EPT
Who made God?
| Blogs > JesusCruxRH |
|
JesusCruxRH
New Zealand159 Posts
| ||
Hot_Bid
Braavos36374 Posts
| ||
|
ilovejonn
Canada2548 Posts
| ||
|
BalloonFight
United States2007 Posts
| ||
|
Aurious
Canada1772 Posts
Why is it that so many people can't grasp that simple fact. We will never know. | ||
|
JesusCruxRH
New Zealand159 Posts
On October 31 2007 13:43 HellAngel wrote: What this story is suggesting is the fact there is no proof of a higher power, nor is there truth that there isn't a higher power. Until man can go back in time and see for ourselves we will never know end of discussion. Why is it that so many people can't grasp that simple fact. We will never know. That's what I was saying in my OP - because we don't know, it's pointless to ask who made God. You're wrong in making the absolute statement that we will never know, however, as it assumes you are able to look into the future (and that there is an end) for you to be able to ascertain for sure. | ||
|
GranDim
Canada1214 Posts
| ||
|
Superiorwolf
United States5509 Posts
| ||
|
JesusCruxRH
New Zealand159 Posts
On October 31 2007 13:55 GranDim wrote: I'll take a large sum of energy and matter over an omnipresent, intelligent and perfect creature as the one that had a better shot at appearing out of apparently nowhere. You're entitled to your opinion, but you've still made the mistake, that if the explanation is for an omnipresent etc. 'thing', the assumption is that it did not appear out of nowhere, because 'it' does not have a beginning. | ||
|
JesusCruxRH
New Zealand159 Posts
On October 31 2007 13:55 GranDim wrote: I'll take a large sum of energy and matter over an omnipresent, intelligent and perfect creature as the one that had a better shot at appearing out of apparently nowhere. You've have a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument though, because if the explanation is for an omnipresent etc. 'thing', the Christian assumption (which you're entitled to disagree with) is that it did not appear out of nowhere, because 'it' does not have a beginning. | ||
|
GranDim
Canada1214 Posts
The option where we are missing a key point 1) Matter and/or energy (that arrived there by still unknown reason) created the universe. The option used by man since its beginning to explain what they can't understand. 2) God(s) (that was alway there and watch over us) did it. I am still picking option 1. | ||
|
man
United States272 Posts
| ||
|
OverTheUnder
United States2929 Posts
On October 31 2007 13:13 JesusCruxRH wrote: + Show Spoiler + Traditionally, most atheists who deny the existence of God believe that the universe was not made; it was just \"there\" forever. They appeal to the first law of thermodynamics for support: \"Energy can neither be created nor destroyed,\" they insist. Several things must be observed in response. First, this way of stating the first law is not scientific; rather, it is a philosophical assertion. Science is based on observation, and there is no observational evidence that can support the dogmatic \"can\" and \"cannot\" implicit in this statement. It should read, \"[As far as we have observed,] the amount of actual energy in the universe remains constant.\" That is, no one had observed any actual new energy either coming into existence or going out of existence. Once the first law is understood properly, it says nothing about the universe being eternal or having no beginning. As far as the first law is concerned, energy may or may not have been created. It simply asserts that if energy was created, then as far as we can tell, the actual amount of energy that was created has remained constant since then. Further, let us suppose for the sake of argument that energy - the whole universe of energy we call the cosmos - was not created, as many atheists have traditionally believed. If this is so, it is meaningless to ask who made the universe. If energy is eternal and uncreated, of course no one created it. It has always existed. If the universe is not eternal, it needs a cause. On the other hand, if it has no beginning, it does not need a cause of its beginning. - Ravi Zacharias Hmm, I guess the question is not so much \"Who made God\", as it\'s a bit impossible (with current science) to determine, but rather: \"why did God create\"? As it is a philosophical question. Interestingly Dan Brown has a book, I can\'t remember what it\'s called I read it a few years back, called \"The Deception\" or something, about some scientist coming up with a machine that would create energy out of nothing! You are right about one thing, the question isn\'t \"Who made God?\". The question itself is simply used as an argument by non-theists to show that the concept of God suffers the same cause/effect problem as everything else. Why would you go to that question to the question \"why did God create?\". It makes no sense at all. The very concept of God is threatened by the first question and then you go on to ask a question which assumes the existence of God? What people have to understand is that there are INFINITELY many possible ways the Universe came to exist or it has always existed. The idea of God is simply one of them. Why is this one concept so popular like it is any more probable then anything else? A problem we run into is that the idea of God is so loosely defined. If by God you simply mean Un-caused first cause, then it is very possible something like that exists/existed. If you mean a specific religious God or even a supernatural being that many religions refer to, you go from God being one specific thing to being a number of specific attributes that comprise it, making it much much much more improbable. At some point you have to accept that something came from nothing or that something has always existed. People feel safe applying this attribute to \"God\" which would make sense if you were JUST using God as a reference to an uncaused first cause. The problem is people add all these other attributes out of nowhere to \"God\", making it a conscious being, giving it human emotions or w/e. It is likely we do this because it makes us easier to relate to the idea, and gives it purpose in our eyes. Whatever the reason, we need to recognize this seriously flawed leap of logic when it comes to this topic. What you are doing by apply all these different attributes to the idea of God, is making it even MORE improbable then the infinite other amount of possible beginnings. All the answer requires is something that has always been or came from nothing. NOTHING ELSE. By applying these attributes you exponentionally increase the odds against your concept with each new attribute. Basically you have an infinite number of \"base\" solutions, all of which seem equally (im)probable from what we currently know, yet people give credence to an idea that is way ( way way way) more improbable above the other ideas instead of saying \"I don\'t know.\" Such a huge difference in probability is very important to consider when talking about things for which there is no evidence. Once evidence is found however, probability doesn\'t really matter. If we ever do find an answer, it should be noted that it will be improbable no matter what it is but that is simply because of the vast number of possible answers. It is all relative;o edit: wow, I could be applying my free time so much better, like doing good in my classes-_- | ||
|
OverTheUnder
United States2929 Posts
On October 31 2007 15:16 JesusCruxRH wrote: You've have a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument though, because if the explanation is for an omnipresent etc. 'thing', the Christian assumption (which you're entitled to disagree with) is that it did not appear out of nowhere, because 'it' does not have a beginning. The problem is, the Christian assumption is so much more then "The first cause always existed." It assumes a huge number of things. | ||
|
GranDim
Canada1214 Posts
| ||
|
OverTheUnder
United States2929 Posts
On October 31 2007 16:09 GranDim wrote: I am having some trouble understanding the "he has alway existed" part. If he has alway existed, past is infinite. If past is infinite, he existed in an infinite past. If he existed in an infinite past, he cannot be in the present since the time between infinite past and now is infinite. yea, but that just shows that humans have difficulty comprehending "infinity." I totally understand where you are coming from, the idea that you can't ever traverse an infinite number of points in time to arrive at "Now." I can't really point out a specific flaw in that logic, but what you have to remember is that even in a series of infinity, "Now" has to be a specific point along the timeline. | ||
|
man
United States272 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On October 31 2007 16:09 GranDim wrote: The point would be that it isn't constrained within the human realm of time. Personally I take issue with the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God but I can sort of wrap my mind around the unmoved mover thing like OverTheUnder talked about.I am having some trouble understanding the "he has alway existed" part. If he has alway existed, past is infinite. If past is infinite, he existed in an infinite past. If he existed in an infinite past, he cannot be in the present since the time between infinite past and now is infinite. It's worth noting that when you try and throw specific religious versions of God in there that religions are man made institutions. Whether a specific religion ends up being 100% correct or not, it was still created by men. | ||
|
OverTheUnder
United States2929 Posts
On October 31 2007 16:35 man wrote: There is so much BS in this thread it's ridiculous. As soon as we take into account what we observe in the universe, the number of possible explanations becomes very very small. For example, the expansion of the universe and cosmic background radiation would not be possible in an infinite universe. Yes, that is evidence for the Big Bang, which seems to be the beginning of the Universe "as we know it." ( and like I said, probability only matters when there is a lack of evidence. ) Are you trying to say that it is clear the universe had a beginning, because of the evidence for the Big Bang? That doesn't make much sense, because we have no clue what happened "before" the big bang and no reason to rule out a "before." The Big bang doesn't have anything to do with weather the universe is infinite or not, it just lets us know that the universe was not always like this. | ||
|
JesusCruxRH
New Zealand159 Posts
Why would you go to that question to the question \"why did God create?\". It makes no sense at all. The very concept of God is threatened by the first question and then you go on to ask a question which assumes the existence of God? I was saying that if it is to be a philosophical debate, then it ought to centre around why we exist (does not necessarily mean we have to be created), rather than who or what or 'nothing' created us, as we are unable to at the present time understand that. What people have to understand is that there are INFINITELY many possible ways the Universe came to exist or it has always existed. The idea of God is simply one of them. Why is this one concept so popular like it is any more probable then anything else? Yes, but part of the purpose of these posts is to bring forward as many reasons to believe in the (factual or otherwise) rationality of Christianity as I can be bothered posting. If for example an atheist's argument was: "What if you were born in India? You probably wouldn't be a Christian". But that does not necessarily mean that Christianity is wrong just because you were 'lucky' or 'divinely planned' enough to be born in a Western Christian dominated country. What needs to be looked at is how much evidence there is - and I'm not gonna be able to reveal all of it at once, but I do have quite a few books detailing the archeology etc. behind, for example, Jesus' existence. I posted a while back about a woman who's body was found in the trunk of a car. When she went missing, someone said that in the US if someone is missing it is likely they will presume that she is dead. There can be many possible explanations, but if there are many factors pointing to that (e.g. her husband had an argument with her the previous night and is nowhere to be found), then it would be foolish to ignore that as a possibility. At some point you have to accept that something came from nothing or that something has always existed. People feel safe applying this attribute to \"God\" which would make sense if you were JUST using God as a reference to an uncaused first cause. The problem is people add all these other attributes out of nowhere to \"God\", making it a conscious being, giving it human emotions or w/e. It is likely we do this because it makes us easier to relate to the idea, and gives it purpose in our eyes. Not necessarily - for example, early believers believed that God was an almighty God who you couldn't even speak His name to, and that to do so would be punishable by death. When they prayed I'm guessing they didn't expect any divine response, they thought only Moses was chosen to have such a privilege. Jesus came and changed that perception, and that's where these ideas of God having human emotions may have come from. Whatever the reason, we need to recognize this seriously flawed leap of logic when it comes to this topic. What you are doing by apply all these different attributes to the idea of God, is making it even MORE improbable then the infinite other amount of possible beginnings. All the answer requires is something that has always been or came from nothing. NOTHING ELSE. By applying these attributes you exponentionally increase the odds against your concept with each new attribute... etc. My purpose in writing this post was not to find out what the answer was, but rather to say that if an atheist is to ask, with the intention of debunking Christian logic within its own framework, the question: "Who made God"? Then this is the response. edit: wow, I could be applying my free time so much better, like doing good in my classes-_- Man, tell me about it! I'm sitting a bar exam myself (i.e. the certification I need to be formally appointed as a barrister and solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand)  | ||
| ||
