God... it's unreasonable. So maybe my position is based off of irrationality and unreason.

And you're just as ignorant as I am when trying to prove there is or isn't a God.

 

[srikar]

...what?

more info please.

 

[Celpha Fiael]

Given the subject, and object of them, it would have to be its own critic, leaving the ordinary man to make up his mind. What other critc would suffice?

If I tell you, "I am the Son of God." and you ask, "How do I know what you say is true?" and I respond, "Because I say so." Would you then believe me?

It seems that you are saying that, as the Bible would have to have to be its own critic due to its claimed holiness, I would have to be my own critic in the exact same way, and anyone's objection to my being the Son of God would be because they are just "ordinary men". How convenient.

Again you fail to apreciate the subject, and object of the scriptures.

False, you should know by now that I used to be a devout Christian who did nothing but study the scriptures.

Why just look at one small section, of one religion?
Why don't you broaden your scope, and mind? Maybe then you will have a good reason to be atheist.

Jan.

Being an atheist, I have broadened my scope from one religion, thank you for making that so easy to point out. And I'm looking at this small section right now because I see in it a tremendous problem and you don't seem to think so. So we are debating it. Would you rather not debate it?

Let's review; you tell me that simply because a book says it is the truth with no other authority than its own, it should be believed because it is so holy, it has to be its own critic (which is an attribute you have derived again, from the book itself), and then you tell me that I should broaden my mind. Then you throw in an unnecessary and bitter remark concerning my reasons for being an atheist, which is highly based on your assumptions and entirely false. While I would disagree with your conclusions, I would not be as insensitive as to claim you don't have good reasons for being what you are, I think being on this message board to begin with is a favorable indicator of that.

It seems theists can be just as bitter as atheists, eh?