who made god?

[one_raven]

firstly, go fuck yourself.

Not right now, thanks.
Maybe after I finish posting this.

i'm an atheist, i'm asking people to explain something to me. i understand all sources of information are biased and must be evaluated, i'm not that naive. i'm studying islam as an open elective at uni (doing bach. psych), i was raised a protestant. i can understand you mistaking the nature of my posts, and assuming i'm another blindly zealous christian, but you're wrong. i'm just trying to discuss an issue i had with god being created, which i got good answers to.

Actually, I didn't mistake you for a Christian at all.
It is quite clear from your posts that you consider yourself an atheist.
What about my post made you make that ridiculous assumption?
Awfully defensive.

My assumption, actually, was that you were a recovering Christian.
Seems I was right.

when was the last time you saw a roman god church, or congregation. i've never seen one. pretty sure they're a minority. although maybe everyone except me is secretly worshipping them, who knows.

The Roman Gods are the same as the earlier Greek Gods - just renamed to be co-opted by the Romans. Would you concede to that?
Were you aware that many still worship the ancient Greek Gods in Greece?
Or did you assume that those who worshipped the ancient Greek Gods are all gone, since it does not happen in your back yard?

You brought up the Roman Gods as evidence that religions are man-made because they crumble and fall by the wayside.
Meanwhile, the Greek Gods are still alive and kicking, the Hindu Gods are still around, there are still over 200,000 Zoroastrians around the world and believe it or not, there are still quite a few people (in the US even) who still worship the ancient Roman Gods. In fact the US probably has more people who worship the ancient Roman and Greek Gods than anywhere else right now - these people generally refer to themselves as "Pagans".

when you have such a limited amount of information as a couple of posts, perhaps you would do well to be less presumptious and not try and stereotype me. if you didn't go and fuck yourself at the start of post, and read the whole thing instead

I did read the whole thing.
I have read a number of your posts, actually.
This is what I based my assumptions on.
You take a very limited view and definition adhered to by a small group of people and condemn all religions on that limited view.
It is typical of recovering Christians.
They are running away from their former brand and understanding of Christianity with as much fervor and zeal as the bible thumpers push their own flavor of Christianity.

i still think you're a dickhead.

That is certainly your perogative.
Don't worry, you're not alone in that thought - you could probably start a club.

My opinion still stands, however, that you should learn and experience a little more and base less of your world view on second-hand information and your limited experience in your small world.

 

[Myles]

Codanblad,

Just because you lack the intellect to understand something does not mean it does not exist in some form or another.

Look at it this way: Centuries ago people would have thought you were crazy if you told them that one day man would be able to hold a human heart in their hands while performing surgery.

In this way we can conclude that once you know how something is done it becomes easy or at least possible.


Edit:Not to be confused with fundamentalism

And had we stuck with religion we would never had got to see heart surgery !

 

[superluminal]

God was made by frightened humans cowering around a fire as a coping mechanism for having the incredibly bad sense to have evolved a brain capable of percieving it's own mortality in the face of a cosmos it was (and is?) unprepared to understand.

 

[scorpius]

I made God!!!

oh yeah..
which one?:shrug:

www.godchecker.com

 

[lightgigantic]

God was made by frightened humans cowering around a fire as a coping mechanism for having the incredibly bad sense to have evolved a brain capable of percieving it's own mortality in the face of a cosmos it was (and is?) unprepared to understand.

I think you have "god" confused with "consumerist culture"

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

When the 5 year old boy emerged from that Austrian house of horrors and gazed upon the night sky for the first time he questioned as to whether the moon was in fact God. I found his thought quite interesting and I couldn't help but wonder if at sometime in the past the same question was being asked by our ancestors.

 

[nietzschefan]

I think you have "god" confused with "consumerist culture"

Nope that's Christmas.

He's got it about right. A real long time ago, perhaps independently or isolated from each other, "people" came up with at good method of crowd control, probably to counter some other "people" living, absolutely, wonderfully, free. Perhaps too wonderfully.

 

[lightgigantic]

When the 5 year old boy emerged from that Austrian house of horrors and gazed upon the night sky for the first time he questioned as to whether the moon was in fact God. I found his thought quite interesting and I couldn't help but wonder if at sometime in the past the same question was being asked by our ancestors.

Nope that's Christmas.

He's got it about right. A real long time ago, perhaps independently or isolated from each other, "people" came up with at good method of crowd control, probably to counter some other "people" living, absolutely, wonderfully, free. Perhaps too wonderfully.

so you guys don't have any serious problems working with the assumption "because some people are getting it wrong, everyone is"?

 

[codanblad]

Not right now, thanks.
Maybe after I finish posting this.

Actually, I didn't mistake you for a Christian at all.
It is quite clear from your posts that you consider yourself an atheist.
What about my post made you make that ridiculous assumption?
Awfully defensive.

My assumption, actually, was that you were a recovering Christian.
Seems I was right.

The Roman Gods are the same as the earlier Greek Gods - just renamed to be co-opted by the Romans. Would you concede to that?
Were you aware that many still worship the ancient Greek Gods in Greece?
Or did you assume that those who worshipped the ancient Greek Gods are all gone, since it does not happen in your back yard?

You brought up the Roman Gods as evidence that religions are man-made because they crumble and fall by the wayside.
Meanwhile, the Greek Gods are still alive and kicking, the Hindu Gods are still around, there are still over 200,000 Zoroastrians around the world and believe it or not, there are still quite a few people (in the US even) who still worship the ancient Roman Gods. In fact the US probably has more people who worship the ancient Roman and Greek Gods than anywhere else right now - these people generally refer to themselves as "Pagans".

I did read the whole thing.
I have read a number of your posts, actually.
This is what I based my assumptions on.
You take a very limited view and definition adhered to by a small group of people and condemn all religions on that limited view.
It is typical of recovering Christians.
They are running away from their former brand and understanding of Christianity with as much fervor and zeal as the bible thumpers push their own flavor of Christianity.

That is certainly your perogative.
Don't worry, you're not alone in that thought - you could probably start a club. My opinion still stands, however, that you should learn and experience a little more and base less of your world view on second-hand information and your limited experience in your small world.

fair enough. your argument is logical, and its your opinion, so yeah. i still think you're being presumptious, and you don't really have me pegged, but i doubt i'll be able to convince you otherwise by arguing with you in posts. my own shortcoming perhaps.

i disagree with your last sentence, what it says about me, but how can i know how much i don't know.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

so you guys don't have any serious problems working with the assumption "because some people are getting it wrong, everyone is"?

I have a problem responding to nonsensical assumptions but I have no problem accepting man's propensity to make a god. In fact it is something we do very well.

 

[lightgigantic]

I have a problem responding to nonsensical assumptions but I have no problem accepting man's propensity to make a god. In fact it is something we do very well.

so why do you hold your assumption regarding the actions of a 5 year old as sufficient to delineate the entire length and breadth of religiousity as something other than nonsense?

 

[Koalama]

God is not embodied in anything. God Is a spirit. Since God does not dwell in anything concrete he was never made. He is just perceived like emotions.

 

[Koalama]

Yorda, you have conversed with this universal "consciousness"? Or tapped into a way of "feeling" it?

From my layman observations, the Universe is in fact 99.9999~% -> Dead.

If the universe is infinite couldn't it also be said that it is 99.9999~% living?
Doublethink.

 

[Prince_James]

If God is a necessary being, it is like asking which whole number comes before "1".

However, the argument "God is necessary" is different from "God is the cause of all things".

 

[Yorda]

If God is a necessary being, it is like asking which whole number comes before "1".

0 comes before 1 and god is 0 because 0 is the beginning and ending and the bible says that god is alpha and omega. but god is also the trinity which is 0, 1 and infinity which equal X (devil).

However, the argument "God is necessary" is different from "God is the cause of all things".

non-being certainly is a "necessary being" because it's the only thing that can exist without a creator, and thus it's also the only thing that can actually create or cause anything.

From my layman observations, the Universe is in fact 99.9999~% -> Dead.

the universe seems to be 99% dead because scientists have defined matter to be dead although it is alive.

 

[Prince_James]

Yorda:

0 comes before 1 and god is 0 because 0 is the beginning and ending and the bible says that god is alpha and omega. but god is also the trinity which is 0, 1 and infinity which equal X (devil).

Crom is displeased with your inane gibberish.

non-being certainly is a "necessary being" because it's the only thing that can exist without a creator, and thus it's also the only thing that can actually create or cause anything.

Non-being doesn't exist.

 

[OilIsMastery]

seems a popular argument for christians to use, that god must exist because who made the universe? well who made god? if its possible for god to simply come into existence, why can't the universe do it?

i understand that god by definition is the entity which existed before everything else, but surely whatever power allows him to exist first, could be bestowed upon the universe. and perhaps the universe doesn't have the consciousness, or control of all things which god has. perhaps the force which created the universe has expired, or left our universe?

That is an idiotic argument that comes from John Stuart Mill.

It stems from a misunderstanding of the First Cause argument.

http://www.existence-of-god.com/first-cause-objections.html

Critics of the first cause argument often try to rebut it by asking a question: Who created God? This question is supposed to present the theist with a dilemma.

If the theist concedes that God does have a creator, then isn’t it God’s creator that we should should be worshipping rather than God? And who created God’s creator? The danger of an infinite regress of creators, each postulated in order to explain the existence of that subsequent to it, looms. If there is an infinite regress of creators, though, then there is no first creator, no ultimate cause of the universe, no God.

Perhaps, then, the theist should maintain that God doesn’t have a creator, that he is an uncaused cause. If uncaused existence is possible, though, then there is no need to postulate a God that created the universe; if uncaused existence is possible, then the universe could be uncaused.

However the theist answers the question Who created God?, then, what he says will undermine the first cause argument, and he will be forced to abandon it. So, at least, runs this common objection to first cause argument.

This objection is much less powerful than it first appears. In fact, it rests on a simple misunderstanding of the first cause argument.

If the first cause argument were the argument that everything has a cause, and that the universe therefore has a cause, and therefore that God exists, then the question Who created God? would indeed present the theist with a problem.

That, though, is not the argument. The first cause argument is the argument that everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause, that the universe has a beginning of its existence, and that the universe therefore has a cause of its existence. The theist can therefore confidently answer the question Who created God?, "No one created God", without fear of compromising the first cause argument.

:crazy:

 

[Prince_James]

OilIsMastery:

ONe has to prove that God did not have a beginning for the rebuttal to function. Especially as the argument entails the affirmation of universal contingency.

 

[OilIsMastery]

OilIsMastery:

ONe has to prove that God did not have a beginning for the rebuttal to function. Especially as the argument entails the affirmation of universal contingency.

One doesn't need to prove that. It's a tautological definition. First principles are matters of faith.

"There are some people who expect even this to be demonstrated, but on account of lack of education, for it is a lack of education not to know of what one ought to seek a demonstration and of what one ought not. For it is impossible that there be a demonstration of absolutely everything (since one would go on to infinity, so that not even so would there be a demonstration), and if there are certain things of which one ought not to seek a demonstration, these people are not able to say what they think would be of that kind more than would such a principle." -- Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1006a

 

[Prince_James]

Oilismastery:

One doesn't need to prove that. It's a tautological definition. First principles are matters of faith.

"God does not have a beginning" is not a justified axiom. We have to deduce necessity from the nature of God. What makes God necessary? What aspects lead it to that conclusion?

Necessity can be proven by the absurdity of the opposite and the manifest truth of the affirmation. First principles are those principles which fit these criteria. They do not need justification because they are obviously so and could not otherwise be. Aristotle was wrong to dismiss inquiries into them out of hand, because they are absurdly easy to prove.