What created God?

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.

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?

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.

Who said life had to make sense?

I did......

And you were wrong to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeingaBunny

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeingaBunny

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeingaBunny

God obviously came from something somewhere.

---

Then that "God" is just a word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeingaBunny

Why would an omnipotent being have or need an objective?

---

I'm afraid the question is for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeingaBunny

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

And you were wrong to do so.

---

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

Quote:

---

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



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

---

Because Syme said it... :D

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar

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.

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

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhekti

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?

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

Though I consider myself no true religion (my, I admit, odd attempt to avoid mass subjectivism), I agree greatly with Lector's proceeding post --

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

-----

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

Mono, could you expand on your statement that says:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mono

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?)

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beingabunny

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 :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dictionary

** 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhekti

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhekti

Mono, could you expand on your statement that says:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhekti

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. :)

This question which need time to prove .

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.

.....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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mono

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.

well said bhekti

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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 . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhekti

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. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mono

.... 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhekti

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarieAntoinette

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

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.

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

"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"

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.' 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarieAntoinette

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.

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).