EPT
Who made God?
| Blogs > JesusCruxRH |
|
JesusCruxRH
New Zealand159 Posts
| ||
Hot_Bid
Braavos36379 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)  | ||
|
r0ar
Australia24 Posts
athesists DONT BELIEVE ok that is what atheism is about i suppose this is more directed to the guy u quote Who made God? i dont think u will ever get an answer most christians never think about and wont go near a question like that God was always there is probably the answer u will get but of course then why bother invoking god to create things | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On October 31 2007 13:49 JesusCruxRH wrote: 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. Actually he can make an absolute statement if he believes we will never figure it out. And so far that seems like a pretty safe bet. | ||
|
DwmC_Foefen
Belgium2186 Posts
I think.... >.> | ||
|
TesisMech
Peru688 Posts
| ||
|
JesusCruxRH
New Zealand159 Posts
On November 01 2007 06:18 TesisMech wrote: The book its called angels and demons, yea and the scientists make matter from nothing , has to do with antimatter or something Actually I just had a look on the internet... I'm pretty sure it's Deception Point, is that the one where some woman's father was looking at it but then he was murdered, despite the fact that he was a Christian just trying to make God more understandable? You might be right I can't remember, been a while since I read his books (not that I'll probably read them again, but yeah), but wasn't Angels and Demons about killing the four different prominent religious people or something? | ||
|
TesisMech
Peru688 Posts
| ||
|
Luddite
United States2315 Posts
| ||
|
Meta
United States6225 Posts
| ||
|
bine
United States2352 Posts
| ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32084 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.randomfate.net/MT/media/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster-tm.jpg) | ||
|
OverTheUnder
United States2929 Posts
amen | ||
|
Snet
United States3573 Posts
| ||
|
lengzai
Vietnam54 Posts
| ||
|
lugggy
450 Posts
| ||
|
suresh0t
United States295 Posts
A) This supernatural being that gave us a book to tell us how to live our life, who created the universe and everything in it, who sits up in "heaven" watching everyone at the same time, and answering our prayers or B) A chubby old man who delivers presents to all the kids in the world in one night with super reindeer and little elves. He also really likes cookies and milk. I'd go with the fat man who brings presents...call me a realist. | ||
|
Rev0lution
United States1805 Posts
HOW TO OWN GOD. 1.bible has contradictions 2. darwin explains how life evolved 3.the big bang explains how the universe came to be 4. any atheist can be as good as a believer 5. a believer can do anything a non-believer can. 6. people kill in the name of god. I dont remember anyone killing in the name of atheism 7. Theology isn't even a subject ( let's all have a branch of philosophy for the flying spaghetti monster) 8. You can't disprove the FSM 9. Epicurus problems with evil goes as follow 1. God exists. (premise) 2. God is omnipotent and omniscient. (premise — or true by definition of the word "God") 3. God is all-benevolent. (premise — or true by definition) 4. All-benevolent beings are opposed to all evil. (premise — or true by definition) 5. All-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will do so immediately when they become aware of it. (premise) 6. God is opposed to all evil. (conclusion from 3 and 4) 7. God can eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 2) 1. Whatever the end result of suffering is, God can bring it about by ways that do not include suffering. (conclusion from 2) 2. God has no reason not to eliminate evil. (conclusion from 7.1) 3. God has no reason not to act immediately. (conclusion from 5) 8. God will eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 6, 7.2 and 7.3) 9. Evil exists, has existed, and probably will always exist. (premise) 10. Items 8 and 9 are contradictory; therefore, one or more of the premises is false: either God does not exist, evil does not exist, or God is not simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient, and all-benevolent (i.e. God is omnipotent and omniscient but not all-benevolent, omnipotent and all-benevolent but not omniscient, or omniscient and all-benevolent but not omnipotent). 10. prayer doesn't work 11. there are as many stories of creation as there are gods. what makes Jehova's story any better? | ||
|
micronesia
United States24734 Posts
| ||
MasterOfChaos
Germany2896 Posts
But this theory offers no explanations to why or how the how the universe was created. But it poses the new questions which are at least as complicated as the original ones: how and why was god created/came into existance, or did he even exist forever? All in all the creation theory explains the universe at maximum as good as scientific therories. In situations where two theories explain a fact equally well, we should, according to occhams razor choose the "simpler" one. Simple in this case means as few and small assumptions/axioms/postulats as possible. For the creation theory very many and large assumtions have to be made: 1. Gods existance/creation 2. Why he created the the world 3. Why he created the world like it is. This one has very many parameters which is one of the things which is something we want to avoid. 4. Why he created the world so it seems to be not created by a god. On the other hand current scientific theories must assume the following: 1. The laws of nature. So scientists strieve to reduce their count and complexity. Evenso the resulting calculations might be difficult, the fundamental should be as simple as possible. 2. The natural constants. These are quite many for the current "standardmodel", but scientists are confident they can greatly reduce them with the next great theory such as a ToE or GUT. 3. The existence of a very simple, highly dense "object" which is the beginning of the universe. As the beginning is believed to have (close to) zero entropy (almost) no information is needed to describe this state, which makes this a small assumtion. Comparing these two competing theories, the scientific approach is simply more elegant as it needs less information to describe the world. But of cause this does not rule out a creator, but I personally believe this is improbable. I only discuss a creator in general here, not the existance of the christian got, which is quite a different matter. | ||
| ||
