LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksWhat is the purpose of this question?
Why do you assume that God was created?
Jan.
September 15th, 2006, 12:01 PM
What is the purpose of this question?
Why do you assume that God was created?
Jan.
if universe need a creator god should need one. if one of them dont the other shouldnt aswell
September 15th, 2006, 12:49 PM
Originally Posted by jan ardena
OK we give in, what IS the purpose of this question "Why do you assume that God was created?"
This is probably a question asked by atheists that think they asked a clever question to which religious people can’t give an answer. So the purpose is showing God can’t exist, though on a very stupid way. :?
September 15th, 2006, 03:09 PM
I very much doubt than anyone assumes any such thing.
The purpose of the question "Who created God?" is to point out the obvious falacy in thinking that the statement "God created it." has any substantial explanatory value. The purpose is to point how silly it is to attempt to convince anyone of the existence of God by the rational arguement, that the only possible explanation for the universe is that it must have been designed and created by an awesomely powerful intellegent being. Silly, that is, to attempt to convince anyone but a child, who you can simply forbid the asking of this question "who created God?"
How can we assume something was created that we do not believe exists?
If it does not exist it is either dead or has not yet been created.
Why don't you come over to the new religion of 'Allness' - we believe that All Time space energy matter & history, created us - and we call it 'Allness' . We do not have scriptures, everybody decides upon their own path through life and you can only be stoned if you drink too much.
If you are Atheist or agnostic you can pop in and out as you please - there are no forms to fill out and if you decide to move to another ISP (Independant Spiritual Provider) we won't hold you to any contract.
In fact the only requirement is simply that you prostrate yourself before the local representative of Allness, [The Lightened Sol] for two weks a year just to show your support. We do not seek funds. Everybody is welcome to come and go as they please.
LOL! Do I get tax relief? Company car?
September 15th, 2006, 06:49 PM
Why are you called Jan?
If you are a good boy/girl - maybe.LOL! Do I get tax relief? Company car?
To add my point of view (for reading psychologists maybe?): It's a rational philosophical argument that is, sadly, STILL commonly used. Atheists still reply with "Then who created god" To point out the logical and philosophical flaw in saying "The universe is so grand it must have had a creator".
For the full argument: If the universe is so grand it needs a creator, than the creator who is even MORE grand must need one who is even greater than HE is and so onand so forth.
This has never really been accurately thwarted by anyone that I know of, and tends to leave Theists changing the subject. Overall, the POINT in asking it, is to simply point out the flaw in that type of reasoning, the rest depends on the speakers intent. Lastly, the reason why we "assume" this is because theists assume god created it. We just follow their logic.
It's another one of those "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" conundrum.
Either God created the universe, or the universe created God.
If that is what you are trying to say I Agree.
But do look back at the ALLNESS post, it has humour and religion!.
I solved that easily.
Creation: Chicken
Evolution: Egg
September 16th, 2006, 05:36 AM
What is the purpose of such a question?????Why are you called Jan?
September 16th, 2006, 05:43 AM
THe purpose of such a question is to seek an answer.What is the purpose of such a question?????Why are you called Jan?
September 16th, 2006, 06:36 AM
THe purpose of the answer is the knowledge gaind, unless relative to the goal of the questioner.THe purpose of such a question is to seek an answer.What is the purpose of such a question?????Why are you called Jan?
Why ask? The answer is simple; if you don't beleive in God it is a reasonable retort to the argument that God exists since the Universe is so beautfiul etc...
If you do beleive in God then it is an obvious question for anyone to ask (scientist or otherwise) in order to gain more understanding of Universe and all the stuff we know nothing about. Maybe the answer would eventually be that no one created him/her but it should still be asked since we can't say either way. Only a closed minded person would ignore this and just accept that God exists on faith.
billco wrote:I think the answer lies in the definition of 'chicken's egg'.It's another one of those "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" conundrum.
Some millions years ago there was no chicken. There was a very long chain of replication and mutation that make a certain winged thing evolve into a brand-new species called chicken. Let's say this winged thing was called chuck. At precisely one point, chuck produced a special egg, which later on developed into a chicken. So what do we call this egg?
a) a chuck's egg. (then the answer to billco's is - chicken came first)
b) a chicken's egg. (then the answer to billico's is -egg came first)
September 19th, 2006, 07:15 PM
Hello,
I believe all life on Earth from the very first life created God. Every life form, virus, bacteria or single celled creature as within it, (and up to now an undetected) real life form that controls the chemicals that make it up that cell. This real or true life form may well have a very long life span.
This true life form and it could be alien in it's origin arriving first by a meteor directs the moving cell just as you control a moving car. The car is not alive but from a distance may look alive. A many celled animal, we included would be made up of many true life forms working together. Every brain would contain a true life form and all would work together looking after the body and so looking after themselves and collectively they would make up the real you. If the true life forms are advanced enough when your body as served it's purpose you just may end up be part of an overall controlling undetected mass that knows everything.
You can read it in full if you go to my philosophy on the meaning of life.
It does give an explanation for all things we still class as paranormal
Regards,
David.
Zelos,
If the universe was created, then it doesn’t need a creator, it is a part of the creator.if universe need a creator god should need one. if one of them dont the other shouldnt aswell
Billco,
Based on what we understand about God (regardless of belief status), how can anyone assume He is a created being?OK we give in, what IS the purpose of this question "Why do you assume that God was created?"
Because you believe it exists, but choose to deny it?How can we assume something was created that we do not believe exists?
Artemis,
And gives light to their true intention.This is probably a question asked by atheists that think they asked a clever question to which religious people can’t give an answer. So the purpose is showing God can’t exist, though on a very stupid way
Mitchellmckain,
Then why not argue why the universe is not created, or why God didn’t create the universe?The purpose of the question "Who created God?" is to point out the obvious falacy in thinking that the statement "God created it." has any substantial explanatory value.
Jeremyhfht,
Some theists may assume this, but the explanation of why and how it is created is explained in some scriptures.Lastly, the reason why we "assume" this is because theists assume god created it. We just follow their logic.
Somberlaine,
A reasonable retort, would try and reveal why the universe is not created, this response is a discussion killer.Why ask? The answer is simple; if you don't beleive in God it is a reasonable retort to the argument that God exists since the Universe is so beautfiul etc...
Why should anyone assume that God is a created being?Maybe the answer would eventually be that no one created him/her but it should still be asked since we can't say either way.
Why should anyone assume that a being that has been created is God?
A close-minded person kills the conversation with ignorance, by asking questions that make no sense, and have absolutely no relevance to the discussion. :wink:Only a closed minded person would ignore this and just accept that God exists on faith.
Jan.
There are three possible mind states on the issue of 'God'
A person believes;
1) they and all else were/was created by a god or gods or,
2) there are no gods and never have been or,
3) there may or may not be a god (open minded).
The existence of god cannot be proven or disproven by humans.
Science relies on those who make claims to provide proof in order for their claim to be accepted.
In view of the achievements of science over the last three hundred years or so, the only place for god today (to science) seems to have been whether or not god 'lit the blue touch paper' in order to set the whole thing going.
And my favourite quote on the subject;
"If I were God I would have cast the moon as a cube"
Intended to mean that god would have left an unequivocal signature on his works for all to see. Dammit, he's vain enough to demand worship.
According to who?
You know one of the problems of monarchy is that one man simply cannot effective weild that much power, so opportunists gather around a king like vultures to take avangtage of this situation and by serving the king they can weild this power in his name. Thus no matter how much a king tries to do good, others invariable weild his power for their own selfish ends.
Well people do the same thing with the idea of God. They try to serve Him just like the vultures that gather around a king to wield power in His name. The vultures that say that God requires worship, because it is they who want the power that comes with that worship. It is very healthy for mankind and religion to have a few skeptics around ready to criticize such people for their hypocricy and self serving use of power.
On the other hand, as the source of all life, goodness, wisdom and love, God is certainly worthy of whatever respect, regard and love we might give Him. He does not require such things. Are not we the ones who ultimately benefit when we respect, regard and love these things which God represents: life, goodness, wisdom and love?
According to who? The ancient Israelites? The writers of the Old Testament? Different times - different circumstances.
Dammit, he's vain enough to demand worship.Good point.According to who? The ancient Israelites? The writers of the Old Testament? Different times - different circumstances.
Jan.
"Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and Him only shalt thou serve." (Matt. 4:10). as attributed to Jesus.
Then there's the koran, that's full of it to.
Unless these books are not the word of 'God' written in his name by mortals.
October 15th, 2006, 11:32 AM
Everything comes from something. So where did God come from. I find the word 'who' interesting though. Who would insinuate that a person or people were involved. Maybe a peope but, most deffinately not a person.
Is there anything in life that you can get without something else being given. This is why we assume something created God. The purpose of the question is to verbalize the wanting to know: who created God?
October 15th, 2006, 03:59 PM
If everything comes from something, then that something must be the source of everything, does that make sense?Everything comes from something. So where did God come from. I find the word 'who' interesting though. Who would insinuate that a person or people were involved. Maybe a peope but, most deffinately not a person.
Is there anything in life that you can get without something else being given. This is why we assume something created God. The purpose of the question is to verbalize the wanting to know: who created God?
Megabrain,
What exactly are you trying to prove?"Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and Him only shalt thou serve." (Matt. 4:10). as attributed to Jesus.
Then there's the koran, that's full of it to.
Unless these books are not the word of 'God' written in his name by mortals.
Jan.
October 15th, 2006, 04:13 PM
If you'd care to read back to the post I made you will see I was answering a challenge to that post,If everything comes from something, then that something must be the source of everything, does that make sense?Everything comes from something. So where did God come from. I find the word 'who' interesting though. Who would insinuate that a person or people were involved. Maybe a peope but, most deffinately not a person.
Is there anything in life that you can get without something else being given. This is why we assume something created God. The purpose of the question is to verbalize the wanting to know: who created God?
Megabrain,
What exactly are you trying to prove?"Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and Him only shalt thou serve." (Matt. 4:10). as attributed to Jesus.
Then there's the koran, that's full of it to.
Unless these books are not the word of 'God' written in his name by mortals.
Jan.
October 15th, 2006, 06:14 PM
If everything comes from something and it needs a source, then the source you assume to be the original source must have a source.
Try to think of the big picture when you use logic.
October 16th, 2006, 04:05 AM
The source I assume has to be the cause of everything because everything has come from it. It also means the "source" is different from everything else.If everything comes from something and it needs a source, then the source you assume to be the original source must have a source.
Try to think of the big picture when you use logic.
I think you should take your own advice regarding logic, or else you end up wasting time.
Jan.
October 16th, 2006, 05:13 AM
That's what I thought, but your answer fails to meet the challenge by not being relevant, much less anything else.If you'd care to read back to the post I made you will see I was answering a challenge to that post,If everything comes from something, then that something must be the source of everything, does that make sense?Everything comes from something. So where did God come from. I find the word 'who' interesting though. Who would insinuate that a person or people were involved. Maybe a peope but, most deffinately not a person.
Is there anything in life that you can get without something else being given. This is why we assume something created God. The purpose of the question is to verbalize the wanting to know: who created God?
Megabrain,
What exactly are you trying to prove?"Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and Him only shalt thou serve." (Matt. 4:10). as attributed to Jesus.
Then there's the koran, that's full of it to.
Unless these books are not the word of 'God' written in his name by mortals.
Jan.
Jan.
thinking of a source is like thinking classical physics in quantum mechanic
October 16th, 2006, 01:02 PM
If the source is different from everything else then the source must need a source different from itself. If everything needs a source, except for the source, you have a logical fallacy. If everything needs a source then the source, different or not, needs one.
And I agree with Zelos
October 16th, 2006, 04:38 PM
Jeremyhfht,
That doesn't follow unless the source is on the same level as that which it produces, that being the case it would come under the banner of "everything", which means it cannot be the source. Is that where you're going with this? God either doesn't exist, or He is non-different to the material world? Because that doesn't explain God.If the source is different from everything else then the source must need a source different from itself.
It depends what you regard as "everything" and "the source".If everything needs a source, except for the source, you have a logical fallacy.
What do you know?
Read above.If everything needs a source then the source, different or not, needs one.
Why couldn't the source be non material, therefore not confined to the laws of material nature?
Of course you do, for to think otherwise might indicate God.And I agree with Zelos
And we can't have that can we, a divine foot in the door? :wink:
Jan.
October 16th, 2006, 05:42 PM
Let me put it this way, there can't be a source for everything. Because if there was, everything would need a source and he'd have to have created himself.
eve·ry·thing (ĕv'rē-thĭng') pronunciation
pron.
1.
1. All things or all of a group of things.
2. All relevant matters: told each other everything.
2. The most important fact or consideration: In business, timing is everything.
Which is what I regard as "everything" unless you care to explain what your definition is.
If the source isn't material than it isn't comprehensible by those material. That being said, everything non-material can't be explained or noted, or known, by those material. So god doesn't exist, and if he did, we wouldn't be able to know it! HahWhy couldn't the source be non material, therefore not confined to the laws of material nature?
You didn't disagree with Zelos. Which means Zelos is correct until it's proved he is incorrect.Of course you do, for to think otherwise might indicate God.
And we can't have that can we, a divine foot in the door? :wink:
October 16th, 2006, 09:40 PM
"Everything comes from something"If everything comes from something, then that something must be the source of everything, does that make sense?Everything comes from something. So where did God come from. I find the word 'who' interesting though. Who would insinuate that a person or people were involved. Maybe a peope but, most deffinately not a person.
Is there anything in life that you can get without something else being given. This is why we assume something created God. The purpose of the question is to verbalize the wanting to know: who created God?
Megabrain,
"Something must be the source of everything"
Maybe I don't understand but both these statements seem to say the same thing.
October 17th, 2006, 03:13 AM
Jeremyhfht,
Why must He be created at all?Let me put it this way, there can't be a source for everything. Because if there was, everything would need a source and he'd have to have created himself.
Why, if He created the laws of the universe, must He be subject to those laws?
If I create characters and scenery in a computer game, does that mean I am subject to their laws?
So many absolutes, with so little knowledge or experience.Why couldn't the source be non material, therefore not confined to the laws of material nature?If the source isn't material than it isn't comprehensible by those material. That being said, everything non-material can't be explained or noted, or known, by those material. So god doesn't exist, and if he did, we wouldn't be able to know it! Hah
What if God was comprehensible through highly developed consciousness, and those individuals were able to relay the understanding to others whose consciousness, although high, not quite as developed.
Do you think this could be a possibility?
To me thinking of a "source" is no problem at all, because I am open-minded. Zelos, on the other hand is extremely close-minded, and as such, chooses to hate that which swears blind, does not exist.Of course you do, for to think otherwise might indicate God.
And we can't have that can we, a divine foot in the door? :wink:You didn't disagree with Zelos. Which means Zelos is correct until it's proved he is incorrect.
This is not about being right or wrong, it is about unraveling the truth.
Jan.
October 17th, 2006, 03:15 AM
You were the one who used the word "something", not me."Everything comes from something"If everything comes from something, then that something must be the source of everything, does that make sense?Everything comes from something. So where did God come from. I find the word 'who' interesting though. Who would insinuate that a person or people were involved. Maybe a peope but, most deffinately not a person.
Is there anything in life that you can get without something else being given. This is why we assume something created God. The purpose of the question is to verbalize the wanting to know: who created God?
Megabrain,
"Something must be the source of everything"
Maybe I don't understand but both these statements seem to say the same thing.
I don't understand God to be, what we would term, a "thing".
Jan.
October 17th, 2006, 11:23 AM
*sigh* Why must almost every theist be an egomaniac?
It's not possible. While inside a box you cannot detect said boxes motion by any experiment you conduct inside of it.
October 18th, 2006, 09:33 AM
But you can detect you are inside a box, right?*sigh* Why must almost every theist be an egomaniac?
It's not possible. While inside a box you cannot detect said boxes motion by any experiment you conduct inside of it.
Jan.
Actually I would say that this is probably the most consistent message throughout the bible. The OT and NT are inconsistent on many things, such as OT "eye for an eye" justice vs. NT turning the other cheek...but this is not one of those inconsistencies. In the NT Jesus does indeed explicitly say that people are supposed to worship god.
October 18th, 2006, 04:46 PM
Unless you qualify that statement I can say....
Ever heard of inertial navigation? It uses three gyro's, 6 accelerometers an accurate clock and a computer inside a closed tube (called an aeroplane) It is used to guide all spacecraft, satellites, commercial aircraft.
From any starting position it can tell you which way up you are, what direction you are travelling in, how fast, how far you have travelled, etc etc.
It was on wiki, but I've forgotten the page...I think it was Reference Frames.
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive...p/t-34263.html
October 18th, 2006, 06:07 PM
Everything is something and nothing is what it seems. The common mind will try to put God in a material catagory when that is, in most cases, impossible. This is, I feel, why so many do not believe in a God. In actuality nothing is as it seems to the conditioned ego-mind. Everything is is very basic: vibrations and energies (gets complicated). Whether God is an idea or a form of vibration, or anything else, God must come from something. It just makes sense. Obviously not everyone thinks that. You can say that God comes from nothing but, then nothing would be something. Does this help?
October 19th, 2006, 11:25 AM
DaBOB,
In basic common language, I would agree with that, but it also means 'what we can percieve through our five senses.Everything is something and nothing is what it seems.
To put God in the category of material nature, or, it is impossible for God to be composed of material nature?The common mind will try to put God in a material catagory when that is, in most cases, impossible.
You still haven't explained why He must have come from something, or what that "something" could possibly be.Whether God is an idea or a form of vibration, or anything else, God must come from something. It just makes sense.
What is it about the "god" of Abraham, and Jesus, that makes you think He had to come from something?
How do you get the idea that God could come from nothing? I know of no revealed religion where it states, God came from something, what to speak of nothing.Obviously not everyone thinks that. You can say that God comes from nothing but, then nothing would be something. Does this help?
Jan.
October 19th, 2006, 12:45 PM
Now we are getting somewhere.
Basically.
It is interesting what we can perceive though. We sense much, much more than we perceive. What we perceive is nothing more than our imagination making use of our senses.
I am not one to decide whether or not anything is impossible. What I am getting at is that there is no evidence of a material form of God (that I know of) so, when people try to make sense of God in a material manner it does not work.
I am only using logic to come to the idea that God must come from something and ?I have no idea what that might be. Maybe us.
There is nothing about the God in particular. More like, it is only logical that God come from something.
If God created everything than God must have come from nothing... right? I'm not sure I understand you question.
October 19th, 2006, 04:44 PM
DaBOB,
[quote]I agree, but there are forces that demand that our perception is all there is, in order to establish truth, and as such, cannot begin to understand the concept of God, and they cry God does not exist.
Niether is there a claim. The idea of a material God does not come from within any revealed religion, hence, the idea has no place within a legitimate discussion on God and religion. This should be obvious.I am not one to decide whether or not anything is impossible. What I am getting at is that there is no evidence of a material form of God (that I know of) so, when people try to make sense of God in a material manner it does not work.
On the contrary, it is illogical, based on the description given in all revealed religions. This proposal has nothing to do with religion, it is just another way of saying I don't want to believe God exists, and am not prepared to even try and understand the basic concept.You still haven't explained why He must have come from something, or what that "something" could possibly be.
What is it about the "god" of Abraham, and Jesus, that makes you think He had to come from something?
I am only using logic to come to the idea that God must come from something and ?I have no idea what that might be. Maybe us.
There is nothing about the God in particular. More like, it is only logical that God come from something.
God is described as purely-spirit, never coming into, or going out of being. Time is described as a consequence of material nature in that, everything comes into being, grows, reproduces, dwindles, and dies.How do you get the idea that God could come from nothing? I know of no revealed religion where it states, God came from something, what to speak of nothing.If God created everything than God must have come from nothing... right? I'm not sure I understand you question.
I wanted to knkow by what source did you hear about God, and what have you learned about God since.
Jan.
October 19th, 2006, 11:46 PM
They cry that a material concept of God does not exist.
Of course the idea of a material God does not come from the religion itself. It comes from the people trying to understand who or what God is. In trying to use their known sneses (like you pointed out) they cannot find a logical reason to believe in God.
I'm not basing my logic on what the religions teach. More like common sense. Do you know of anything that can just come from nothing? Also, I am confused; are you saying that these "revealed religions" say that God came from nothing?
Does this mean that spirit is non-being? Not sure I understand where you are going with the "time" thing.
As if I learned of God from one source.
Also, I would like to point out that we are very off topic here. I don't mind continuing, I just thought I should point that out.
October 20th, 2006, 10:26 AM
DaBOB,
This is my point, one doesn't exist. So why ask who created God?I agree, but there are forces that demand that our perception is all there is, in order to establish truth, and as such, cannot begin to understand the concept of God, and they cry God does not exist.They cry that a material concept of God does not exist.
That a material God does not exist, is also agreed by the serious religious practitioners, because there is no such thing.Of course the idea of a material God does not come from the religion itself. It comes from the people trying to understand who or what God is. In trying to use their known sneses (like you pointed out) they cannot find a logical reason to believe in God.
[quote]I'm not basing my logic on what the religions teach. [quote]On the contrary, it is illogical, based on the description given in all revealed religions. This proposal has nothing to do with religion, it is just another way of saying I don't want to believe God exists, and am not prepared to even try and understand the basic concept.
Then we aren't talking about the same thing, because sriptoraly based religions are.
No I don't.More like common sense. Do you know of anything that can just come from nothing?
God is nowhere described as 'coming from nothing'.
No. Revealed religions say that God is pure spirit, and so never comes into, or goes out of being.Also, I am confused; are you saying that these "revealed religions" say that God came from nothing?
No, it means that spirit is not affected by the laws of nature, time, being one of them.God is described as purely-spirit, never coming into, or going out of being. Time is described as a consequence of material nature in that, everything comes into being, grows, reproduces, dwindles, and dies.Does this mean that spirit is non-being? Not sure I understand where you are going with the "time" thing.
What I mean is, did you hear about Him via a religion, and if so which religion(s)??I wanted to knkow by what source did you hear about God, and what have you learned about God since.As if I learned of God from one source.Also, I would like to point out that we are very off topic here. I don't mind continuing, I just thought I should point that out.
As the topic starter, I disagree that we are going off-topic, I think I have more understanding as to why people ask "who created God", but I'm not entirely sure as yet.
Jan.
Maybe I am understanding now. Your saying that if God can't exist material manner than why would God need a creator?
Maybe the question who created God is refering to the idea of God. In that case you could say we created God. Or God created God. If you believe that God continues to 'exist' (ina non-being way) without belief than maybe the question is pointless. But, for example, what is a thought. You cannot hold a thought in your hand or watch ut walk down the street. Like God a thought is not really there yet it still may exist. Like we creaste our thoughts, what creates God?
If this didn't answer any of your questions please restate, I'm a bit tired and don't want to write anymore right now.
DaBOB,
No.Maybe I am understanding now. Your saying that if God can't exist material manner than why would God need a creator?
God is not, nor never has been, described as material. That is an atheist concept, or device. To argue that God cannot be scientifically proven, has nothing to do with real religion.
Yes, the atheist idea.Maybe the question who created God is refering to the idea of God.
Which is what atheists do.In that case you could say we created God. Or God created God.
You can decide (to a degree) what you want to think about, but you cannot create thoughts, they are part and parcel of you whether you like it or not. Some would say, that God is also there whether we like it or not, although some of us choose to deny Him.But, for example, what is a thought. You cannot hold a thought in your hand or watch ut walk down the street. Like God a thought is not really there yet it still may exist. Like we creaste our thoughts, what creates God?
Jan.
Then explain to me how you can comprehend an incomprehensible being? Or even know of said beings existence? If a being is immaterial, then it cannot be proven, but even "better" it cannot be understood because it cannot be studied in any way shape or form by material creatures. Nor, for that matter, could it ever be philosophically measured or "figured out".
In saying that, your "religion" has the same chance of being correct as every other religion. Probably 1 in infinity. XP
If you say god came from nothing, then you're basically saying god created god. BASED on the assumption that everything needs a creator!Which is what atheists do.In that case you could say we created God. Or God created God.
According to the terms you provided, it's impossible for god to beSome would say, that God is also there whether we like it or not, although some of us choose to deny Him.
A) Comprehended
B) Thought about in any philosophically correct manner
C) Prove his existence
D) Go on anything but blind faith
And aside from that, it also means you have no reasonable basis for believing in him. Nor claiming any type of comprehension, his nature, his actions, etc.
Plus, in order to believe anything from the bible, you have to prove it's validity. Which theist historians have tried for how long to do? This goes double for the qur'an.
Jeremyhfht,
In the same way you comprehend anything, by utilising your human intelligence.Then explain to me how you can comprehend an incomprehensible being?
That's not what this thread is about. It is about using what knowledge/idea we have about God (i.e. scriptures), and basing the discussion on that. Not creating a straw-man god and use that dis-honest tactic to say God does not exist.Or even know of said beings existence?
Proving God exists is not the objective.If a being is immaterial, then it cannot be proven, but even "better" it cannot be understood because it cannot be studied in any way shape or form by material creatures.
God can be understood depending on the individuals position, this applies to all levels of knowledge, not just theology.
If two people love each other, one studying the love of his partner to see if it exists, is actually counter productive.
There is only one religion, and that is to love God. If any religion teaches this, then it is correct. How is it possible to love God? That is why there are scriptures, and all scriptures teach the same thing according to time, place and circumstance.In saying that, your "religion" has the same chance of being correct as every other religion. Probably 1 in infinity. XP
I'm not saying God came from nothing, I'm saying God never came into being, because His nature is spirit not matter. If you don't believe there is such a nature, then that's that.If you say god came from nothing, then you're basically saying god created god. BASED on the assumption that everything needs a creator!
[quote]Some would say, that God is also there whether we like it or not, although some of us choose to deny Him.Of course I have reasonable basis for believing in God.And aside from that, it also means you have no reasonable basis for believing in him. Nor claiming any type of comprehension, his nature, his actions, etc.
And my level of comprehension of His nature and actions, aren't claims, they are all scriptoraly based. I can learn to understand Him through my own relationship with others, and material nature, by utilising disiplines of science, philosophy, art and religion
That is a complete nonsense.Plus, in order to believe anything from the bible, you have to prove it's validity.
Then that's where they are going wrong (if what you say is true)Which theist historians have tried for how long to do? This goes double for the qur'an.
Jan.
Prove that humans are capable of comprehending that which is immaterial, when they're strictly material beings?
If god was material, then yes. Your position of knowledge would aid. But this depends on how you define "position", and hopefully you're not contributing intelligence with titles such as "Ph.D".God can be understood depending on the individuals position, this applies to all levels of knowledge, not just theology.
However, since god is immaterial then it is impossible to understand him regardless of your position. If you were to comprehend, at any level, something immaterial you would go insane. Since your body and universe is strictly material, your brain is only good at thinking of material things.
Anybody can monitor their conscious thought on the matter and probably find things that end up tying to their material existence. It's most likely impossible for a material being to be able to fully shed his/her material thoughts, and think on an immaterial level. Especially since their brains are material!
You compare apples to buicks.If two people love each other, one studying the love of his partner to see if it exists, is actually counter productive.
So you're saying that the only real religions are ones that teach the love of god? If you wish to say stupid things like that, you have to prove god exists. But since that isn't the topic of discussion (according to you), your statement is thus mute.There is only one religion, and that is to love God. If any religion teaches this, then it is correct. How is it possible to love God? That is why there are scriptures, and all scriptures teach the same thing according to time, place and circumstance.
That means god came from god. But how can god come from god if everything needs a source? If everything needs a cause, then god would have to have created god in an infinite loop that continues for all time.I'm not saying God came from nothing, I'm saying God never came into being, because His nature is spirit not matter. If you don't believe there is such a nature, then that's that.
However if everything needs a cause then that infinite loop needs a cause.
If god never came into being, then god doesn't exist. If immaterial ("spirit") means you don't need a source, then that's an example of incomprehensible. I defy you to fully wrap your mind around the implecations. Know what? It's impossible, because if the cause rule doesn't apply then no telling what rule applies. So whatever you think up will be wrong.
Art, science, and philosophy, are all material based. Religion is as well, since it's all material save for god and other "spirit" creatures that nobody can prove exists because they're immaterial.Of course I have reasonable basis for believing in God.
And my level of comprehension of His nature and actions, aren't claims, they are all scriptoraly based. I can learn to understand Him through my own relationship with others, and material nature, by utilising disiplines of science, philosophy, art and religion
You've basically claimed a superiority over everybody else by claiming you can comprehend the incomprehensible. In reality, your comprehension of the logical fallacies regarding your "comprehension" of the immaterial are your downfall. I'll get to the "scriptures" later.
What? You never knew that the dead sea scrolls were found after most of the "prophecies" were complete?That is a complete nonsense.
That's an example. And a lot of the stories within the bible have never been verified historically.
If your knowledge of god cames from the scriptures, you have to prove their validity. If they were written by man, then your comprehension of god is mute. Since the scriptures are material.
So not only do you have to prove an immaterial being wrote the scriptures, but you have to do so by not using what he was supposed to have written. You do, and it's a logical fallacy.
What's even better is that, despite how civilizations mentioned in the bible (some of them) keep very detailed records of everything from taxes to breathing. They tend to make no record of certain biblical events mentioned in the bible.
One can give infinite excuses for the validity of the bible, but when the only sources are dead sea scrolls written around 100A.D. (after most of the prophecies were "fulfilled" and jesus "died"), it's unlikely any will hold merit.
For an example, egyptian records of the "israelites" crossing the red sea was documented thousands of years before the "Dead Sea Scrolls" came into existence. Likelihood of it being recorded in the favore of a populace-controlling tome is high.is an example of recent exploits that "prove" a few things from exodus.Exodus: Decoded
Most of which were, however, recorded prior to the dead sea scrolls and without religious bias!
There's something fishy going on here, isn't there?
Jeremyhfht,
In the same way you comprehend anything, by utilising your human intelligence.That request is idiotic. It would be like me asking you to prove your claim that we are "strictly material beings".Prove that humans are capable of comprehending that which is immaterial, when they're strictly material beings?
God can be understood depending on the individuals position, this applies to all levels of knowledge, not just theology.Huh!If god was material, then yes. Your position of knowledge would aid. But this depends on how you define "position", ...
Heaven forbid, no.and hopefully you're not contributing intelligence with titles such as "Ph.D".
And hopefully you don't think academic intelligence equals "intelligence".
I disagree with your belief system and world view.However, since god is immaterial then it is impossible to understand him regardless of your position.
How do you know this, as you believe it is impossible to comprehend anything immaterial?If you were to comprehend, at any level, something immaterial you would go insane.
Okay, i'll stoop to your level...Since your body and universe is strictly material, your brain is only good at thinking of material things.
Prove that we are strictly material?
Huh!If two people love each other, one studying the love of his partner to see if it exists, is actually counter productive.You compare apples to buicks.
What? Are you blind?So you're saying that the only real religions are ones that teach the love of god?
That's what I wrote didn't I?
Don't be stupid, you don't have to prove anything of the sort, the original religion teaches the individual how to love God. Get over it.If you wish to say stupid things like that, you have to prove god exists. But since that isn't the topic of discussion (according to you), your statement is thus mute.
And yes, this thread is not centered on whether or not God exists. It asks why people persist in asking the pointless question, who/what created God, when they should know that God (as described), is a spiritual being, whether they believe in Him or not.
Until now, it seems that either
(a) they are totally ignorant of the original source of knowledge of God (i.e. scriptures);
(b) they choose to create a god which suits there arguments, and claim that this is the god reprisented in the scriptures
You appear to be an active, paid up member of both these groups.
No it doesn't. It means that from our perspective God always exists.I'm not saying God came from nothing, I'm saying God never came into being, because His nature is spirit not matter. If you don't believe there is such a nature, then that's that.That means god came from god.
Here, you display characteristic (b) to full effect.But how can god come from god if everything needs a source?
Which is why you're argument is an exercise in stupidity.If everything needs a cause, then god would have to have created god in an infinite loop that continues for all time.
Here we come to the point of belief.However if everything needs a cause then that infinite loop needs a cause.
Either you believe God does not exist, or God exists.
That's all there is to it.
characteristic (b)If god never came into being, then god doesn't exist.
Who said immaterial doesn't need a source?If immaterial ("spirit") means you don't need a source, then that's an example of incomprehensible.
characteristic (a) and (b).I defy you to fully wrap your mind around the implecations. Know what? It's impossible, because if the cause rule doesn't apply then no telling what rule applies. So whatever you think up will be wrong.
As I am not impressed with you version of reality, I take this statement with a pinch of salt. However I look forward to your take on scriptures.In reality, your comprehension of the logical fallacies regarding your "comprehension" of the immaterial are your downfall. I'll get to the "scriptures" later.
That is a complete nonsense.How do you think it possible to prove whether they are invalid or not?If your knowledge of god cames from the scriptures, you have to prove their validity. If they were written by man, then your comprehension of god is mute. Since the scriptures are material.
How do you think it would be possible to prove that an immaterial being wrote the scriptures?So not only do you have to prove an immaterial being wrote the scriptures, but you have to do so by not using what he was supposed to have written. You do, and it's a logical fallacy.
Jan.
This means you can't. In which case, rather than answering, prove that we have any ties to non-material areas to begin with.
It's a common assumption. If you attempt to comprehend the incomprehensible, you go insane because your brain cannot handle it. Similar to overloading a CPU.How do you know this, as you believe it is impossible to comprehend anything immaterial?
all evidents suggests we are (going by the dictionary definition of material and such). Therefore, it's logical to say we are strictly material at this point. Provide evidence that suggests otherwise, and we can begin.Okay, i'll stoop to your level...
Prove that we are strictly material?
This is of course, ignoring philosophical arguments over materialism, etc. But physical science seems to be a basis for my statement.
It's sorta pointless to love that which doesn't exist.Don't be stupid, you don't have to prove anything of the sort, the original religion teaches the individual how to love God. Get over it.
This is cute. But I'm rather well versed in scripture. Being a former JW and all.(a) they are totally ignorant of the original source of knowledge of God (i.e. scriptures);
(b) they choose to create a god which suits there arguments, and claim that this is the god reprisented in the scriptures
You appear to be an active, paid up member of both these groups.
A) "original source of knowledge" is a claim that has to be proven. If god doesn't exist, it isn't the original source of knowledge. Don't make claims you don't have evidence for. such as proving the validity of the bible to begin with (a thus far unaccomplished feat. Woo).
B) actually, everybody does this. Gay bashers, anti-poligamists, racists, etc. Including you, sir.
Since you are so opposed to my doing so, why not give a definition of god then?
But everything needs a creator. So god needs one. Just saying "no he doesn't" isn't exactly explanatory now is it?No it doesn't. It means that from our perspective God always exists.
Then why are you even here?Here we come to the point of belief.
Either you believe God does not exist, or God exists.
That's all there is to it.
That being said, since god is immaterial, he needs a source. Unless you wish to contradict your own statement there.Who said immaterial doesn't need a source?
Either that or you reply with "who said the immaterial needs a source". Well, sir, since you're such a wizard on the immaterial, then explain everything about immaterial beings. Which should be interesting, since you're a material being.
This is simply a way of entirely avoiding my statements. You, sir, have no shame.characteristic (a) and (b).
I look foreward to you actually answering what I say rather than "characteristic "A" and "B"" in an effort to escape it.As I am not impressed with you version of reality, I take this statement with a pinch of salt. However I look forward to your take on scriptures.
That being said, how can you believe in something that's so up in the air?How do you think it possible to prove whether they are invalid or not?
You're being coy. Since I'm not on the theist end of this debate I'm not quite sure why I should answer my own retort.How do you think it would be possible to prove that an immaterial being wrote the scriptures?
Jeremyhfht,
Of course I can't.This means you can't. In which case, rather than answering, prove that we have any ties to non-material areas to begin with.
Can you prove the opposite?
How do you know this, as you believe it is impossible to comprehend anything immaterial?It is a common assumption that God exists, is it not?It's a common assumption.
Do you know anyone who has attempted such a feat and went insane?If you attempt to comprehend the incomprehensible, you go insane because your brain cannot handle it. Similar to overloading a CPU.
Or perhaps your insanity is due to such an attempt? :-D
Okay, i'll stoop to your level...
Prove that we are strictly material?Oh it does, does it?all evidents suggests we are (going by the dictionary definition of material and such).
Where is the evidence that suggests consciousness is "strictly material"?Therefore, it's logical to say we are strictly material at this point. Provide evidence that suggests otherwise, and we can begin.
"seems to be" sounds about right.This is of course, ignoring philosophical arguments over materialism, etc. But physical science seems to be a basis for my statement.
I couldn't agree more.It's sorta pointless to love that which doesn't exist.
JW's. LOL!!This is cute. But I'm rather well versed in scripture. Being a former JW and all.
No wonder you're an atheist. I bet the transition was relatively simple.
I have admiration for the JW's faith, but their philosophical armoury leaves alot to be desired.
Tell me. How do you know God doesn't exist?A) "original source of knowledge" is a claim that has to be proven. If god doesn't exist, it isn't the original source of knowledge.
What do you mean by "validity" with regards to the bible?Don't make claims you don't have evidence for. such as proving the validity of the bible to begin with (a thus far unaccomplished feat. Woo).
He is the "source" you keep mentioning.Since you are so opposed to my doing so, why not give a definition of god then?
Then by that logic, there must eventually be a creator from whom everything comes.But everything needs a creator. So god needs one. Just saying "no he doesn't" isn't exactly explanatory now is it?
Because it is good fun.Here we come to the point of belief.
Either you believe God does not exist, or God exists.
That's all there is to it.Then why are you even here?
Who said immaterial doesn't need a source?You can describe God as "immaterial" because He is not material, but that does not tell you what or who God is. If you asked me what car I drove, and I answered "a material one" would that make you any wiser?That being said, since god is immaterial, he needs a source. Unless you wish to contradict your own statement there.
Please answer the question, because I really want to know.That being said, how can you believe in something that's so up in the air?How do you think it possible to prove whether they are invalid or not?
Personally, I don't think it is possible, but I am open to the possible possibilities.
No. It is a genuine enquiry.How do you think it would be possible to prove that an immaterial being wrote the scriptures?You're being coy. Since I'm not on the theist end of this debate I'm not quite sure why I should answer my own retort.
Saying you know that God does not exist, is not a retort, it is a factual statement, and I can only assume that you have evidence which proves this fact of yours.
If you haven't, then don't make such statements. Try using your human intelligence instead of relying on tired, childish, atheist cliches.
Jan.
Sorry guys I haven't been able to keep up. I read something about the brain though and it reminded me of a point I made in a different thread.
What is material? When your brain is working the neurons are firing action potentials (AP) in a binary fashion (1 and 0). The firing can be faster or slower but, it is either there or it is not. One AP signals the next (depending on frequencies and such). Tell me, what starts the first AP? What gives the command? APs are just chain reactions. Chain reactions don't just happen. What makes it so that our nervous system is somehow more suseptable to this unknown stimulus and is the stimulus a material thing? When all these APs are firing we have thoughts. Where are these thoughs? When we see something we aren't actually watching it happen we are making it happen. What I mean is: the light signals are sent to our brain and translated into an image. Where is this image being projected? I sure can't see other peoples veiws.
Unless I am wrong, these things are very much immaterial. Can we use our thoguhts to imagine what our thoughts must look like? Is there anything to imagine?
Sorry if this is a bit off the topic.
Since you can't, your points are mute. And since we are thus material (ignoring philosophy), and science only points towards the material, there is an utter lack of any evidence that suggests we have any part of ourselves that is immaterial.
You're weaseling quotes like a journalist now.It is a common assumption that God exists, is it not?
Well...see...nobody has. That's the whole point. Nobody has comprehended the immaterial because they're incapable of it. It's like asking a white blood cell to do quantum physics.Do you know anyone who has attempted such a feat and went insane?
Or perhaps your insanity is due to such an attempt? :-D
One word: neuroscience.Where is the evidence that suggests consciousness is "strictly material"?
It's funny how many ill-educated morons decide to poke at my former faith as the reason I'm an atheist. I prefer the KJV, and actually their "philosophical armoury" is better developed than christianity even! Which I find insanely ironic.JW's. LOL!!
No wonder you're an atheist. I bet the transition was relatively simple.
I have admiration for the JW's faith, but their philosophical armoury leaves alot to be desired.
You want to know what's even more funny? More former-christians are atheists than former-JW's. Your statement is mute.
Lack of sufficient evidence, along with all the biblical inaccuracies and other religious tomes. Unless you wish to state they're all wrong, and god is independant from them.Tell me. How do you know God doesn't exist?
Not to mention you've not given any evidence to suggest people can comprehend that which is immaterial. You keep playing coy. So rather than continuing to answer your imbecile questions, you can either start answering mine or go cry.
Aviodance.What do you mean by "validity" with regards to the bible?
Lack of proper definition, avoidance.He is the "source" you keep mentioning.
Inaccurate reading of my statement.Then by that logic, there must eventually be a creator from whom everything comes.
By your logic, which you've avoided expressing outright, and your statement there, if you wish to believe in a god then you must believe your god had a god, and his god had a god, etc, etc, etc.
If you can comprehend the immaterial, than by all means explain.You can describe God as "immaterial" because He is not material, but that does not tell you what or who God is. If you asked me what car I drove, and I answered "a material one" would that make you any wiser?
Please answer mine. If you're going to play coy, so will I.Please answer the question, because I really want to know.
Personally, I don't think it is possible, but I am open to the possible possibilities.
Coy again. You've made numerous statements you've outright avoided backing up. And I've given "evidence" to the improbability of comprehending the immaterial.No. It is a genuine enquiry.
Saying you know that God does not exist, is not a retort, it is a factual statement, and I can only assume that you have evidence which proves this fact of yours.
If you haven't, then don't make such statements. Try using your human intelligence instead of relying on tired, childish, atheist cliches.
Not to mention the fact, y'know, science sorta agrees with evolution. One can argue evolution is gods doing, but that contradicts most religious scripture (or so the continual debate leans towards).
If you define "God" as the universe, then yes "he" exists. But if you define "God" as an alternative, you get into trouble. Mainly philosophical paradoxes such as omniscience/omnipotence. The list can go on for quite a while, but you've yet to DEFINE god with a proper definition.
And if you be coy about answering my statements or questions again, don't expect to be honored with a reply. Especially since I've better things to do than reply to statements not worth replying to.
Ill.Fracking.Legible.
Not only are you confusing yourself, but I can't make heads or tails of what the hell you are getting at. What unknown stimulus? What suseptability? What do you mean by binary fashion when the brain in fact has three "bits" not two?
What do you mean "chain reactions don't just happen"? Of course they don't, and I'd explain why if I even could READ your post right.
Are you getting at the point "thoughts are immaterial"? Sir, if they're based on neuron, chemical, etc, influence and manipulation according to a specific set of brain behavioural patterns defined by past experience and genetics, they are very well material.
You make less sense than Zelos or I have ever acomplished.
:PIll.Fracking.Legible.
Not only are you confusing yourself, but I can't make heads or tails of what the hell you are getting at. What unknown stimulus? What suseptability? What do you mean by binary fashion when the brain in fact has three "bits" not two?
What do you mean "chain reactions don't just happen"? Of course they don't, and I'd explain why if I even could READ your post right.
Are you getting at the point "thoughts are immaterial"? Sir, if they're based on neuron, chemical, etc, influence and manipulation according to a specific set of brain behavioural patterns defined by past experience and genetics, they are very well material.
You make less sense than Zelos or I have ever acomplished.
A neuron either sends an AP or it doesn't. Also, it can send APs at different speeds. The frequency of APs is what determines the frequency of the next neurons APs an so on. I say "binary" because there is either an AP or there isn't (stimulus vs no stimulus).
The stimulus I am speaking of is unknown to me and likely unknown to everyone at this point in time. It is that which makes the first decision to make an AP. I call it consciousness, some may call it God.
The suseptability thing doesn't really apply to this conversation but I will explain for clairification. Why is a neuron able to accept this stimulus (consciousness) and other cells aren't? Or even more important: what if other cells are?
If all that is responsible for our thoughts is neural activity where is the thought taking place. If a thought was material you could measure it somehow. I have yet to see someone measure a thought. You can measure what is believed to be responsible for thought but, you cannot measure the thought itself.
dabob wroteThe stimulus unknown to you is not necessarily be conciousness, or god. When you smell pheromone into your body you may get arousal without knowing what causes it.The stimulus I am speaking of is unknown to me and likely unknown to everyone at this point in time. It is that which makes the first decision to make an AP. I call it consciousness, some may call it God.
dabob wroteit is the same reason why your mouth accepts food but your ears don't: the cells evolve to do specific function.Why is a neuron able to accept this stimulus (consciousness) and other cells aren't? Or even more important: what if other cells are?
Even more important: if you try to shove food through you ears you will not feel well-fed, but still hungry and cannot listen well.
Descartes believed that it took place at the pineal gland in the brain, but his theory is not accepted by present-day scientists. There are many theories of conciousness and no final verdict. Dennette (a philosopher) thinks that there is no conciousness (!!) But actually this may be similar to the Buddha's teaching of Annatta, that there is no self.If all that is responsible for our thoughts is neural activity where is the thought taking place.
When you ask where the thought takes place, you are looking for the Cartesian Theatre. There is no Cartesian theatre. Sorry I cannot explain more. I don't know enough.
i believe God doesn't need to have been created if one believes that He is a Supreme Being...one with whom anything is possible, including having had existed forever. So i guess i'm saying that whether or not God needs an origin depends on your definition of God. If a god to someone is simply all processes that occur in the universe, or circumstances (i believe someone in this forum said that was their view of God...), then perhaps God does need an origin. so perhaps the purpose of asking who created God is to try to prove that He is not supreme... because He would be second to His creator, and that creator would need a creator, etc... perhaps one could use this reasoning to conclude that there is no God.
I'm sorry but this is not an answer to the question. Saying "they evolved that way" doesn't give me the mechanism. Also, I'm not asking for an answer I am just presenting the idea.
Again I wasn't really expecting an answer. If thoughts were to take place in the pineal gland than what would they look like? You see, there is no single location. I try thinking about it and my mind goes crazy. Could it be a colection of all the neural tissue working together (the whole equaling more than the sum of its parts). If so it still doesn't explain how it is taking place.
There is no spoon.
I assume what you are trying to say is that there is no material place in the brain in which thoughts take place. If so, I agree.
Just to bring us back. My original point was to show that things can in fact exist in a non-material manner.
daBoB wroteevolution is the mechanism.I'm sorry but this is not an answer to the question. Saying "they evolved that way" doesn't give me the mechanism. Also, I'm not asking for an answer I am just presenting the idea.I believe evolution is also the mechanism.You see, there is no single location. I try thinking about it and my mind goes crazy. Could it be a colection of all the neural tissue working together (the whole equaling more than the sum of its parts). If so it still doesn't explain how it is taking place.
Chemboy,
That is the only definition of God.i believe God doesn't need to have been created if one believes that He is a Supreme Being...one with whom anything is possible, including having had existed forever.
Other definitions of God, other than above, are not scriptoral definitions. There are no other definitions of God other than scriptoral.So i guess i'm saying that whether or not God needs an origin depends on your definition of God.
The thing is, though, we're not talking about "gods" we're talking about God. The God who is described in the scriptures. Either you believe He exists or not, but to create your own personal definition is totally pointless.If a god to someone is simply all processes that occur in the universe, or circumstances (i believe someone in this forum said that was their view of God...), then perhaps God does need an origin.
Then they are only kidding themselves.aps the purpose of asking who created God is to try to prove that He is not supreme... because He would be second to His creator, and that creator would need a creator, etc... perhaps one could use this reasoning to conclude that there is no God.
Either one believes He exists or not, period.
If you don't believe He exists, then why bother speculate on what He may or may not be?
Jan.[/quote]
What nonsense. Some people like to stick their head in the sand and pretend that their world of belief is the only world. Some people are so proud of their studies of scripture that they think that by that study they own God. Jesus said, "You search the scriptures because in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify to Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life. I do not receive honor from men. But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you."
Well I don't think it is pointless. It is the closed mind which I think is pointless, for that is the mind that cannot see God but which instead idolizes some finite conception contained within. But God cannot be so contained. We finite beings can only struggle endlessly in search of understanding.
More foolishness. The question of what God is, is the only meaningful question. The question of whether He exists or not is part of a con. For whether they argue that this God of theirs exists or this God of theirs does not exist, all they are doing is roping you into believing what they think God is when you should be answering this question for yourself.
I cannot agree with you there, your god may not be somebody else's so why is making up your own god a bad thing, it's cos you only recognise yours. People have been making up gods (probably) since man climbed out of the trees.
[quote="jan ardena"]Chemboy,
Bullocks. Explain other definitions then? All of which are based on the scripture.That is the only definition of God.
Bullocks again. People have defined what god is, who god is, what god wants, etc, all from the scripture. Some scriptures may say god is all powerful, while others may say something quite contrary. It's all in how you preceive those scriptures to begin with. You're apparently ignorant enough to believe your perception is actually correct.Other definitions of God, other than above, are not scriptoral definitions. There are no other definitions of God other than scriptoral.
Cite scriptures that describe your god, and I'll cite an equal amount that disagree. That's normally how the bible tends to work. Technically YOUR belief in a god means it's a personal definition. It's not scripture based, since there can be an infinite amount of other definitions based on said scriptures. By your own terms, your definition is totally pointless.The thing is, though, we're not talking about "gods" we're talking about God. The God who is described in the scriptures. Either you believe He exists or not, but to create your own personal definition is totally pointless.
Because, unlike you, we're open-minded. 'tis better to question ones beliefs, than live with them for eternity as-is.Then they are only kidding themselves.
Either one believes He exists or not, period.
If you don't believe He exists, then why bother speculate on what He may or may not be?
let's get this straight, jan ardena, could this thread be named "Why ask who created the Christian God?" Perhaps i was to suppose this from "God" with a capital G, but i believe other people would consider "God" someone other than the Christian God... and of course, please forgive me if i'm just being ignorant here and it is obviously the Christian God you're referring to...
Why ask who created God? For the same reason one asks who created the universe.
Who created the guy who created the guy who created the guy who created God who created the universe? There may be a few guys I missed.
Easy answer: God was created by random lotery. Everything else after God was created by God.
Man created the word 'god' as a sort of bin for everthing he could not explain. It's so damned convenient to say 'god did it' when you have no idea or explanation for something, then along comes science at which point we should move certain things out of the god bin but some resist it.
mitchellmckain]
You say "what nonsense". What other definitions of God are in the scripture?That is the only definition of God.
Other definitions of God, other than above, are not scriptoral definitions. There are no other definitions of God other than scriptoral.What nonsense. Some people like to stick their head in the sand and pretend that their world of belief is the only world. Some people are so proud of their studies of scripture that they think that by that study they own God.
As for the rest of the quote, it is hardly worth commenting on.
You are quoting scripture from a source which advocates God as the definition you attempted to slate me for, how bizzare.Jesus said, "You search the scriptures because in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify to Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life. I do not receive honor from men. But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you."
How about this quote from the same chapter;
Jesus says......"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed * me: for he wrote of me. "
What it the point of a personal definition of God?The thing is, though, we're not talking about "gods" we're talking about God. The God who is described in the scriptures. Either you believe He exists or not, but to create your own personal definition is totally pointless.Well I don't think it is pointless.
Again I have to ask, what is the point of concocting a personal, mental image of what you believe to be God?It is the closed mind which I think is pointless, for that is the mind that cannot see God....
LOL!!but which instead idolizes some finite conception contained within.
Within the scriptures?
What are you talking about mitch? You yourself quoted scripture at me, you yourself profess to be a christian (a follower of christ). Does Jesus not speak of the same God that I am speaking of, the God who instructed Moses and Abraham. The God who created the heaven and earth, etc.But God cannot be so contained.
What do you mean by contained?
Then they are only kidding themselves.
Either one believes He exists or not, period.
If you don't believe He exists, then why bother speculate on what He may or may not be?I wouldn't say the only one, but other than that I agree. But there are definitions of what God is from all perspectives, in scriptures, because as you said earlier;More foolishness. The question of what God is, is the only meaningful question.
"We finite beings can only struggle endlessly in search of understanding."
I'm sorry, but who are they?The question of whether He exists or not is part of a con. For whether they argue that this God of theirs exists or this God of theirs does not exist, all they are doing is roping you into believing what they think God is when you should be answering this question for yourself.
Jan.
The whole point is, there is only one God, and what we understand to be different gods, are only different aspects of the one God.I cannot agree with you there, your god may not be somebody else's so why is making up your own god a bad thing, it's cos you only recognise yours. People have been making up gods (probably) since man climbed out of the trees.
Jan.
If there is only one god then why don't the various religions of the world live in peace and recognise that he just appears differently to each?
Do you believe that Jehovah and Allah are the same god?
Jeremyhfht,
Why, if I only believe there is one definition?That is the only definition of God.Explain other definitions then?
With pleasure;Cite scriptures that describe your god, and I'll cite an equal amount that disagree.
B.G. Chapter 7, Verse 21.
I am in everyone's heart as the Supersoul. As soon as one desires to worship the demigods, I make his faith steady so that he can devote himself to some particular deity.
Jan.
Its not about sectarian religion, its about the source of religion, God.
God is described in all revealed scriptures as a spiritual being, one who is the cause of all causes.
Asking who created God, has no meaning in light of these scriptures, even if you are atheist, so why ask. If you don't beleive in God, or that He exists, fair enough, but why assume He was created when you know He wasn't, when you know He is superior and beyond this material existence. Can superman fly?
Jan.
That means you're ignorant. HehJeremyhfht,
Why, if I only believe there is one definition?That is the only definition of God.Explain other definitions then?
By the way, just in case you don't know...
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=ignorant&gwp=13
ignorant doesn't mean "stupid".
"BG"? Wait, you're not a qur'an believer are you? If that's the case, I withdraw. I'm not well versed enough in the qur'an, and speaking with a qur'an believer has proven as hard as driving a bronz nail through steel.With pleasure;
B.G. Chapter 7, Verse 21.
I am in everyone's heart as the Supersoul. As soon as one desires to worship the demigods, I make his faith steady so that he can devote himself to some particular deity.
So, yeah, I withdraw.
And you call me ignorant and close-minded.That means you're ignorant. HehJeremyhfht,
Why, if I only believe there is one definition?That is the only definition of God.Explain other definitions then?
"BG"? Wait, you're not a qur'an believer are you? If that's the case, I withdraw. I'm not well versed enough in the qur'an, and speaking with a qur'an believer has proven as hard as driving a bronz nail through steel.With pleasure;
B.G. Chapter 7, Verse 21.
I am in everyone's heart as the Supersoul. As soon as one desires to worship the demigods, I make his faith steady so that he can devote himself to some particular deity.
So, yeah, I withdraw.
Jan.
Yes, I do. I withdraw because I lack detailed knowledge of it, and I admit it. And thus far, qur'an believers on this forum (most others will agree) are exactly like my analogy there. So yeah, shush.And you call me ignorant and close-minded.That means you're ignorant. HehJeremyhfht,
Why, if I only believe there is one definition?That is the only definition of God.Explain other definitions then?
"BG"? Wait, you're not a qur'an believer are you? If that's the case, I withdraw. I'm not well versed enough in the qur'an, and speaking with a qur'an believer has proven as hard as driving a bronz nail through steel.With pleasure;
B.G. Chapter 7, Verse 21.
I am in everyone's heart as the Supersoul. As soon as one desires to worship the demigods, I make his faith steady so that he can devote himself to some particular deity.
So, yeah, I withdraw.
Jan.
Megabrain,
Generally the people of these different religions, do live in peace. How often do you see catholics fighting moslems in street fights, or how often do you witness a murder based soley on religious differences?If there is only one god then why don't the various religions of the world live in peace and recognise that he just appears differently to each?
The reasons why it appears that religions are in disaray, are generally due to other things, mainly political.
Of course, why shouldn't they be.Do you believe that Jehovah and Allah are the same god?
jAN.
You must mean what other definitions are there besides scriptural?You say "what nonsense". What other definitions of God are in the scripture?What nonsense. Some people like to stick their head in the sand and pretend that their world of belief is the only world. Some people are so proud of their studies of scripture that they think that by that study they own God.
All those in the minds of everyone who thinks about God.
I am quoting scripture that talks about scripture and people who think they have God in their pocket just because they study scripture.
Interesting how you edit the Bible to make it fit like the piece of jigsaw puzzle into your ideology with the other things you call scripture. I on the other hand believe what Jesus said, including when He says to believe in Him. But I am not so deluded as to think that any of these things which He says or the rest of the Bible says or any other literature says could possibly define God enough to say "That is the only definition of God."
The point is a personal search for God. I would certainly not restrict God to your personally edited version of the scriptures.What it the point of a personal definition of God?Well I don't think it is pointless.
It is a sign of a living active mind which seeks God diligently as opposed to a complacent dead mind which thinks it has mastered God.Again I have to ask, what is the point of concocting a personal, mental image of what you believe to be God?
No, within the mind of the person who thinks that they have God defined and that their definition is the only possible definition. God is really beyond definition as He is beyond any scriptures.LOL!!
Within the scriptures?
What are you talking about mitch? You yourself quoted scripture at me, you yourself profess to be a christian (a follower of christ). Does Jesus not speak of the same God that I am speaking of, the God who instructed Moses and Abraham. The God who created the heaven and earth, etc.
What do you mean by contained?
Accepting the truth of the scriptures is an act of faith for their is nothing to substantiate their reliability. And clearly what scriptures one puts their faith in varies considerably, especially between you and me. I accept the Bible as authoritative, but I do not think that the Bible defines God. It is only a source of information about God for me which I accept as authoritative, but it is certainly not the only source of information about God for me.
The Gnostics believed that the world was created by an evil being which they called the "Demiurge", for they believe that the material nature of the world was inherently evil. Of course I do not believe this and I believe like you do that there is only one ultimate creator of everything, but my point is that being the creator is not sufficient to define God for me, for niether power and knowledge nor the debt of my creation are sufficient causes for me to give my loyalty and support.
In Greek mythology, the gods condemned Sisyphus for defying them, and I would walk in his footsteps to defy a despicable god who has only power and knowledge to guide Him. Some things are worth supporting or fighting for, no matter what the consequences are. Therefore perfect love and goodness are a neccessary part of my definition of what the word God means. God must epitomize all those things which are worth fighting for at any cost. With faith in this, I can bow to the superior knowledge and goodness of God, knowing my own inadequacy in both. HOWEVER I must follow my own moral compass as the best device I have to point out the direction of the will of God. I know it is probably flawed (or broken) but I have to trust that if I seek what is right then God will lead me right in spite of myself.
As you see I have many definite ideas about God, but I trust in none of them so much that I would indulge in the self-righteousness to claim that I have the one and only definition of God.
"They" refers to those arguing whether God exists or not. Especially those that take the answer to the question of "what is God" for granted. For if those arguing that God does not exist clearly explained what God they are saying doesn't exist then we are likely to agree that such a God does not exist. And for those arguing that God does exist, their argument rarely does anything to establish that God is anything like what they assume.I'm sorry, but who are they?
Jan is calling you ignorant because you do not realize that his abbreviation BG stands for Bhagavad-Gita, the scriptural text of Hinduism, and I think He is calling you close minded because like myself you are not willing to consider it authoritative (or at least interesting).Yes, I do. I withdraw because I lack detailed knowledge of it, and I admit it. And thus far, qur'an believers on this forum (most others will agree) are exactly like my analogy there. So yeah, shush.And you call me ignorant and close-minded."BG"? Wait, you're not a qur'an believer are you? If that's the case, I withdraw. I'm not well versed enough in the qur'an, and speaking with a qur'an believer has proven as hard as driving a bronz nail through steel.
So, yeah, I withdraw.
Having studied the Bible, the Bhagavad-Gita and the Koran, Jan only respects those who have likewise studied these same texts which he calls scripture. Furthermore, he seems to think that they are only reliable in so far as they can be made compatable with a little editing, as if there was only one way to do such a thing.
However since Jan does claim to accept the Bible as authoritative there is no reason for you bow out, unless of course you just don't find refuting Jan's concept of God as very interesting since your main delight seems to be in poking holes in Christian ideas of God.
Honestly, hindu scripts tend to not even be WORTH debating about. What's there to debate? Next time I see a hindu maybe I'll bother to learn it, but until then I'll stick with skimming past it. Especially since religious texts are highly un-interesting.
Ah, now I get it. However my main "delight" is "poking holes" at ideas of god PERIOD. However the way in which jan ends up citing scriptures (since no online bible agrees with any of those citings), is in a manner in which the qur'an is possibly written. So I assumed, although it appears incorrectly, that was his main religious text. Eh well, onwards.However since Jan does claim to accept the Bible as authoritative there is no reason for you bow out, unless of course you just don't find refuting Jan's concept of God as very interesting since your main delight seems to be in poking holes in Christian ideas of God.
I really can't read such a long thread, but let me react to the original post.
The purpose is to show that the creation hypothesis really doesn't add anything. It's true that 'science' can't tell us what happened before the big bang. Creationists use this as an argument for their own hypothesis that a god created everything. And wouldn't it be logical that all that exists needs to have a beginning? Yea that would be logical, but then you'll have to tell us where god came from as well. Otherwise you've just postponed the question of what came first and how it got there, without answering it at all.
Btw have a look here, the thread discusses nearly the same question.
Everyone here seems to assume the universe had a beginning, so who created it? But why does it have to have a beginning? It may be less unlikey it was created out of nothing than that it has always existed.
We cannot, from our own experience on Earth, imagine either.
mitch,
You must mean what other definitions are there besides scriptural?
All those in the minds of everyone who thinks about God.
There are no definitions besides scriptural, it could be that you’re not aware of other scriptural definitions, besides the bible.
I am quoting scripture that talks about scripture and people who think they have God in their pocket just because they study scripture.
Do you believe that Jesus could walk on water, heal the sick through faith, bring people back from death, and rise again after his brutal murder?
Interesting how you edit the Bible to make it fit like the piece of jigsaw puzzle into your ideology with the other things you call scripture.
I suppose it is, from your perspective. But what’s even more interesting is you don’t seem to realise that you are talking about yourself.
I on the other hand believe what Jesus said, including when He says to believe in Him. But I am not so deluded as to think that any of these things which He says or the rest of the Bible says or any other literature says could possibly define God enough to say "That is the only definition of God."
What definition is more appropriate than God is the supreme cause of all causes?
What are you talking about mitch? You yourself quoted scripture at me, you yourself profess to be a christian (a follower of christ). Does Jesus not speak of the same God that I am speaking of, the God who instructed Moses and Abraham. The God who created the heaven and earth, etc.
What do you mean by contained?
No, within the mind of the person who thinks that they have God defined and that their definition is the only possible definition. God is really beyond definition as He is beyond any scriptures.
You are the one who whimsically defines God, not me. I am stating what is in the scriptures. My definition of God is somewhat closer to Jesus’ definition, than yours, yet you are the Christian, the one who follows in his footsteps. Doesn’t that strike you as little odd?
Accepting the truth of the scriptures is an act of faith for their is nothing to substantiate their reliability.
What do you regard as “reliability”?
And what would substantiate this reliability, in your estimation?
Pendragon,
The purpose is to show that the creation hypothesis really doesn't add anything.
Its not meant to add anything, it is the answer. Whether or not you accept it, is a different matter.
It's true that 'science' can't tell us what happened before the big bang. Creationists use this as an argument for their own hypothesis that a god created everything.
I will assume by “creationist” you mean someone who believes God is the cause of creation, as opposed to the ‘creationist movement’.
Creationists accept that God is the cause, regardless of science. The goal of science is strictly to understand nature, and because of this, there is no way its findings can determine one way or another, the existence of God.
And wouldn't it be logical that all that exists needs to have a beginning? Yea that would be logical, but then you'll have to tell us where god came from as well.
Of course its logical.
God, is the “beginning”. It stands to reason, if everything has a beginning, then that beginning must be God, and to argue that that is not God, is a diversion.
Can superman fly?
Yes.
Is he weak-end by kryptonite?
Yes.
Do I believe he exists in reality, outside of fantasy?
No.
You may not believe there is a God, but you must argue from the point of His omnipotence, and omniscience, otherwise you have changed the subject.
Otherwise you've just postponed the question of what came first and how it got there, without answering it at all.
Look at all scriptures, and tell me what they say on the subject matter.
There is no question as to who or what came first, it is boils down to whether you accept it or not, period.
Jan.
Yes there are. "scriptural" definitions of god(s) tend to be very massive, but there are many non-scripture definitions as well. Just because someone decides to write down their version of god does not mean it is valid.
Thus far, the only "evidence" jesus existed is the bible. Otherwise, history lacks all evidence.Do you believe that Jesus could walk on water, heal the sick through faith, bring people back from death, and rise again after his brutal murder?
Yet it still applies to *you*. Amazing evasive maneuver, but you crashed into a wall of reality!I suppose it is, from your perspective. But what’s even more interesting is you don’t seem to realise that you are talking about yourself.
Fact: some scriptures in other religions believe god was created as well. Other religions believe there is an infinite loop.What definition is more appropriate than God is the supreme cause of all causes?
There is really no limit to definitions on god, but the one you choose defines EXACTLY how you WANT to view reality.
It's funny since you are basing everything on your scriptural interpretation. Millions of people each have different sets of views from the exact same scriptures, and I can look at many in-context and probably cite over 20 possible interpretations.You are the one who whimsically defines God, not me. I am stating what is in the scriptures. My definition of God is somewhat closer to Jesus’ definition, than yours, yet you are the Christian, the one who follows in his footsteps. Doesn’t that strike you as little odd?
What strikes me as odd is that you apparently believe your interpretation of a chosen set of scriptures makes it more correct than other peoples interpretations for the very same set of scriptures. "My shiny apple is better than your shiny apple! Despite the fact they're from the exact same tree which bore perfect fruit!"
Lets flip this around: Whether or not you choose to accept the fact there most likely isn't a grand creator that fits your definition, is a different matter.Its not meant to add anything, it is the answer. Whether or not you accept it, is a different matter.
Incorrect. They can determine scriptural inaccuracies to a very high degree, which "proves" scriptures are written by man and thus in err. Not divine intervention. This means that the vast majority are all incorrect, thus there is no proof that a god exists.Creationists accept that God is the cause, regardless of science. The goal of science is strictly to understand nature, and because of this, there is no way its findings can determine one way or another, the existence of God.
Unless...one creates a personal god rather than one based off scriptures. Woo-hoo!
The problem is reasoning everything has a beginning is a logical fallacy. It's trapped within our own possible viewpoints of our own realities. We preceive everything as having a "beginning" and "end" as we always have. People are born (the start), and people die (the end). This original limited viewpoint has severely hampered how we view the universe.Of course its logical.
God, is the “beginning”. It stands to reason, if everything has a beginning, then that beginning must be God, and to argue that that is not God, is a diversion.
Here's a better view (and more accurate): there is no beginning, and there is no end. Only a continual string of events with no start or finish.
Here's an example: A baby is born, prior to that it conceived, prior to that it's parents were born, prior to that the human race came to be, etc, etc. It isn't a beginning.
One might say the "big bang" started it all, but that leads to the same "ultimate creator" fallacy.
Because humans have a finite lifespan consciousness wise, they find it increasingly difficult to comprehend anything infinite. I suppose, however, that philosophical view fits in with "the universe is 'god' ".
And yes, I just said "fuck you entropy".
Alright, lets argue omniscience and omnipotence (interesting how you want to limit it to that only to avoid answering anything else).Can superman fly?
Yes.
Is he weak-end by kryptonite?
Yes.
Do I believe he exists in reality, outside of fantasy?
No.
You may not believe there is a God, but you must argue from the point of His omnipotence, and omniscience, otherwise you have changed the subject.
Omniscience: all knowing
Omnipotence: all powerful
Now, lets take a minute to ponder this. Imagine knowing absolutely everything, and being able to do absolutely everything. Then imagine using your omniscience/potence to limit yourself. We have our very own logical fallacy.
Once you limit yourself, you cannot get omniscience or omnipotence back. It's a contradiction to say "you can because you're omniscient/potent", since you no longer are.
That being said, god can't have a definition or personality. He can't have logic, he can't be illogical, he can't be good or evil, he can't be anything because if he is he's no longer either.
Thus, all definitions of god one can think of, those written down, etc, are void. Including ultimate creator (since that also limits him!).
No, it boils down to how closed you are to alternative interpretation. Lets use the biblical claim of imperfection:Look at all scriptures, and tell me what they say on the subject matter.
There is no question as to who or what came first, it is boils down to whether you accept it or not, period.
Humans are imperfect
Humans can do nothing perfect
Thus, your interpretation is imperfect (thus wrong).
Following that for a while, it means everybody is wrong. One can add "to some degree", but then that means you are PERFECT to some degree! Go fallacies go!
Every piece of information is meant to add something to our knowledge. If I say "there was a Big Bang" and you reply "there was a god before the Big Bang", then you're trying to add something to the BB theory. But what I'm saying is that the addition is meaningless, it doesn't improve the theory. BB theory is not complete because we don't know what started the process, but saying that an unexplainable, invisable, eternally existing being that created itself from nothing started it does not improve the theory. But could you tell me why in your opinion it is not a meaningless and redundent addition?
Alright, then we agree that creationism as a 'scientific theory' is nonsense. And we agree that those who say that science confirms creation are talking nonsense.
Nonsense. I don't have to assume there is a god. I'm talking about reality, not some hypothetical situation. If such a thing as a god could exist, then it would be logical that god is the beginning. But what is that idea based on? On nothing.
Here's the situation: We know quite certain that there was a Big Bang; we don't know at all that there is a god (I have never seen proof). Now you tell me there must be a god, and this god must've been the beginning. I ask you what you base that on.
I disagree, there is still such a thing as logic. In my opinion what it boils down to is whether the idea that before the BB there was an omnipotent god who eternally existed in 'nothingness' (as he was the only thing that existed) and didn't have to be created makes sense or not.
You seem to suggest that if someone comes up with a strange idea we can either accept it or decline it, but I point to a 3rd option: to reject it because it makes no sense and doesn't add anything.
Pendragon,
The purpose is to show that the creation hypothesis really doesn't add anything.
Its not meant to add anything, it is the answer. Whether or not you accept it, is a different matter.It does, it tells you that God created the universe, whether or not you accept it, is a different matterEvery piece of information is meant to add something to our knowledge.
I wouldn't reply in that way, in fact if you're talking about any scientific theory, I wouldn't bring God into it, because it there would be no need.If I say "there was a Big Bang" and you reply "there was a god before the Big Bang", then you're trying to add something to the BB theory.
But what I'm saying is that the addition is meaningless, it doesn't improve the theory.
God is not a created being, not according to any scriptures or saintly persons, and unless you can accept that, you will never have a meaningful discussion about Him.BB theory is not complete because we don't know what started the process, but saying that an unexplainable, invisable, eternally existing being that created itself from nothing started it does not improve the theory.
If I refuse to believe that superman cannot fly, or run that fast because it goes against all the known laws of nature, then we can never discuss the meaning of the movies.
Its not an addition, it is the answer, we just have to understand it in whatever way we can (if we choose to).But could you tell me why in your opinion it is not a meaningless and redundent addition?
I don't know much about their "theory", what is it?Alright, then we agree that creationism as a 'scientific theory' is nonsense.
No.And we agree that those who say that science confirms creation are talking nonsense.
[quote]You may not believe there is a God, but you must argue from the point of His omnipotence, and omniscience, otherwise you have changed the subject.Whether you assume a god or not, is not the issue.Nonsense. I don't have to assume there is a god. I'm talking about reality, not some hypothetical situation. If such a thing as a god could exist, then it would be logical that god is the beginning. But what is that idea based on? On nothing.
If we are talking about God, then you must talk about Him from a scriptural point of view, otherwise you are not talking about God, even if you don't believe He exists.
In the same way I or you accept that superman can fly.
This thread is not concerned with anyones belief status.
You don't appear to have much knowledge about God, judging from your replys, and to add to that, you have created a straw-man, then you demand proof. It is little wonder your quest is not satifisfied.Here's the situation: We know quite certain that there was a Big Bang; we don't know at all that there is a god (I have never seen proof).
God, is the “beginning”. It stands to reason, if everything has a beginning, then that beginning must be God, and to argue that that is not God, is a diversion.Now you tell me there must be a god, and this god must've been the beginning. I ask you what you base that on.
Basically, it is based on scriptures and saintly persons.
I suggest you read a scripture, and then argue your case from that perspective, because as I said earlier, your information regarding God, does not make sense to me, it is not the scriptural God.I disagree, there is still such a thing as logic. In my opinion what it boils down to is whether the idea that before the BB there was an omnipotent god who eternally existed in 'nothingness' (as he was the only thing that existed) and didn't have to be created makes sense or not.
Why don't you take the subject seriously and really look into it.
Your third option is only your point of view, the opposing view would be to accept it because it makes alot of sense. It all depends on how you look at it.You seem to suggest that if someone comes up with a strange idea we can either accept it or decline it, but I point to a 3rd option: to reject it because it makes no sense and doesn't add anything.
Jan.
Jan, you are not taking my arguments seriously. You say the idea that a god created everything is 'the answer', and that I have to accept it or not. But it's not. It's a hypothesis like any other, and that's how I will judge it.
If someone comes up with a strange new hypothesis there are some questions one should ask:
-What is this based on?
-Does it make sense?
-Does it add anything to what we allready know?
-Are there better alternatives?
When I ask these questions about the creation hypothesis, I would get these results:
-What is this based on? On hearsay, mostly hearsay from lowly educated people in ancient times. You say it yourself: "scripture and saints".
-Does it make sense? No it makes no sense. There are no omnipotent beings in nature; creating something from nothing is impossible; the hypothesis needs assumptions which no existing theory needs; we can't check it, because this 'being' is assumed to be invisable to us.
-Does it add anything to what we allready know? It would add something because we don't know what happened before the BB. But because of it's wild assumptions and unique exceptions, it doesn't improve our present theory.
-Are there better alternatives? There is a falsifiable alternative (the "closed universe" theory), but this alternative doesn't explain the beginning of all things, only the Big Bang.
So to return to the original question of this thread, why do we ask who created god: it is part of the process of checking whether the god and the creation hypotheses make sense. And for me it's one of many reasons why I reject these hypotheses. If a hypothesis answers the question of where everything came from by assuming something that has always existed, then it's not only nonsens, but it doesn't even give an answer at all.
You say "god is the beginning, there was nothing before god", so I ask you: then where did god come from? First there wasn't anything, then suddenly there's god. How?
Pendragon,
I am taking your arguments very seriously, however, your argument is base on ill-information.Jan, you are not taking my arguments seriously.
Then you have not accepted, do you understand where I'm coming from now.You say the idea that a god created everything is 'the answer', and that I have to accept it or not. But it's not. It's a hypothesis like any other, and that's how I will judge it.
It is not a hypothesis, that God is the supreme, original cause, is a direct statement.If someone comes up with a strange new hypothesis there are some questions one should ask:
In your opinion.-What is this based on? On hearsay, mostly hearsay from lowly educated people in ancient times. You say it yourself: "scripture and saints".
It may not make sense to you, but it makes sense to me, and others.-Does it make sense? No it makes no sense. There are no omnipotent beings in nature; creating something from nothing is impossible; the hypothesis needs assumptions which no existing theory needs; we can't check it, because this 'being' is assumed to be invisable to us.
How can you have "ominpotent beings", and why would expect to find a omnipotent being subdued by the laws of nature.
I mean, come on.
Show me any scripture which puts foreward that God created something from nothing?
Define nothing?
Because something is invisible to us, does not render it non-existent.
There is nothing wild about the assumption that God is the supreme, original cause. Now the theory of evolution......-Does it add anything to what we allready know? It would add something because we don't know what happened before the BB. But because of it's wild assumptions and unique exceptions, it doesn't improve our present theory.
You are trying to answer questions with an inadequate tool, namely the modern scientific method. Because the nature of such a method, there is no way you can understand the state of unmanifested matter, as the known laws of nature do not apply.
In your opinion.-Are there better alternatives? There is a falsifiable alternative (the "closed universe" theory), but this alternative doesn't explain the beginning of all things, only the Big Bang.
It is not a hypothesis, it is a direct statement, one which you either choose to accept, reject, or deny, period.So to return to the original question of this thread, why do we ask who created god: it is part of the process of checking whether the god and the creation hypotheses make sense.
The answer it gives is, that something has always existed, it's right there under your nose. As there is no way of finding out the truth via our imperfect senses, either we accept it, reject it, or deny it.And for me it's one of many reasons why I reject these hypotheses. If a hypothesis answers the question of where everything came from by assuming something that has always existed, then it's not only nonsens, but it doesn't even give an answer at all.
You cannot avoid that.
You are not taking the scriptures seriously, and to add to that, you are being quite arrogant in regard to them, which is why you are satisfied with your concotion of God.You say "god is the beginning, there was nothing before god", so I ask you: then where did god come from? First there wasn't anything, then suddenly there's god. How?
Please use the definitions of God, given in the scriptures, and stick to it. Then we can have a more meaningfull discussion.
You wouldn't accept my own concoction of a scientific method, would you?
:wink:
Jan.
Jan, the fact you ignore my statements means you are ducking and weaving to prevent your inevitable failure. This debate is pointless.
Unicorns can be bred from a suppurating mess of coagulated invertebrate blood, plagioclase crystals and recycled copies of The War Cry.
This, Jan, is a direct statement. Does your direct statement, in any semantic, logical, or philosophical terms actually have more validity than mine.So we just have to believe, do we Jan? We just have to accept? Praise the Lord, we just have to have faith.
As a direct staement it ranks (in both senses of the word) along with my statement on Unicorn husbandry.
I can. I can choose to ignore.......much as any sensible person will ignore my thoughts on Unicorns.
Can you review for me again why I should take seriously a mixed bag of material written thousands of years ago by a bunch of patriarchal power hungry nomads?
Apologies to all Unicorn lovers for my above references to them, but today I was feeling singularily horny.
Jeremy,
Yes there are. "scriptural" definitions of god(s) tend to be very massive, but there are many non-scripture definitions as well.
A non-scriptural definition of God, is atheistic.
Just because someone decides to write down their version of god does not mean it is valid.
Scriptures are more than just writing.
Thus far, the only "evidence" jesus existed is the bible. Otherwise, history lacks all evidence.
So Jesus didn’t exist then? Are you saying he was a made-up character?
Yet it still applies to *you*. Amazing evasive maneuver, but you crashed into a wall of reality!
The thing about being atheistic, is that you can say what you like without having to back your statement up, hence ‘God is what I want him/her/ it to be. If you can, please state why you think it applies to me, before I finally generalise you.
Fact: some scriptures in other religions believe god was created as well. Other religions believe there is an infinite loop.
Please give the name of the scripture which states God was created.
There is really no limit to definitions on god, but the one you choose defines EXACTLY how you WANT to view reality.
This is why I don’t regard those whimsical definitions as God, it plays right into the hands of people who wish to kill God, in the hearts and minds of people.
There is only one God, who is characterised as a spirit, who is the cause of all causes. This definition of Him is within every scripture.
It's funny since you are basing everything on your scriptural interpretation.
Its not my scriptural interpretation, it is what the scriptures say.
You, and others like you, interpret the scriptures.
Millions of people each have different sets of views from the exact same scriptures, and I can look at many in-context and probably cite over 20 possible interpretations.
That makes no difference, the scriptures state that God is the supreme cause of all causes, and He never comes into or out of being.
If you have trouble finding that in any scripture, I will only be too happy to enlighten you.
What strikes me as odd is that you apparently believe your interpretation of a chosen set of scriptures makes it more correct than other peoples interpretations for the very same set of scriptures.
Like I said before, I have not interpreted any scriptures, I am repeating what is stated. You and others like you, have interpreted it, which is why there are so many different concoctions.
This position plays right into the hands of anti-God-ists, which is why I believe that to ask ‘who made God’, or ‘where did God come from’ is nothing but a divisive manoeuvre.
"My shiny apple is better than your shiny apple! Despite the fact they're from the exact same tree which bore perfect fruit!"
I’m okay with shiny apples, just don’t try and convince me that yours is an orange, because it suits your position at that moment.
Lets flip this around: Whether or not you choose to accept the fact there most likely isn't a grand creator that fits your definition, is a different matter.
Same difference, the point is you have 1 choice, hence freewill.
Incorrect. They can determine scriptural inaccuracies to a very high degree, which "proves" scriptures are written by man and thus in err.
Using the scientific method, cannot decipher the essence of the scriptures, which is God. Therefore, to use such a method as a basis of determining whether or not God exists, is totally futile.
The craftsmen who make beautiful grand-pianos, can not, necessarily comprehend the genius of an excellent pianist, and the genius has no need of the knowledge of how to make such a wonderful instrument.
Unless...one creates a personal god rather than one based off scriptures. Woo-hoo.
I believe this is the aim of hardcore secularists, because such endeavours create atheism.
I will post part 2 later.
I have to go.
Jan.
Ophiolite,
As a bunch of words, no.Unicorns can be bred from a suppurating mess of coagulated invertebrate blood, plagioclase crystals and recycled copies of The War Cry.This, Jan, is a direct statement. Does your direct statement, in any semantic, logical, or philosophical terms actually have more validity than mine.
Precisely!!So we just have to believe, do we Jan? We just have to accept? Praise the Lord, we just have to have faith.
Every statement does, until you apply human intelligence.As a direct staement it ranks (in both senses of the word) along with my statement on Unicorn husbandry.
To ignore, is a refusal to accept something, could be any of the positions i stated.The answer it gives is, that something has always existed, it's right there under your nose. As there is no way of finding out the truth via our imperfect senses, either we accept it, reject it, or deny it.
You cannot avoid that.I can. I can choose to ignore.......much as any sensible person will ignore my thoughts on Unicorns.
Your statement on unicorns is nonsense.
It will turn you into a very nice person.Can you review for me again why I should take seriously a mixed bag of material written thousands of years ago by a bunch of patriarchal power hungry nomads?
Apologies to all Unicorn lovers for my above references to them, but today I was feeling singularily horny.
Brilliant!!!!
Jan.
I wonder if God knows how He got here. Who can He ask?
The @#$^?!? No they're not, they tend to be more inclind to be LOGICAL than common sects of belief. Plus, PROVE they are. More often than not those with coherent personal beliefs end up best suited for the world.
Also, you have no god damn idea what atheism is apparently.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
http://www.answers.com/atheism?ff=1
Yeah, so much for that. Your statement is void. Unless you can somehow by miracle prove it's atheistic.
So, basically, because someone decides to write their beliefs and views down and claims it's divine intervention, it is automatically "true". Prove it's more than just writing.Scriptures are more than just writing.
If the shoe fits, yes I am.So Jesus didn’t exist then? Are you saying he was a made-up character?
Actually, I do have to back it up. Remember, the whole "god doesn't exist" bit? Which basically is a "definition" of god. Yes I have to "back it up", with logic.The thing about being atheistic, is that you can say what you like without having to back your statement up, hence ‘God is what I want him/her/ it to be. If you can, please state why you think it applies to me, before I finally generalise you.
I say it applies to you because your personal interpretation of scriptures makes you think you are correct. Well, sir, it applies to you perfectly.
Also, if you generalise me, you'll probably be completely and utterly wrong like every other incompitent person that attempted to.
Buddhists believe there is a continuance, and some budhists follow the philosophy of a "god" which suffers an inevitable loop.Please give the name of the scripture which states God was created.
However, I was referring to ancient religions like that of greeks or egyptians, where gods were created. We can't forget old norse beliefs either, where gods needed humans just as much as humans needed the gods.
These religions didn't have "scriptures" per say as written text (on walls or elsewhere) which described their gods or how they came to be.
Depends on which religious scripture you follow. Scripture interpretation basically matches how you want view reality as well.This is why I don’t regard those whimsical definitions as God, it plays right into the hands of people who wish to kill God, in the hearts and minds of people.
There is only one God, who is characterised as a spirit, who is the cause of all causes. This definition of Him is within every scripture.
Oh my GOD what arrogance! So do you believe that out of all people *your* interpretation is the best? Or that you know what they actually say?Its not my scriptural interpretation, it is what the scriptures say.
You, and others like you, interpret the scriptures.
So basically your entire argument is based upon the "fact" that you know what the scriptures say, and it isn't interpretation. Prove it. What if my views of the scriptures are? Oh but wait, I'm not arrogant enough to say I'm NOT interpreting the scriptures.
The bible is 100% interpretation. One can interpret it in any way, as one can interpret anything in the english language. Your mind automatically does it even without you realizing it.
If you are sticking to bible interpretation (not anything else), then I concede. However so far you've mentioned other texts such as those of the Hindu's or the qur'an, so I assume not.That makes no difference, the scriptures state that God is the supreme cause of all causes, and He never comes into or out of being.
If you have trouble finding that in any scripture, I will only be too happy to enlighten you.
However, lets cite a logical fallacy: Everything that has a beginning has a cause, and god is the ultimate cause since he has no beginning.
That's fine. Prove the universe had a beginning. the big bang is nothing more than a continuance, and is open to interpretation by philosophers. Universal evidence tends to disagree with the bible in numerous ways.
Also, you have to prove bible validity first. In previous posts I've given lengthy explanations that give a high amount of evidence the bible wasn't written with divine intervention.
No, you say what is "there", 'cept you don't. You say what you perceive to be there. In thinking others are possibly incorrect in "interpreting" it, you've just proven the worst hypocrit of them all. All mental proccess is conducted by "interpretation", and bible interpretation is no different.Like I said before, I have not interpreted any scriptures, I am repeating what is stated. You and others like you, have interpreted it, which is why there are so many different concoctions.
This position plays right into the hands of anti-God-ists, which is why I believe that to ask ‘who made God’, or ‘where did God come from’ is nothing but a divisive manoeuvre.
No, it's not a divisive maneuver, it's a logical one. If you say god caused the universe, you have to prove the universe had a beginning, and you have to prove god did not. HOwever the most challenging of this lies in proving the bible was actually written by god through man. And using the bible to prove itself would be like using yourself to prove ghosts.
With freewill I have infinite choices. Hence the freedom to choose infinite choices. Yet god deems it worthy according to scripture to kill humans for acting of their own free will. Why give someone free will, when you will punish them for doing anything opposite to what you say? That's sort of a curse.Same difference, the point is you have 1 choice, hence freewill.
You compared an apple to a buick. And in a very cheap evasive manner as well. Prove that the scientific method cannot "decipher the essence of the scriptures" for us.Using the scientific method, cannot decipher the essence of the scriptures, which is God. Therefore, to use such a method as a basis of determining whether or not God exists, is totally futile.
The craftsmen who make beautiful grand-pianos, can not, necessarily comprehend the genius of an excellent pianist, and the genius has no need of the knowledge of how to make such a wonderful instrument.
And since the scientific method uses logic, that basically means logic is incorrect. Prove that while you're at it.
Erm, no they don't. In fact, prove they do.I believe this is the aim of hardcore secularists, because such endeavours create atheism.
Jeremy,
The problem is reasoning everything has a beginning is a logical fallacy. It's trapped within our own possible viewpoints of our own realities. We preceive everything as having a "beginning" and "end" as we always have. People are born (the start), and people die (the end). This original limited viewpoint has severely hampered how we view the universe.
Here's a better view (and more accurate): there is no beginning, and there is no end. Only a continual string of events with no start or finish.
And what would that hypothesis be based on?
What object within the range of our perception has no beginning or end?
What is interesting though, is that you have to rely on your intelligence to come to that possible conclusion, and to believe it, you must have faith, yet you cannot accept the scriptural definition of God, which relies on the same components.
Here's an example: A baby is born, prior to that it conceived, prior to that it's parents were born, prior to that the human race came to be, etc, etc. It isn't a beginning.
One might say the "big bang" started it all, but that leads to the same "ultimate creator" fallacy.
The truth of the matter is, you cannot get away from God, as everything is in relation to Him. Every single living entity is an individual, and every single living entity is born from another source of life. In all scriptures, that source of life is the one God the supreme cause of all causes. Now, why is that a fallacy?
It makes complete sense, in fact it’s the only explanation that makes complete sense.
But it is fun trying to watch you disassociate yourself with absolutely no chance of success.
Have fun! :wink:
Because humans have a finite lifespan consciousness wise, they find it increasingly difficult to comprehend anything infinite. I suppose, however, that philosophical view fits in with "the universe is 'god' ".
Why increasingly difficult?
So you replace God, with a material ‘god’ to suit your world view, despite not being even close to a materialistic explanation of how it could be, which has any real credibility outside of the atheist community.
God, is by far the best explanation, which pisses the hell out you.
Omniscience: all knowing
Omnipotence: all powerful
Now, lets take a minute to ponder this. Imagine knowing absolutely everything, and being able to do absolutely everything. Then imagine using your omniscience/potence to limit yourself. We have our very own logical fallacy.
Once you limit yourself, you cannot get omniscience or omnipotence back. It's a contradiction to say "you can because you're omniscient/potent", since you no longer are.
To me, in my omniscience/potency, everything is one. I use my mastery of power to create everything you perceive, and more. My creation is nothing but a poor reflection of reality where rebellious souls like yourself can have fleeting moments to play out their fantasies of lording it if they so choose. Once they come to the realisation that this reality is an illusion, they remember their original position, and make tracks to obtain it.
Your question is based on the illusion, that limitations are real, simply because you are in a conditioned state believing that everything you perceive is all there is. So it would be very easy for me to give you the illusion, which you regard as reality, that I am not omnipotent/scient, by relinquishing my power to the same degree of your already percieved illusion which you regard as real, thereby giving the impression that I am not all-knowing/powerful, to the point where you would never ever come out of your conditioned state. But the truth of the matter is that everything is one in different stages of consciousness.
Thus, all definitions of god one can think of, those written down, etc, are void. Including ultimate creator (since that also limits him!).
No, you’re the one that’s limited.
All you’re saying is you don’t accept it.There is no question as to who or what came first, it is boils down to whether you accept it or not, period.
No, it boils down to how closed you are to alternative interpretation. Lets use the biblical claim of imperfection:
As I said “it is boils down to whether you accept it or not, period.
Accept that! :wink:
Jan.
And here you answer the question in your OP. If every single living entity is born from another source of life, it makes sense to ask "Who created God?", since if in your view God is a living entity, then he fills the criterion you specified.
Jeremy, I advise you not to get into an argument with Jan as to what is and isn't an atheist. Jan thinks that Satanists are atheistic, despite the fairly obvious fact that they worship a God. He will absolutely not ever back down from that position, and that's that.
Nobody exhibits more arrogance than Jan, who simply cannot accept that non-acceptance of scripture does not make one arrogant. It is the hubristic submission of ones whole intellect to books that happen to have the label "scripture" (and in Jan's case that is a pan-religious term - he accepts Vedic scriptures as well as Biblical, and for all I know, Zen Buddhist ones too) that demonstrates an arrogant rejection of all reasonable views based on a requirement for said scriptures to have some authoritative evidence to back them up.
Jan thinks non-scriptural definitions of God are atheistic. That throws out almost two thousand years of philosophy and theology from people who pretty much considered themselves devout theists.
| « Most posted.... I wonder y?? | Gods or no GOds? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
