What created God?

[BeingaBunny]

One problem I have with the idea of God is that, as an answer to life, it doesn't solve anything. I mean, if God created us, then what created God? It solves the question of our own existence and creates the same question of His existence - solving nothing. It merely moves the same question to another subject, which I daresay is rather fallacious.

That said, if God presides over our universe, outside of what we have here, entropy must be going on somewhere because God obviously came from something somewhere. Or - what? - he just poofed in?

The answer that he is omnipotent and can do whatever the hell he wants just isn't very satisfying or realistic. I mean, if he did create our universe, he must have an objective. Why would an omnipotent being have or need an objective?

I haven't read the Bible or any other religious texts. I prefer to follow my own beliefs and ideas. But if anyone can give a decent answer to this, I'd be interested in hearing it.

[BeingaBunny]

Well I did a bit of research on the old web. The christian concensus seems to be that God cannot be created, and that he doesn't need to be because he is outside of time. That said, he also created the universe and created time inside of it.

If god is outside of time, where there is no before and after, then he could not have created the universe - because creating anything simply indicates before and after, before universe and after universe, which means that god must be affected by time in his "realm" - at least henceforth from creation. The only way God wouldn't be affected by time is if he did not create the universe and god merely exists outside of it, neither creating the other.

Therefore it is impossible that god, from this aspect, created the universe, unless he is affected by time. In which case, where did he come from?

[caesar]

Those are very intriguing and pertinent questions B.B. I've done some thinking in the past on the same line and the only thing that happens is, one question leads to another or many other. Presently, after I confronted the question on entropy going elsewhere, I've let the matter lie. But, I can make a reasonable prediction as to when we (humans) will discover the ultimate answer to the ultimate question. That will be when we discover the beginning and the end on the surface of a sphere.

However, a believer will not be confounded by your question. He will give you the simplest, easiest, answer to you complex question, that god is not subject to the laws of science. After all, he is the creator. He not only created the laws but he has also moulded your reasoning to make you think that the laws of science are inviolable.

To the question, in your second post, on god being outside the realm of time, I think, I have a satisfactory answer. I have an interesting theory to explain, but do not have the time or the inclination to do so. I’ll try to post again as soon as possible. For now, I’ll just say this much. If god is an external-observer of the universe then our measure of time will be inconsequential to him.

[None214]

Who said life had to make sense?

[caesar]

I did......

[Syme]

And you were wrong to do so.

[bhekti]

One problem I have with the idea of God is that, as an answer to life, it doesn't solve anything.

Let's then begin with the idea of no-God...does it solve anything?


I mean, if God created us, then what created God? It solves the question of our own existence and creates the same question of His existence - solving nothing. It merely moves the same question to another subject, which I daresay is rather fallacious.

If God's existence is like our existence then that "God" is a human being, which means not a God. Being created, I think, is not a way to talk about God.


God obviously came from something somewhere.

Then that "God" is just a word.


Why would an omnipotent being have or need an objective?

I'm afraid the question is for you.


I haven't read the Bible or any other religious texts. I prefer to follow my own beliefs and ideas. But if anyone can give a decent answer to this, I'd be interested in hearing it.

I hope mine is decent enough. Just a little thought.

[raphien]

the question in question is the source of a surfeit of tales, songs and myths that attempt to provide an answer to the mysteries of 5he origins of God. but the qnswerr in my opinion is the simplest one possible, that is:
the toughest way is the best way. man is programmed to think in a particular manner and to go against it is just not easy. so we believe in what we see sometimes even to the extent that we are fooled by illusions. here we are asked to believe in something so evasive that it strains our very deepest imaginations. so, do we believe or do we keep on questioning.do we strive , in vain, to understand what just cannot be understood or comprehended but what do we get by disbelieving or doubting? or what about the converse? what are we giving up for a life of doubt?

do you believe that there are rules in life that cannot be broken and that these rules are a way of balancing the equation?

[caesar]

And you were wrong to do so.

How so.........?

[Amra]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
And you were wrong to do so.



How so.........?

Because Syme said it... :D

[caesar]

How do you know, Syme's right and I'm wrong?

[ShoutGrace]

How do you know, Syme's right and I'm wrong?

I think it has something to do with the fact that Syme has just four letters in his handle. Amra may feel an inherent bond which may or may not cloud/affect her judgment on this topic.

[caesar]

he, he, he..............

[Lector]

To seek an explanation of the origin of God is more or less an oxymoron. God did not have a begining because He is not a finite being like we are. I realize this is difficult to wrap our minds around and this because the finite (us) is incapable of comprehending the infinite (God). In fact if we could fully understand God, in my oppinion he would be a pretty lame God. I mean if this god was someone whom I could completely understand then that would mean he was not that much higher of a being than me. The simple fact that I am unable to fully comprehend God shows me how much greater He is than me.
Now the next question that comes up is "If you say you can't understand God then you don't have to explain Him, isn't that pretty convienient? Isn't that sort of a cop out?" Hey maybe its convinient for me, I mean if I say you can't explain God then that aleviates me from having to try and explain Him. But I would say its not so much conveniant as it is necessary that I can't explain God, as I said before, I wouldn't want to follow a God I could explain. But I do believe in Him, and rather than me blathering on for pages, if you want me to try and eplain anything more, just shout out and I will give it my best shot, or if you hate me and think I'm an idiot... well just keep that to yourself, lol.

[sHaRp12]

Have you thought that maybe God was never created in the first place.

[cuppajoe_9]

Let's then begin with the idea of no-God...does it solve anything?No, and nobody claims that it does. What's your point?

[Lilac Cotton]

Allah has no "corporeality" and therefore is free from the restrictions of life/death/time. Allah can move throughout time without defficiency unlike human beings who can never move backwards and cannot predict their futures either. This concept also takes care of that nasty role played by 'predestination' i.e. if Allah knows what is going to happen then what say I?

[bhekti]

No, and nobody claims that it does. What's your point?

I don't know. I was just rearranging BeingaBunny's proposition in:


One problem I have with the idea of God is that, as an answer to life, it doesn't solve anything.

[mono]

Hello, BeingaBunny. You posed some very interesting questions here, and I can provide no answer, of course, but may offer my opinions. :)

One problem I have with the idea of God is that, as an answer to life, it doesn't solve anything. I mean, if God created us, then what created God? It solves the question of our own existence and creates the same question of His existence - solving nothing. It merely moves the same question to another subject, which I daresay is rather fallacious.

That said, if God presides over our universe, outside of what we have here, entropy must be going on somewhere because God obviously came from something somewhere. Or - what? - he just poofed in?

The answer that he is omnipotent and can do whatever the hell he wants just isn't very satisfying or realistic. I mean, if he did create our universe, he must have an objective. Why would an omnipotent being have or need an objective?
Though I consider myself no true religion (my, I admit, odd attempt to avoid mass subjectivism), I agree greatly with Lector's proceeding post --

To seek an explanation of the origin of God is more or less an oxymoron. God did not have a begining because He is not a finite being like we are. I realize this is difficult to wrap our minds around and this because the finite (us) is incapable of comprehending the infinite (God). In fact if we could fully understand God, in my oppinion he would be a pretty lame God. I mean if this god was someone whom I could completely understand then that would mean he was not that much higher of a being than me. The simple fact that I am unable to fully comprehend God shows me how much greater He is than me.
I do not at all find it ridiculous to seek an explanation to explain a Supreme Being, existence, superior morals, etc.; in fact, I find it more a philosopher's admirable way of life, though it may have no end. Simply, humans, provided we have finite minds (consisting of immeasurable levels of cognition, personality, and behavior) cannot learn, explain, provide proof, or imagine everything. Assuming a Superior Being does exist, one cannot even imagine what everything (or nothing) seemed like before the universe; human rely greatly on their senses and cognition to explain things (in essence, perceiving and judging), but if there seems absolutely nothing to potentially sense and nothing to think of (such as the universe before its existence), the thought merely seems impossible to imagine or comprehend.

-----

Well I did a bit of research on the old web. The christian concensus seems to be that God cannot be created, and that he doesn't need to be because he is outside of time. That said, he also created the universe and created time inside of it.

If god is outside of time, where there is no before and after, then he could not have created the universe - because creating anything simply indicates before and after, before universe and after universe, which means that god must be affected by time in his "realm" - at least henceforth from creation. The only way God wouldn't be affected by time is if he did not create the universe and god merely exists outside of it, neither creating the other.

Therefore it is impossible that god, from this aspect, created the universe, unless he is affected by time. In which case, where did he come from?
Where ever you found this source, I cannot disagree more. The statement that 'God cannot be created' seems entirely wrong; as I always say, subjectivism seems entirely inevitable (and I care not of anyone's objections to this argument), but with the perception of some Supreme Being, assuming His/Her/Its existence, in a way, creates a perception - assuming attributes, mannerisms, ethics, etc. I can take this argument further when one encounters a mentally ill individual claiming that 'he/she is God;' of course, I cannot prove the person wrong, but he/she has created the mentality that he/she 'is God.'
Furthermore, the statement that 'God exists outside of time,' I apologize if I offend anyone's beliefs, sounds ridiculous and perplexing to me. Any statement or theory that proclaims that a Supreme Being exists outside or inside something imposes limits, entirely contradicting the idea of an Infinite Being. Hence, in an especially Epicurean philosophy, did God create everything, then place Himself/Herself/Itself outside of it? No; stating that 'air exists outside of oxygen' seems similar.
Lastly, I think that a thought of 'before and after' in creation of the universe seems slightly unrealistic and inexact. Time, to humans, seems entirely began by the earth revolving around the sun and the appearance of day and night - 24 hours, 1440 minutes, 86400 seconds. I think it safe to assume that the universe existed before the earth and the sun, and taking the Big Bang Theory into consideration, perhaps they all came into existence and once; even before any existence and/or creation of the universe, earth, and sun, no time, nor concept of time, could have existed.

[bhekti]

Mono, could you expand on your statement that says:


Any statement or theory that proclaims that a Supreme Being exists outside or inside something imposes limits, entirely contradicting the idea of an Infinite Being.

By the way, I think air does exist outside oxygen. (air is not only of oxygen, right?)

[BeingaBunny]

I have a problem here. I don't know wh at people mean when they say god.

[ShoutGrace]

I have a problem here. I don't know wh at people mean when they say god.



I think that the word 'God' may refer precisely to what is printed in the dictionary; something along the lines of :



** God **

1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
3. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
4. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
5. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.


I think that any theoretical Supreme Being consisting of and wielding the attributes mentioned above should be sufficient for the kind of discussion taking place here.



I don't know. I was just rearranging BeingaBunny's proposition in:


I think that the idea here is that theists claim that God's existence satiates the ultimate questions; those of origins, life, purpose, and destination.

The atheist doesn't claim that God's non-existence solves them.

[mono]

Mono, could you expand on your statement that says:

Any statement or theory that proclaims that a Supreme Being exists outside or inside something imposes limits, entirely contradicting the idea of an Infinite Being.
Indeed, I can.
Many religions, especially those having many followers, I have noticed, tend to declare God/Allah/Yahweh etc. as infinite in size, meaning consisting of no limits, beyond imagination and comprehension - transcendental, in essence. Stating that infinity exists inside or outside anything, in this case, contradicts the concept of infinity, meaning that a human mind may comprehend it. I particularly used this statement a few posts ago stating that a Supreme Being, according to its definition, cannot exist outside of time; time, one may notice, seems something measurable, understood, and utilized by humans, while something infinite can seem neither measured nor understood entirely and holistically.
Take, for example, a pitcher full of water. The water inside the pitcher does not appear infinite, or else we could not comprehend its immensity; therefore, it remains inside the pitcher. The air outside the pitcher one also cannot call infinite because its measurable concentration, in terms of chemistry, inside the pitcher combined with water, and its limitations outside the pitcher a person can comprehend. In conclusion, the water, pitcher, and air all seem finite; if either the water, pitcher, or air seemed infinite, one cannot perceive the infinity.

By the way, I think air does exist outside oxygen. (air is not only of oxygen, right?)
Yes, I apologize. Typing with so many thoughts whirling in my mind, I actually intended to write the reciprocal of that statement, oxygen existing outside of air. Though merely an analogy, and as long as you understood my statement and what I intended, I do not see a large problem, but thank you. :)

[Joneste jin]

This question which need time to prove .

[Lector]

I agree with Mono that God cannot be infinite and still be inside or outside of something, very good point. But as far as God's association with time I don't hink that He exists either inside or outside of time, what I mean is that, isn't time merely a construct of man to keep track of things? And wouldn't confining God either inside or outside of a construct of man essentialy make God out to be lower than man?
When I think of God being infinite, I guess I don't really think of Him being so physicaly enormouse so as to encompas all other physical things, but God's infinitness (if that is even a word) has more to do with His infinite power, knowledge, wisdom, love, justice... I could go on forever lol.

[Lilac Cotton]

.....and time is a circle isn't it? Divided into 360 degrees eh? 60 seconds and then 60 minutes and before you know it you have a derivitive which looks like a circle which is divided into day and night using the number 12, which we know is an arbitrary reckoning because we have proof that it can be 'altered' and must be altered depending on climate (Daylight Savings Time, GMT + 3, etc.).

Is Allah outside of time? Who knows...but it would explain alot of things like prophecy and that age old conundrum over Free Will. That is, if God knows what I am going to type next, did he force me to type it? If Allah has no limitations regarding Time then simply, he would know it to exist prior to my pitiful creation of this lackluster post.

And I ask the moderators here to bear with me...I ain't involved in 'conversions' if that was what you were thinking when you erased my topic and threatened to erase yet another post besides that. Muslims don't convert because sheesh, we can't convert. That is not up to us. :)

The bottom line within these posts I've read however always seems to be about the corporeality of Allah. The mere mention of Allah's "existence" is an insistence on placing human value on the 'life' of the Creator/Sustainer/All Cognizant. Why I'd go so far as to suggest that even Athiests break their own commandment when they state, "There is no God." How is it that they deny something that does not exist in the first place per their own definition.
The Quran says this however....that God will always be a topic. There is no eradicating it from the discussion whether you are in favor or against.

Allah is unimaginable. People do try though and they also try to imagine heaven....how many movies are made and profitted from that help the viewer to 'imagine' heaven? Lots of money being made there! And how many manage to help the viewer imagine hell? None really, they simply like to portray this particular Limbo we are in as a kind of "hell already". Well, if there are 'two' options at the end of this game, where are we then "existing"?

Limbo? Perhaps. And there, the Quran suggests, we are being monitored so closely that what passes through our jugular vein (Sura 57, Iron) is even counted.

[bhekti]

Indeed, I can.
Many religions, especially those having many followers, I have noticed, tend to declare God/Allah/Yahweh etc. as infinite in size, meaning consisting of no limits, beyond imagination and comprehension - transcendental, in essence. Stating that infinity exists inside or outside anything, in this case, contradicts the concept of infinity, meaning that a human mind may comprehend it. I particularly used this statement a few posts ago stating that a Supreme Being, according to its definition, cannot exist outside of time; time, one may notice, seems something measurable, understood, and utilized by humans, while something infinite can seem neither measured nor understood entirely and holistically...

Thank you for your further explanation, mono. And, I think you really have a clear and sharp thought.

Now I understand what you mean and I agree with you. Religions that tend to declare God/Allah/Yahweh/etc as transcendental in essence would face insoluble difficulty in dealing with the concept of infinity. There is a contradiction in these kind of religions.

But, I remember that there is a religion that acknowledges that God is transcendent and immanent. The God of this religion, it is told, decided to make himself knowable (thus communicable) by stripping himself down into, to use your metaphor, a "pitcher". If this God had not done that, there would've been no chance for the people of this religion (and I'd say, people of the world) to talk about God in human terms. The "pitcher" this God had poured himself into is a personality, a human being. And, the whole process, if i'm not mistaken, is called incarnation.

I think, this religion is a controversial religion. It is a subversive religion, risking its God as a subject of ridicule. But, I think if a God can only be transcendent, can't be immanent, can't make himself exist in time and space as his own creation does, then he is not at all a God.

[Lector]

well said bhekti

[mono]

.....and time is a circle isn't it? Divided into 360 degrees eh? 60 seconds and then 60 minutes and before you know it you have a derivitive which looks like a circle which is divided into day and night using the number 12, which we know is an arbitrary reckoning because we have proof that it can be 'altered' and must be altered depending on climate (Daylight Savings Time, GMT + 3, etc.).

Is Allah outside of time? Who knows...but it would explain alot of things like prophecy and that age old conundrum over Free Will. That is, if God knows what I am going to type next, did he force me to type it? If Allah has no limitations regarding Time then simply, he would know it to exist prior to my pitiful creation of this lackluster post.
Hello, Lilac Cotton, welcome to the forum.
To answer your question, I believe a Supreme Being, assuming existence, does not seem within or without time; I feel I know this confidently, but desire not to offend anyone's faith. How you applied that to concepts of free will greatly interests me. Indeed, every human action requires time, and time, itself, appears measurable, able for comprehension, and even altered, as you demonstrated, I entirely agree that a Supreme Being would 'know' (despite using a humanistic term) what you will write in this post, what will occur years from now, etc. Interesting . . .

Now I understand what you mean and I agree with you. Religions that tend to declare God/Allah/Yahweh/etc as transcendental in essence would face insoluble difficulty in dealing with the concept of infinity. There is a contradiction in these kind of religions.

But, I remember that there is a religion that acknowledges that God is transcendent and immanent. The God of this religion, it is told, decided to make himself knowable (thus communicable) by stripping himself down into, to use your metaphor, a "pitcher". If this God had not done that, there would've been no chance for the people of this religion (and I'd say, people of the world) to talk about God in human terms. The "pitcher" this God had poured himself into is a personality, a human being. And, the whole process, if i'm not mistaken, is called incarnation.

I think, this religion is a controversial religion. It is a subversive religion, risking its God as a subject of ridicule. But, I think if a God can only be transcendent, can't be immanent, can't make himself exist in time and space as his own creation does, then he is not at all a God.
You definitely have some fascinating thoughts not worth overlooking, bhekti, thanks for your response. Though I have no intention of 'preaching' my skepticism, I would also never call another's religion or faith necessarily untrue, but only in disagreement to mine. As you described, yes, some religions 'strip down,' as you said, a Supreme Being to His/Her/Its suddenly-human abilities, such as listening, responding, etc.
If it seems inside the person's praying mind that a Supreme Being listens, I will not confiscate that from him/her, nor discriminate, though some controversy will persist inside myself, as if, like you said derived from my rather rudimentary analogy, making a pitcher of water from a Supreme Being. In my opinion, infinity cannot get dissected, but I will not insult anyone else's faith or beliefs, of course. ;)

[bhekti]

.... In my opinion, infinity cannot get dissected, but I will not insult anyone else's faith or beliefs, of course. ;)

I highly appreciate your humble response, mono. ;)

Would you mind if I ask you about how you get your conclusion "infinity cannot get dissected"? How am I supposed to understand the word "dissected" here? I'm trying to avoid misinterpretation.

:thumbs_up

[mono]

Would you mind if I ask you about how you get your conclusion "infinity cannot get dissected"? How am I supposed to understand the word "dissected" here? I'm trying to avoid misinterpretation.
Of course, bhekti; I almost logged out of the forum before noticing your reply. :D
Yes, I understand, I used an odd word, 'dissected,' that may not seem as clear to others; I apologize. Take an average puzzle, assembled piece-by-piece, but, in the same sense, a person can take the puzzle apart, piece-by-piece. Something declared as Infinite, however, cannot get assembled nor taken apart piece-by-piece; this suggests different segments of Infinity - an unimaginable thought. If Infinity could get assembled or taken apart, one would have to wonder what exists between the spaces of each segment, the cracks, sinews, and intersections, etc. This, in my opinion (of course), contradicts the concept of Infinity, for any imposing of limits, taking apart, or assembling of anything appears in the ability and comprehension of humans.

[smoothherb]

I have an idea that i'm sure most people will think is crazy but I think that we all live the same life over and over again not sure if it stays the same or if we make different choices or anything but I know I have lived this life before.I also believe that as you go through life you have moments where certain things have weird feelings to you and when you get that overlapping feeling again you are getting close to your death.

I don't really think that but I think it can be as believeable as any notion a man has about god or exixtence the fact that we are here is crazy and you will never no why you will just go back to the way it was before you were born.Or possible do it all over again lol

[MarieAntoinette]

One problem I have with the idea of God is that, as an answer to life, it doesn't solve anything. I mean, if God created us, then what created God? It solves the question of our own existence and creates the same question of His existence - solving nothing. It merely moves the same question to another subject, which I daresay is rather fallacious.

That said, if God presides over our universe, outside of what we have here, entropy must be going on somewhere because God obviously came from something somewhere. Or - what? - he just poofed in?

The answer that he is omnipotent and can do whatever the hell he wants just isn't very satisfying or realistic. I mean, if he did create our universe, he must have an objective. Why would an omnipotent being have or need an objective?

I haven't read the Bible or any other religious texts. I prefer to follow my own beliefs and ideas. But if anyone can give a decent answer to this, I'd be interested in hearing it.

Alas, the ancient unanswered question: "Did God create man, or did man create God?" It's matter of faith now, it has gone unanswered for so long.

[mono]

Alas, the ancient unanswered question: "Did God create man, or did man create God?" It's matter of faith now, it has gone unanswered for so long.
You read my mind! I think you just have more bravery for stating the question more bluntly and powerfully than I. :lol:
This question, regardless, has perplexed me, too. Of course, the so-called 'perception' of a Supreme Being has seemed entirely created by humans - any characteristics, human-like abilities, etc., yet the total creation of a Supreme Being by humans . . . I do not want to offend anyone. :p

[Shield&Sword]

If you believe that man created the idea of existence of God, did you ever asked your self who created man, who decided earth go around sun in this way, rules of phisics, chimestry, math, who decided them? will say i dont know? then answer this question and then go to things more far, not the opposite.

When we relaite to God creation of universe it doesnt mean that we put Him under this verb also. If we say these words about God: "God created every thing" then we wont be able to ask who created God, because God is out of things that were created. We see every thing go according specified rules, nothing go out of these rules even us, and we ask the question who made all this and answer "God", it doesnt mean that God go under these rules, if God started all from 0 then how he can be under these laws. If things are made from atoms its doesnt mean God is made from atoms, he started the idea of atoms from beginig then how we can think of him in material way. Chance is a silly answer to the question "from where all this came", chance is when i cook and put every thing i find toghether and then i get a bad food with strange form, this is chance, when we got finger prints its not chance, when my heart beat its not chance, when i feel its not chance, when bees build a house that man cant do its not chance, when sun rise its not chance, when i look at stars they are not chance, when sperms enter in women body and find conditions made exactly to thier needs while they never been there its not chance, when an ovule find conditions of growing in womb made exactly for it's growing its not chance, when i die its not chance. Who created me? for sure not me or sun or my mom or moon or chance, for sure God. Who created God? well if He created all then how he could be created. God is the one who started every thing and nothing started him, he always was and will be, he is unique.

[smoothherb]

"man made god out of ignorance and fear if god made man why the hell would he put us here" Deap Prez

[Shield&Sword]

"why the hell would he put us here" this part is so funny, he admit that some one put him here ( the world), he admit that he was putten in a place without his choice. I think Mr deap pronounced this scentence "out of ignorance"

[mono]

I can certainly see both sides of the argument: how a Supreme Being could have created humans, and how humans could have created a Supreme Being; and, though I have my own faith and beliefs, I can surely debate from both sides.
The concept that humankind created a Supreme Being can have its logical explanations, as I have seen. Since the decline of devout religious followers (as seen in the Dark Ages, for example), less religious influence over science, and, at times, the psychological requirement for human dependency on another individual/thing, proofs have come a long way.
Not including St. Thomas Aquinas' argument of the 'Unmoved Mover,' extensive science has theorized the 'Big Bang Theory,' which, seemingly, occurred almost passively; of course, none of this can get entirely proven with empirical evidence, but Creationism definitely has its questions, and, in past centuries, I believe, science has seemed slightly freer from the previous biases of religious influence. What I intend to say of human dependency reflects primarily on Maslow's 'Hierarchy of Needs.' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs) Certain paths of self-actualization seem not only dependent on one's self, but also surroundings, the compatibility with the surroundings (with and without others), and the perception of the surroundings. How the creation of a Supreme Being can fit in this theory, I can definitely perceive in the needs for safety, love/belonging, and actualization (perhaps more or less, depending on the individual).

On the contrary, I can also see the majority of the argument, of how a Supreme Being created humankind. Multiple religious texts speak of it, this theory has the majority of followers, and, additionally, no one really knows the truth of what occurred in the 'beginning.' Indeed, a Supreme Being could not possibly consist of material also (such as the atomic and molecular structures of people, animals, plants, etc.), but, to proceed back to St. Thomas Aquinas' concept, one can ask, 'what began it all' - perhaps some 'Unmoved Mover.' Could this/This have begun the 'Big Bang,' Creationism, evolution? One may never know. Could this compel every microscopic cell to function accordingly, as in the examples Shield&Sword gave? One may never entirely know, except perhaps only according to one's faith, which may lack the empirical proof others may require.

[bhekti]

Alas, the ancient unanswered question: "Did God create man, or did man create God?" It's matter of faith now, it has gone unanswered for so long.

I think, If God created man, it does not mean that man doesn't create God. And, vice versa.

Personally, I believe God created man and man can create God. If I were asked how man can create God, I'd answer because that man was created in the image of God. (Yes, I'm nurtured in Reformed tradition).

It's like reading a text. Man created the text and the text create the man who is reading it.

[Shield&Sword]

Mono i didnt understand what you wrote exactly because of my weak language, every time i must type words in dictionary, but i will try to read it again.

Bkheti about the idea that God create man and man create God, i think i didnt understand you exactly, but if you answer this question perhaps i will get your idea: can man create a man? (dont give Doly as an example, rule of scientists was the rule that genital parts do, after that they sit and wait).

[bhekti]

Bkheti about the idea that God create man and man create God, i think i didnt understand you exactly, but if you answer this question perhaps i will get your idea: can man create a man? (dont give Doly as an example, rule of scientists was the rule that genital parts do, after that they sit and wait).

Can man create a man? Yes. But, of course, not the way God did. The results are different. Man create in their minds.(The mind of Man being realities, the finite reality). God also created in his "mind" (The "mind" of God being Reality, the infinite Reality). Man create God in their minds.

[Shield&Sword]

I think i got your idea now. Creation of God to man is a material thing, a touchable thing; while when man think of God then he create the idea of existence of God. But i think that man doesnt create the idea of existemce of God, you gave an example that man create text and text create man, but i think there is no similarity between the last phrase and idea of God existence. When we write text we invent something from nothing, we begin something from 0, like when a writer write a story all from his mind; but the idea of existence of God is not something we created from nothing, thinking of God is a conclusion came after we watched arrouned us, we know that we are going under rules that no one can go out of them and when we ask who decided these rules we say God or say "i dont know" but even when we say "i dont know" we admit that there is someone who created all and decided these rules; in other words the idea of exitence of God is not something we created but its a point that we must arrive when we watch arround us and our selves; in other words the idea of existence of God wasnt created by us but by the one who created all universe, (its like a math question: the prophesor ask a question and force you to arrive to the answer that he decided, you didnt invent the answer here, because believing that there is an answer came after you watched the formule, i mean that formule guide you to answer as watching universe and asking who did it will guide you to the answer and for sure will force you to have the idea that there is an answer). I hope you got the idea.

[bhekti]

....But i think that man doesnt create the idea of existemce of God, you gave an example that man create text and text create man, but i think there is no similarity between the last phrase and idea of God existence. When we write text we invent something from nothing, we begin something from 0, like when a writer write a story all from his mind; ....

Thank you for your response, S&S.

First, where does the idea of the existence of God exist? It is in our mind. Now what stays in our mind is our creation (that is, when it becomes a conscious understanding). And, that is why there are so many different ideas about the existence of God. (religions would explain that). What is not our creation is the being of God, the God who is there. How do I know this? Well, I am told by the Bible. Is the bible credible? To me, yes it is. Why? because I believe it.

Second, we do not invent something from nothing. We do not write a story from 0. I think that's an abvious fact. For example, we use a language which is already there beforehand. We use (consciously or unconsciously) our background knowledge and prejudices (which are formed by many influences from around us) about many things that later become the basic material for our story.

Third. Now I will talk metaphorically (or to be precise, metonymically). For us, the being of God is a text. Why? Because that's the way we know about the objectivity of this God: as a text. We created this text from other texts that have gotten into our minds previously. But the text of God that we created is our text, which means not the text itself. Now what I mean by "the text itself" is the Text (with the capital "T" there), which metaphorically (or metonymically) stands for the being of God, which is not created by us.

Ah, that's just what I think.

[bhekti]

Now I might be asked "where does the Text come from?" which is the same as the question "What created God?"

Well, I would say the Text comes from/is created by man. How so? Because when the Text is being questioned by man and the question is supposed to be answered by man and the answer is supposed to be understood also by man, the Text becomes a function, that is, a text function. For, we understand only texts, not the Text.

And, beware: this one is also a text (my text
).

[Shield&Sword]

Here i will make my idea more clear.
The difference between the idea of God existence is relaited to something, we didnt create the idea of existence of God, a power who created this wrold, we are moving according rules that no one go out, we must and must and must ask the question: Who made all that?
The text matter is different, for example the story about superman, its a story that we invented it, we didnt see a man who fly for a second and then we based our idea on this moment, we immagined this charector that is not relaited to any thing in this world, we made this story from nothing, we didnt watch arround us and then concluded that this man exist. While when we talk about God we talk about all this that exist arround us, we didnt immagine Him, we concluded his existence because of our existence, because of rules we are going according them, we relaited the existence of God to the existence of this world, why we exist, who made us, who gave me mind....

[pqb57]

If you ask, where did God come from; I ask you, where did the first atom come from to have the big bang.

[mono]

If you ask, where did God come from; I ask you, where did the first atom come from to have the big bang.
Hello, pqb57, welcome to the forum. :)
I feel we could twist and turn this argument until we both lose our breath (or until our hands tire from typing :D). This simply seems a question of beliefs; no member of humankind witnessed the theory of the Big Bang, and, if Something/Someone did witness and/or create it, He/She/It has also provided no more proof other than allegedly inspiring multiple religious texts.
The theory states, however, that everything came to existence at once (hence the 'Big Bang'), including atoms and various molecules. Though even atoms have an age (some 10^30 years, give or take), how they came into existence, and when, I have no idea, but call it more a matter of individual beliefs.

[Lilac Cotton]

...well, if you had just ONE more sense, what would it be? Can you even imagine it? And don't include that notorious "sixth sense" of intuition which is merely a compilation of multiple inputs via the other five senses.

Can you prove Love to exist?

I'm relatively sure there isn't proof for Love i.e. objective/empirical standards but I'd bet most people believe they have either felt it or desire to feel it.

But that sixth sense....you see, we are so limited that we cannot even imagine what that might be. But I'll accept any reasonable suggestion if anyone can come up with one.

My point is this: we are rudimentary beings. Very, very limited.

*Maslow's....well, the Quran goes into much detail not only about the developmental process of the embryo to fetus, but also the life span of the human, the cycle of religious evolution that we are caught in regardless of whether we choose to believe in a Creator or not (God will always be an issue you see! and we cannot 'uninvent' him which contradicts the logic of having 'invented' God according to a Wittgensteinian paradigm of negation needing to make sense in both directions).

[cosmos..33]

I am an atheist, so I believe our freakishly large frontal lobes created God (unwittingly).

I find something by evolutionary psychologist / cognitive scientist Steven Pinker useful when discussing questions of this magnitude:

"Our minds evolved by natural selection to solve problems that were life-and-death matters to our ancestors, not to commune with correctness or to answer any question we are capable of asking', argues Steven Pinker. 'We cannot hold ten thousand words in our short-term memory. We cannot see ultra-violet light. We cannot mentally rotate an object in the fourth dimension. And perhaps we cannot solve conundrums like free will and sentience."

[Rhapsodiedejoie]

So I wonder too, if I've lived this particular life before...thanks to Deja Vu and a bad drug trip experience.

I do believe:
If there is a God, it's perfectly explainable that God existed FOREVER and will exist FOREVER. Infinity exists...thus true infinity has no beginning or end. God doesn't need to be created. God just is. It's explainable in its inexplicability...just broaden your mind.

Secondly:
I sometimes feel like time and space have no bounds. For each person, time is different. Think of the phrases "Time flies when you're having fun" or "This is taking forever." Really think about them. Time, supposedly is proceding at the same rate...but yet it varies from person to person.

Thirdly: (Just a thought...)
Our lives...could very possibly be part of a bigger picture, like a loop, or a sphere, where we are every aspect of that sphere. We can experience anything, feel anything, be anything, do anything. We are part of eachother, of the sky, of God. Thus infinity is explainable in an endless loop of sorts. There's a lot more to this theory that's in my mind, but I'm too tired to talk about it right now...lol.

In any case...Life is about Love.

[haxan64]

If you ask, where did God come from; I ask you, where did the first atom come from to have the big bang.

The first atom? Are you telling me there was a void before the first atom? Amazing how nothing evolved into an atom.

0+0=0, 0*0=0, 0/0=0, 0-0=0

It all comes down to having faith in what you believe.

[eladway]

I belive that there something missing in our thoughts about god. its that we talking about god, not a creature a mong us. but we talking about who creat our laws and he the only one who has the ability to break our laws and live with his own laws.

[kimrankamil]

well..i think i am jumping in the discussion rather late...(i have skimmed throuhg the thread..thoug)...it seems that the discussion has almost reached the point where such discussions usually reach......i mean where participants,more often than not, depart with "no conclusion" at all..except for that "i knew they wont unnerstan"

anyhow..i have long been a victim to the question of life and death..and have concluded that "this question cannot be solved"...the only possibilty is that, before their "extinction", men may reach a point where they decide that "no more of these troublesome thoughts...go do something more constructive"..after all we must admit that much greater minds have not been able to answer the fundamental question of "where it all came from??""..and yet despair for me!!!

P.S....just another thing, which does not have anything to do with the present discussion...someone wrote 0/0 = 0..above..and i cannot help correcting just because of some partiality towards maths..0/0 is not 0..it is defined to be "undefined")))

[cuppajoe_9]

...well, if you had just ONE more sense, what would it be? Can you even imagine it? And don't include that notorious "sixth sense" of intuition which is merely a compilation of multiple inputs via the other five senses.The five senses are a social construct. I can, off the top of my head, think of at least two more: proprioception (the feeling of your body in space) and balance. Or you could, if you wanted, limit it to one sense: the sense of information coming into your brain.


Can you prove Love to exist?If you can define it, I can give it a shot.


My point is this: we are rudimentary beings. Very, very limited.'Rudimentary' implies that there is a finished form that we are working towards.

[ennison]

God could not have been created or it would not be God - infinite, eternal, unchanging etc. The question becomes fairly irrelevant compared with the much harder task of deciding on our relationship with that God and our relationship with eachother. In our daily life we might feel very distant from God; we might wonder why we get no message; we might feel abandoned in a lonely place. Pretty normal for most believers. We might feel for longer or shorter periods of time close to God; we might get epiphanies of understanding; we might feel part of a greater whole. Fairly frequent for many believers. We have to be careful that what we are grasping at is not just the wishful thinking of our own insecurities. For whatever God is, though his kingdom might well be within us, we cannot bend him to our wills. Many awful things happen to us and our societies when we try to do that. The great poet William Cowper produced some of his best work from a state of spiritual crisis. Other great poets have struggled with this and resolved it too. Dugald Buchanan for one.

[ShoutGrace]

The object of First Cause is to find a power mover on the move.

Since everything that is in motion must be moved by something, let us suppose there is a thing in motion which was moved by something else in motion, and that by something else, and so on. but this series cannot go on to infinity, so there must be some first mover.

- Aristotle, Physics

[Lavender]

interesting.

so, i've actually discussed this with my friends before, and i've reached the same conclusion: it all depends on what you're willing to accept. i mean, i believe in god, because of the things i see around me...more specifically, the stars. whenever i look up i just have this sense of...well, i dunno...not exactly insignificance, but it's just this feeling that there's something out there (and no, not aliens, though they are pretty cool, too :D ) i'm not trying to say that people should go out and join religion or anything (i've got some problems with organized religion myself), but perhaps if you just think about it...i dunno.

what i compare the existense of god to is writing. i write in my free time, and after reading the book Sophie's World (which is SPECTACULAR, i must say) and i got to thinking...

anyway, well, i compare God to this author, and we are his characters. i mean, when we finish a book, where do the characters go? well, they're still in our minds, yes? sort of the same deal with God. it's like, the reason there's no "physical" evidence of his exsistence doesn't mean he doesn't exist. i mean, what if WE were the ones who were just a figment of imagination? i've tried thinking it out, and it's just crazy. what if WE were the ones who didn't really exist? what if WE were the ones who were just an idea living in God's mind? i mean, how do you "physically" prove a thought or an idea?

just something to think about...

[Guzmán]

The god Zeus was (or is for that matter) the son of Zeus and Rhea (both gods themselves) and among his many offspring ere the gods Apollo and Aphrodite.
Many Roman emperors were deified after their deaths.
So you see there is a precedent of gods being created.

As far as the question of where did the first atom come from I think it is not a matter of belief at all; that would be to turn a purely scientific question into a religious one just because there isnt a theory to explain it yet or if there is it may be beyond our grasp (as non phycisists). In fact in my opinion it doesnt make sense to talk about belief in what regards scientific theories, you may agree with them or not but it doesnt mean anything not to believe in them. You may say "I dont agree with Maxwell's equations, i dont think they describe the nature of electromagnetism accurately" but to say "I dont believe in modern electromagnetic theory", in my opinion, and bear in mind im not trying to offend anyone, is absurd.

Besides maybe in ancient times someone said "if you ask where did Zeus come from? i ask you who wields the thunderbolt?"
Hopefully someday we´ll know where the first atom came from.

[Whifflingpin]

"Hopefully someday we´ll know where the first atom came from."

But, for now, God's keeping it a secret;)

[Guzmán]

.
I'm relatively sure there isn't proof for Love i.e. objective/empirical standards .

Hormones.

As far as us being rudimentary beings, may i remind you that this rudimentary beings have created the system through which you are communicating with people half a world a way?

Other rudimentary beings:
J S Bach
W A Mozart
William Shakespeare
Augustin Cauchy
Claude Shannon
Max Planck
The list goes on....

[ennison]

'Many Roman emperors were deified after their deaths.
So you see there is a precedent of gods being created.'

Well

Cha bu ghaisgeach Alasdair mor
No Caesar thug an Roimh gu geill;
Oir ged a thug iad buaidh air cach,
Dh' fhan iad 'nan traill d'a miannaibh fein

[jon1jt]

Well I did a bit of research on the old web. The christian concensus seems to be that God cannot be created, and that he doesn't need to be because he is outside of time. That said, he also created the universe and created time inside of it.

If god is outside of time, where there is no before and after, then he could not have created the universe - because creating anything simply indicates before and after, before universe and after universe, which means that god must be affected by time in his "realm" - at least henceforth from creation. The only way God wouldn't be affected by time is if he did not create the universe and god merely exists outside of it, neither creating the other.

Therefore it is impossible that god, from this aspect, created the universe, unless he is affected by time. In which case, where did he come from?


don't even bother with those silly arguments about time and inside/outside... they have all the counter-arguments lined up waiting...the church fathers did a nice job, and aquinas too. I say stick to your first line of reasoning---I found it refreshing to read here.

[Laindessiel]

A VERY silly and invalid question. My nerves are twitching no end and my blood is boiling. Never would want to comment on this. IT WILL NEVER END and I don't wanna make enemies.

(WHAT created GOD?)

Sheesh.

And to the one who created this thread, PLEASE use the first letter of the pronouns pertaining to God in CAPITAL LETTERS. It is most REVOLTING and insulting.

[jon1jt]

A VERY silly and invalid question. My nerves are twitching no end and my blood is boiling. Never would want to comment on this. IT WILL NEVER END and I don't wanna make enemies.

(WHAT created GOD?)

Sheesh.

And to the one who created this thread, PLEASE use the first letter of the pronouns pertaining to God in CAPITAL LETTERS. It is most REVOLTING and insulting.

I find the word "god" revolting but i'm not moaning about it and imposing religiosity with your capital letters on the person who created this site. mind your business about how people want to address...him, him, him, him. actually i think god is a woman. :banana:

[Turk]

One problem I have with the idea of God is that, as an answer to life, it doesn't solve anything. I mean, if God created us, then what created God? It solves the question of our own existence and creates the same question of His existence - solving nothing. It merely moves the same question to another subject, which I daresay is rather fallacious.

That said, if God presides over our universe, outside of what we have here, entropy must be going on somewhere because God obviously came from something somewhere. Or - what? - he just poofed in?

The answer that he is omnipotent and can do whatever the hell he wants just isn't very satisfying or realistic. I mean, if he did create our universe, he must have an objective. Why would an omnipotent being have or need an objective?

I haven't read the Bible or any other religious texts. I prefer to follow my own beliefs and ideas. But if anyone can give a decent answer to this, I'd be interested in hearing it.

Yes it's very clear you've never read any religious text.

[rufioag]

On the whole, I do not believe God has a sex and the fact that God is referred to as Father is an expression of respect. When it says, We are created in the image of God, this is not implying a physical image (ie. eyes, ears, mouth) but a spiritual image.

As for the belief that the idea of God solves nothing and you question what created God, well I find it hard to understand, and hope you can enlighten me, on why it is harder to understand the existance of God having always been in comparison to a physical substance (such as our universe) always has been around.

Now in response to this, the most believed theory on the universe is that at some point in time, there was a big bang (some theories expand this to multiple big bangs). But regaurdless of a single or multiple explanation, it all comes down to the fact that at sometime, there was an occurance that caused the entirety of the universe to expand from a point of singularity.

Now how did this point come to be? Did this point always exist?

It comes down to one thing. Faith. Do you have more Faith in a creator who has existed for eternity or do you have more faith in the idea that the physical world has existed for eternity. Personally, I do not have enough Faith to believe in the second.

[jon1jt]

Yes it's very clear you've never read any religious text.


Did religious texts create god or do people create religious texts? Or is the only way for people to know god through religious texts? Or maybe reason allows us to think about god without the smelly dogma. It's very clear that you haven't thought through these issues very much...Turk.

[ennison]

Texts. Well most of us here are readers so we have some reverence for these. But we're mainly not idolatrous about it.
The Creation which like the texts we interpret in different ways.
Personal experience which though often similar is never identical but which often directs us to similar and identical conclusions.
Something else. Ah too vague I know but what's that word for it ....

[Dorian Gray]

I believe the following; Mankind created God when they needed a reason for civilization to behave. Seriously, were I an ignorant, uneducated beggar in that period and they'd walk up to me and say; if you live a sinful life, you'll go to a place where you'll burn for all eternity, I'd freak out. And then they'd say; Lead a good life and God, our Heavenly Father, will send you to Heaven - paradise. It's a great way to manipulate criminals into changing their wicked ways. And since people wanted proof, they wrote the Bible. Conveniently enough, no one knows for sure whether it documents the truth. But let's not get into that.

That and people are trying to understand things they'll never understand. Why is the universe infinite? When was it created? Where do we come from? Humans are curious. And since the beginning of time, they've had theories. Theories are fine, as long as you don't condemn those who disagree with your beliefs.

[ennison]

Trouble with that as a theory is that it clearly didn't, doesn't and will not work. Granted my future tense is based only on historical experience. Most 'criminals' won't become good through threat of Hell but of course this 'they' you refer to is really not the third person plural but the first person plural and the beggars and criminals are all of us or. if you prefer, people like me.

[ennison]

Ps being condemned by a theory is not exactly likely to induce shaking in the shoes for most of us.

[Dorian Gray]

Most 'criminals' won't become good through threat of Hell.

2000 years ago, things were different. Mankind has evolved. I think they might've viewed those holy people as truthful or enlightened. Religion influences people. It just does. I know millions of people lead good lives because they fear hell. Even those who don't really believe in God are afraid to stop going to church, etc because if they're wrong, they'll go to hell. I've heard many people say so. Religion is all about power and fear.

Just think about the middle ages when heretics were burned at the stake. If society doesn't allow atheism, you feel a lot less inclined to openly support their (lack of) religion.

[Shield&Sword]

The strange thing here is that the non believers are sure that God was created, i see most say that man created God with his own mind in order to find solution for his existence. Doesnt seem wiered a little bit? i mean why you applicate the concept of creation on God and agree that he was created while you refuse the idea that this universe was created, you are talking like you are sure that the idea of existence of God is created by man himself, in other terms you are talking in the same way that believers do but in the other side (contrary), in other way you believe in the existence of abslute thing and for you its the non existence of God.
As i said once if we relate the action CREATE to someone then we cant applicate it on him especially when when we relaite him the absolute meaning. The things that need something to be existed need someone to make it exist, and if we relaite the existence of every thing to God then we cant relaite the existence of God to any thing, in other words every thing need God to be existed but God doesnt need anything to exist, he was and will be always. The believers of creation believe that every thing was created by God, such claim doesnt leave any place for the question "who created God?", its obvious that the question contraddict with it self, the question in other words (without the nomination of the creator) is: "who created the creator of everything?" or "who created the only creator?" as you see its "stupid question", we give God the absolute meaning of a word and then we ask like we didnt give the absolute meaning of the same word. Again the claim is of us is God created every thing, he is the only creator, or you discuss the accuracy of this claim or not, or to agree or t refuse.
Another thing, God existence is not prooved only by texts, but by every thing you see arround even by your self, its not a discussion of accuracy of verses or texts, so refusing texts doesnt mean God doesnt exist, God didnt talk only but he founded everything.

[ennison]

Leading a good life is not quite the same as not being a criminal. Religion will save no one and it is false belief that tells people that. Leading a good life is not enough either for various reasons. One of which you have spotted. If it's done out of fear it's not genuine - it's hypocrisy. So Hell wins again.

[Guzmán]

The strange thing here is that the non believers are sure that God was created, i see most say that man created God with his own mind in order to find solution for his existence. Doesnt seem wiered a little bit? i mean why you applicate the concept of creation on God and agree that he was created while you refuse the idea that this universe was created, you are talking like you are sure that the idea of existence of God is created by man himself, in other terms you are talking in the same way that believers do but in the other side (contrary), in other way you believe in the existence of abslute thing and for you its the non existence of God.
As i said once if we relate the action CREATE to someone then we cant applicate it on him especially when when we relaite him the absolute meaning. The things that need something to be existed need someone to make it exist, and if we relaite the existence of every thing to God then we cant relaite the existence of God to any thing, in other words every thing need God to be existed but God doesnt need anything to exist, he was and will be always. The believers of creation believe that every thing was created by God, such claim doesnt leave any place for the question "who created God?", its obvious that the question contraddict with it self, the question in other words (without the nomination of the creator) is: "who created the creator of everything?" or "who created the only creator?" as you see its "stupid question", we give God the absolute meaning of a word and then we ask like we didnt give the absolute meaning of the same word. Again the claim is of us is God created every thing, he is the only creator, or you discuss the accuracy of this claim or not, or to agree or t refuse.
Another thing, God existence is not prooved only by texts, but by every thing you see arround even by your self, its not a discussion of accuracy of verses or texts, so refusing texts doesnt mean God doesnt exist, God didnt talk only but he founded everything.

To quote Cervantes:
"Over conceits of this sort the poor gentleman lost his wits, and used to lie awake striving to understand them and worm the meaning out of them; what Aristotle himself could not have made out or extracted had he come to life again for that special purpose."

The original text is much more beautiful, it loses all of its charm with the translation to English, too bad...

[ShoutGrace]

I believe the following; Mankind created God when they needed a reason for civilization to behave.

So, there was a small group of Semitic geniuses who decided one day, 3,000 years ago, to write a large amount of literature purely with the intention of creating control and order, and who managed to not only overpower their entire civilization, but also the Roman empire.

Mankind did not create God - that is an overly simplistic view of things. Much more likely than that is the idea that some really dumb Semites 3,000 years ago had some strange natural phenomena happen to them, some "miraculous" occurences, and they over time developed a cultural explanation - God.



Seriously, were I an ignorant, uneducated beggar in that period and they'd walk up to me and say; if you live a sinful life, you'll go to a place where you'll burn for all eternity, I'd freak out. And then they'd say; Lead a good life and God, our Heavenly Father, will send you to Heaven - paradise.

Which religion says that?



It's a great way to manipulate criminals into changing their wicked ways. And since people wanted proof, they wrote the Bible.

This is even more frighteningly crude and simplistic - ask any anthropologist or sociologist. Writing the Bible, and any "creation" of a God myth, was not a conscious, socially motivated action - it was a cultural phenomena, taking many, many years.


Conveniently enough, no one knows for sure whether it documents the truth. But let's not get into that.

Define "truth." It is an astonishingly accurate historical document, which to date hasn't had any of its factual assertions refuted. Admittedly, some areas where the Bible claims history haven't yet been proven, but still haven't been disproven.


That and people are trying to understand things they'll never understand.

That's human nature, thankfully.


Why is the universe infinite? When was it created? Where do we come from? Humans are curious.

Surely this isn't a bad thing?


And since the beginning of time, they've had theories. Theories are fine, as long as you don't condemn those who disagree with your beliefs.

Hey, what are the odds? I agree with this statement.


I know millions of people lead good lives because they fear hell. Even those who don't really believe in God are afraid to stop going to church, etc because if they're wrong, they'll go to hell.

What kind of churches? What religion says that you have to "lead a good life" or "go to church" in order to avoid a "hell?"

[ennison]

That's the stuff. Keep shouting Grace.

[Guzmán]

So, there was a small group of Semitic geniuses who decided one day, 3,000 years ago, to write a large amount of literature purely with the intention of creating control and order, and who managed to not only overpower their entire civilization, but also the Roman empire.

Mankind did not create God - that is an overly simplistic view of things. Much more likely than that is the idea that some really dumb Semites 3,000 years ago had some strange natural phenomena happen to them, some "miraculous" occurences, and they over time developed a cultural explanation - God.


Which is more probable?

1 Moses went up mount Sinai (or whichever mount it was, i know little to nothing bout religion), the skies opened up or whatever and an omniscient omnipotent being showed up and dictated the law to him.

2 Moses went up there, thought a little about how to get his people organised, decided he needed to make some laws and thought up a few to make his people behave. To make them abide by this laws he had just created he made up the whole God appearing to him thing, so, by giving his new rules this sacred aura, noone would dare defy them.

In my opinion, number two is much more likely, plus it leaves Moses as a far more cunning guy than we would otherwise be led to believe. In fact I know pretty little about the Moses story, but if you look at all of it in this manner, leaving God out of it, it looks as if he was one hell of an intelligent and manipulative political leader. The parting of the waters trick would be a tough one to pull off though.

[ShoutGrace]

Which is more probable?

I think the theory I proffered earlier is most probable (given an atheistic viewpoint). That is why I took the time to post it.


1 Moses went up mount Sinai (or whichever mount it was, i know little to nothing bout religion), the skies opened up or whatever and an omniscient omnipotent being showed up and dictated the law to him.

How about: Moses went up to Mount Sinai - it's a long climb, so he was rather dehydrated and hungry - he had a hallucination, after which he created the stone tablets. Over the years the story changed, was embellished, and eventually his people ended up recording his story in it's present form.

I don't believe any of this for one second, but if I did take an atheistic stance, it would seem clear that mankind has not "created" God purposefully, with the intention of controlling masses.

Most atheists I've talked to - including those in these Forums - have said that God was (and is) the missing link for people who couldn't understand their environment, or couldn't deal with it. Remember, the whole "People invented a God who threw lightning when he was angry because they didn't understand the process of lightning?"

[ennison]

Moses was a man and had the faults of a man. He also had the strengths of a great leader but the story is not about a man. Moses is an agent not a power. Moses could have stayed in Egypt had he not made a choice. He made several choices which seem not to be entirely driven by self-interest. Finally, he himself didn't reach the Promised Land so his cunning, intelligence and success were all undercut by weaknesses. The thousands of wandering former slaves may have needed laws to govern them. But the tablets of stone do a great deal more than that - these other minor laws can be found elsewhere. The laws in stone have their limits too and were intended like that. I can see the sceptic finding the idea of it all being a con an attractive idea but that's because the sceptic is a sceptic.

[Turk]

Did religious texts create god or do people create religious texts? Or is the only way for people to know god through religious texts? Or maybe reason allows us to think about god without the smelly dogma. It's very clear that you haven't thought through these issues very much...Turk.

Religious texts sent by God. And nothing created God, he created everything.

There's no certain answer for second question. Because every individual is different, some may understand God's existence without texts maybe, but some may not understand it too. You can think and you can ask smart, interesting or silly questions without reading texts. But then you don't know in which era of history you living, in which era of history you are thinking. Questions you've asked, asked before you too. You may like to check/read this maybe; http://umcc.ais.org/~maftab/ip/pdf/bktxt/hayy.pdf

In this very interesting book, Hayy is symbol of pure reason-pure human, but there's Asal and Salaman too, and there's society.

You can call religion smelly dogma, and yeah, in some ways, some religions are smelly dogmas, full of clashes, full of irrationalist thoughts. But i don't think my belief is dogma, but some people can make it a dogma too. It depends on every individual's point of view.

And yeah, maybe as you said i may not have thought enough about this stuff, but since i've read a lot of religious/philosophic texts, i have the heritage of centuries, heritage of generations. And that's why i don't keep repeating questions that asked thousands of years ago.

[cuppajoe_9]

Religious texts sent by God. And nothing created God, he created everything. Not to be a jerk, but that wasn't really an explaination.

[Turk]

Not to be a jerk, but that wasn't really an explaination.

Ok. Everyone is free to believe or not to believe. There's no certain prove of that religious texts (for me Kur'an) sent by God, if there would be certain prove of that everyone would believe it, but also there's no certain prove of that text didn't send by God too, i thought about it since long time, sometimes i was going to lose my belief, but at last i choosed to believe that. That's called faith. I don't claim religion is a scientific concept and could prove with experiments or calculations, it's a belief.

So that's why i could gave that answer, just like opposite thoughts couldn't bring any certain prove.

[Shield&Sword]

Well in Holy Quran and Hadeeths of prophet there is science, and Holy Quran can be prooven to be from God by the scientific verses it contain.
I advice you to read the beutifull book of the biggest embryology scientist Keith L.Moore called: "The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology with Islamic Additions", its the third edition of his famous book: "The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology" here my friend went to buy it but in the medica library they said to him that this book came for short time and then it stopped (who know why?) and in a video he confissed that the verses written in Quran cant be written by man because at that time it was impossible to discover such things, and he said that the Quran must be sent from God. And another big scientists that thier testimony was hidden.
And another big scientists who confissed that Quran is not said by man because of scientific verses.
Perhaps its out of subject, but i think it is relaited to the texts and who created them.

[ennison]

The Idea Of Choosing 'to Believe' Is Interesting. Is That Really What I Believe?? I Respect Turk's Exercise Of Free Will But I Think That Is Opening A Can Of Squirmy Ideas. I'd Like To Hear More Of What He Means.

[Pendragon]

In reading over these posts, a new question pops to mind: If you are convinced that there is no God, doesn't the question of how He came into being become moot?

[ShoutGrace]

In reading over these posts, a new question pops to mind: If you are convinced that there is no God, doesn't the question of how He came into being become moot?


To quote the opening post:


One problem I have with the idea of God is that, as an answer to life, it doesn't solve anything. I mean, if God created us, then what created God?

It would seem from these words that reconciling the apparent difficulty in the concept of God as "eternal" or similarly "uncreated" would obviate one obstruction towards that particular member's belief in God.

Also, if an atheist could show that the idea of God being eternal is ridiculous or absurd, they could perhaps further the cause of atheistic philosophy? Why do any atheists try to make philosophical points at all? Perhaps because they feel an intellectual obligation to? Or a need to promote what they believe to be true, same as anybody? Just for fun (same as anybody ;))?

[Turk]

The Idea Of Choosing 'to Believe' Is Interesting. Is That Really What I Believe?? I Respect Turk's Exercise Of Free Will But I Think That Is Opening A Can Of Squirmy Ideas. I'd Like To Hear More Of What He Means.

It's faith. Some chooses not to believe, some chooses to believe. If i'd know your certain question i could try to give a certain answer. Because as you said there's many questions could asked about that, so i prefer to hear your question before telling something.

[ennison]

Ok. Here's my question. Is faith an act of choice or is it God-given - in your opinion?

[rufioag]

I believe you can be moved to faith but the final decision is yours.

Just as in Matthew 22: 14 - "For many are called, but few are chosen" is a perfect example of how their is an opportunity for ALL to accept Jesus as Savior, yet in the end, few make the decision to move to faith.

[ennison]

The translation there uses a passive verb '... are chosen' so it does not sound to me like it is the choice of the believer.

[rufioag]

If it is not the choice of the believer, then where is free will?

[ennison]

Good question.

[jon1jt]

you created god. :)

[bella_swan07]

Oooo! There is a scripture in the Bible that says how God was created, I think. Read Habakkuk chp3 verses 3-6

[ennison]

Me? Personally? It's grand to be omnipotent!! And here I was thinking I was the created being made of dust. Turns out I'm the Creator. Ok plebs ... for my next trick.

[Turk]

Ok. Here's my question. Is faith an act of choice or is it God-given - in your opinion?

A choice. We choose. It would be unfair if it would be a God-given. Because some doesn't have faith, some doesn't believes God. If faith would be God-given then that would mean God gave faith to some of us, and didn't give faith to some of us, and that's completely unfair.

On the other hand, if God would choose for us, there wouldn't be free will, and if there wouldn't be free will, there wouldn't ben sin or goodness too.

[harshwaves]

if we had the answers, we would be God.

[Shield&Sword]

Our will is relaited to will of God, God gave us the ability to choose, his will was that we will have the will to choose and his will was also that we will be able to choose 1 thing of 2: or to believe in him or not to believe. So you who say that you have the total free will, why you dont create another type of will out of the will that God decided..

[Pendragon]

Oooo! There is a scripture in the Bible that says how God was created, I think. Read Habakkuk chp3 verses 3-6

Habakkuk 3:3-6

3:3 God came from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran. Selah. His glory covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise.

3:4 And [his] brightness was as the light; he had horns [coming] out of his hand: and there [was] the hiding of his power.

3:5 Before him went the pestilence, and burning coals went forth at his feet.

3:6 He stood, and measured the earth: he beheld, and drove asunder the nations; and the everlasting mountains were scattered, the perpetual hills did bow: his ways [are] everlasting.

Where does this tell who, what, when, where, or how God was created? If you replace the word "God" with the name of any King, it becomes the account of a battle or punishment. "King David came from Teman, by way of Mount Paran--" see? This is a statement of judgement upon a people not of the creation of God, and the direction from which the judgement came, in the form of some sort of pestilence, and perhaps an earthquake.

[Turk]

Our will is relaited to will of God, God gave us the ability to choose, his will was that we will have the will to choose and his will was also that we will be able to choose 1 thing of 2: or to believe in him or not to believe. So you who say that you have the total free will, why you dont create another type of will out of the will that God decided..

If you had read my earlier posts you would know nobody said we have a FREE WILL LIKE GOD'S WILL. God's will is out of universe, time, and all of other concepts in this time, so even comparing his will to human's will is completely silly. It's silly as asking "Who created God?". But in this universe, for limits of this universe, we absolutely have total free will. All concepts, including good and bad, time, mercy or merciless created by God. You can choose whatever you want, and it's total free will for limits of this universe, nobody's comparing God's will to human will, if you read some scholars such as Maturidi or Rabbani you understand those things better.

And this is what i said in my earlier post;


And nothing created God, he created everything.

[kimrankamil]

we are all using the word God, and some of us little realize that this word may mean a different person for others..for example for some of us God only means "someone who created us and this universe" and for others he is, besides being the Creator, someone who is merciful, omnipotent etc...

so, i believe this fact should be kept in view while communicating to people who have different opinion...As God is not only the creator for many of us, but also a combination of some qualities...why not take into account the fact that there may be someone who believed in evil God...the Creator who does not want us to be happy or who wants us to be doomed...i know such people who have no hope in life or expect anything good after they die.

moreover, someone above was talking about scientific proofs.for them...

""suppose what u say is truth for present....your prophet was true..he was appointed by God to do so and so..and the book you hold is the word of God..Suppose that you were made to live in the paradise after you died..(afeter you were given antoher life)...What is the guarantee that after a few days/months/years he , the God, once again will not put you in this world or even a worse one..afterall he did a thing of which he was not to have any benifet. and he did it when it was not really needed (was it really needed you think??? and if it was, who needed it??) and another thing

if he did not fulfil what u say he has promised, who would compell him to do so....can you bring forth any scientific proof that His will will not change..after all he seems a capricious person..who does freaks without any disires..he can do even more funny tricks with even less desire...

To my it really boils down to a matter of faith. without any thing to do with logic or science..no one can proove his being (with certain qualities one presuemes) using logic or science like no one can prove the opposite of it...

[Shield&Sword]

Turk where did i mistake in my previuos post, i didnt compare will of God with our will, i said that our will will is relaited to will of God and i mean by that that our will is limited by will of God, our will does not go out of will of God the total will.
I didnt read alot about free will in islam but Better to read books of the 4 scholars Shafi'i, Abu Hanifa, Maliki, Hanbali, and Ibn Alqaiyem and other famous scholars.
Maturidi was more as Mutakallem," المتكلمة" they use more philosophy in explaining, not so good, i dont want to get in these things but i understand your words.

I think in this thread we are on the discussion who created God, the base of believing in God is believing in him as the creator of this universe, was thi universe created or did it come alone, and in this point no matter what your faith is we all have the choice to answer 2 answers: "this world was created" or "this world came alone". So i think what you said will come after the person choose the answer. The answer that will be is relaited to how you look to this universe, and also your thoughts that will be also are relaited to how you look to this universe around, does the one who created all this world are playing around? does the one who did all this sofisticated things will at us and why? more that you admire the universe more that you will have good thoughts about God, also to know God is not enough to look around, here come the searching for his words his path to read what is presented , the proofs that he gave to his prophet in order to proove the validity of this text. If you want to think about God as one who play around then you are takling about person not God, or like one who lie then you are talkijng about person not God.

[Turk]

Turk where did i mistake in my previuos post, i didnt compare will of God with our will, i said that our will will is relaited to will of God and i mean by that that our will is limited by will of God, our will does not go out of will of God the total will.
I didnt read alot about free will in islam but Better to read books of the 4 scholars Shafi'i, Abu Hanifa, Maliki, Hanbali, and Ibn Alqaiyem and other famous scholars.
Maturidi was more as Mutakallem," المتكلمة" they use more philosophy in explaining, not so good, i dont want to get in these things but i understand your words.

You didn't compare our will to God's will. But you sounded like we are comparing these two.

Shafi, Hanefi, Maliki and Hanbali are four sects of Islam, but they are practical sects, there's widely accepted 2 creedal sects; Eşar'iyye and Maturidiyye. Their subjects are different, İmamı Azam Abu Hanife, Imam Shafi or Ahmed Bin Hanbel mostly explain practical stuff. Since Maturidi or Eş'ari explained creedel stuff, it's normal that their style is more philosophic. But if you research about 4 practical sects's Imams, you see they accept Maturidi's or Eşari's thoughts about creedel stuff.

[ennison]

I'm sorry Turk you want God to operate according to your ideas of fairness. Such a God is a little god just like us. We have to drop our conceptions of fairness. I can choose X or Y or Z and each choice is either motivated by flesh or reason - both flawed so I'm afraid your idea that we choose faith does not hold water with me. We choose religions - all flawed. We choose tribes - all clay. We choose this modern trend or that - all temporary. God's too big to choose. God does the choosing as a form of humbling.

[Shadowsarin]

The lack of an iron cast answer to this question is one the of the reasons I have a tendancy to go for the Nihilist point of view. But as that is rarther boring as a post, I'll voice a few other opinions I have heard on the subject.

The question that if god is infinate, why is humanity so young? Holy scriptures almost always seem to describe the first humans as tool using sentinet beings, but such beings have been around for less than a million years, which compaired to infinity is absolutly nothing. Surely this raises the question as to whether or not this is the first universe that god created. Perhaps, if god is infinate, there are an infinate number of other universes, which would contradict the claim humanity are his chosen children, which is another claim I have heard made.

There are hundreds of religions all preaching their own indervidual ways to reach god. However, as most of them also claim to be the only true way to reach god, how does a person decide who is telling the truth and who is telling lies? Or could there be differnet gods for each religion as required, thus casting even more complextion into the question.

The paradox theory. This is something I came up with a while ago when contemplating alternative theorys as to how the universe was created. There might be a propper theory similer to it, and if so I would like to know what it is. The concept is that at some point in the future, someone, be it human or alien or whatever, will travel back in time and create the universe, causing a paradox. While it might raise the question as to how the paradox started, as a paradox is infinet, it essencially 'avoids' the question in the same style as the god argument.

This one is aimed at Big Bang believers out there: What created the big bang? Again, while it may seem a little off topic, I just wanted to pick exactly the same hole in the Science argument that is being picked here.

[ennison]

When Aaron changed his slat into a snake the priests of pharaoh did exactly the same. Point? That which is counterfeit is almost identical to that which is true. There are numerous political systems (as well as religions) and the adherents of these believe they have the shining path to shangri-la-on-earth. It would be odd if they didn't believe that. We probably have to work out which are true and which are false. Not beyond us once we confront our own prejudices and failings.

[rosseau]

man is programmed to think in a particular manner and to go against it is just not easy.

Interesting...so if God does indeed make us think the way we think, and everyone thinks differently then either we must have different Gods, or He is just plain cruel.

[chaplin]

One problem I have with the idea of God is that, as an answer to life, it doesn't solve anything. I mean, if God created us, then what created God? It solves the question of our own existence and creates the same question of His existence - solving nothing. It merely moves the same question to another subject, which I daresay is rather fallacious.

That said, if God presides over our universe, outside of what we have here, entropy must be going on somewhere because God obviously came from something somewhere. Or - what? - he just poofed in?


As God Himself says, He, along with every spirit, has no beginning and thus no end. I think that categorically solves the question of the creation of God, of course for Christians only.



The answer that he is omnipotent and can do whatever the hell he wants just isn't very satisfying or realistic. I mean, if he did create our universe, he must have an objective. Why would an omnipotent being have or need an objective?


A purpose or "objective" is essential for a divine being, it is the conduit to exercise His powers to better all beings.

His objective, his "work and glory", as revealed to Moses, is "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of Man."


The christian concensus seems to be that God cannot be created, and that he doesn't need to be because he is outside of time. That said, he also created the universe and created time inside of it.

If god is outside of time, where there is no before and after, then he could not have created the universe - because creating anything simply indicates before and after, before universe and after universe, which means that god must be affected by time in his "realm" - at least henceforth from creation.

The only way God wouldn't be affected by time is if he did not create the universe and god merely exists outside of it, neither creating the other.

I agree with this. If God has existed from all eternity, with no beginning, which is the "Christian consensus", it does not follow that He is not subject to or in the linear progression of time. I believe that God being "inside" and not "outside" of time, does not diminish his power or authenticity, because, to me, God and the Universe are self-existing beings, and each having a relation to each other does not void either's eternality.

It is all solved if, as I believe, God did not "create" the Universe, create meaning making something from nothing, and rather organized the infinite matter already, eternally, existing into His various works, meaning that nothing was ever "created" by God or anyone else, including Himself, the Universe, and each person's spirit.