It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who created God

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Yeah the aliens created him so we would have a god, then when god grew up he decided to create us, just like we created our own children, except he's way too advanced for us to contact him becuase he's busy creating other worlds and populating other plants throughout the universe and is too far away for us to see him right now, so he sent some of his alien friends to check up on us and told them to tell us that he will be here soon


Some us have been very bad and need a firey spanking for a eternaty or so, it's like timeout but very hot


[edit on 15-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]

[edit on 15-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]

[edit on 15-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]



Nip

posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 09:17 PM
link   
god...hmmm...god i wonder if there is one



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   
I agree with Carl Sagen. If there waz a creator for the creator of all things, there has to be a creator of the creater. Then another creator for that one. It is circular logic.
duuhhhhhh



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   
maybe there is no creator and the universe always existed



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
Infinite regress is a philosophical argument not scientific. By your reasoning an infinite chain of natural causes (which you're proposing in a finite universe btw) is pseudoscience. Supernatural just means literally outside(above) nature. Multi-verses/dimensions fit just the same definition of religion... of course only when we use your version of what is religious and what is secular.


Make up your mind first. Is Intelligent Design a scientific theory, as its supporters keep claiming, or is it a religious theory, as its supporters keep showing?

If it's a scientific theory, then you need to come to realize that there is no such thing as "supernatural" in science. If something exists, then it's part of nature. Period. Thus everything is subject to natural laws. There's no getting around this.
So, if life is designed, then the designer must ALSO be alive... and would, by the theory's own natural laws, have to have been created. This creates infinite regression, rendering the theory as scientificly plausable as backwards time travel.

There's also the problem that ID apparently can' stay within its borders. It's supposed to be an alternate theory to evolution, but it keeps throwing itself into astrophysics and geology, too. Its supporters thus basicly propose it as the Ultimate Answer To Everything™.


Your confusing the artifact with an architect. ID makes no case for the designer... it's design detection.

"certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process"

Like it or not, agree or disagree that what it says and what ID tries to do. A discussion on who's the designer - whether God, or is it just that life is enevitable via some currently un-known law(s), aliens from our own universe or another universe/dimension. They are discussions wrt the implications of ID not what ID proposes scientifically.


So it's about life now? Stick to a subject, huh?

I know it doesn't specify a designer. But it does state that there IS an intelligent designer pulling at the strings of life - and regardless of whether this designer is Jesus, Brahma, space aliens, or whatever, according to the theory, it's there.

So the question is, AGAIN, "well where the hell did this designing force come from", to which the ID-ists inevitably declare "Oh it was self-created and always there"

...Thus ending up with a singular, immortal, omnipotent and omniscient creatrix that is above all natural laws that does not need a scientific explanation to exist that has the magical ability to create everything out of nothing.

That's called religion. Or at the very least, philosophy. Now do note, I have absolutely no issue with ID as a matter of religion and philosophy. I believe it in a way, myself. However, I don't parade it around as science, and neither should anyone else, because it is obviously NOT science. The only people who think it's science are politicians and people who hate science.


It's obvious what some critics don't like about ID and ironic how ID can't be used to support it. However, it's better than the old stuff where the schtick was something like 'oh yeah they're just creationists who believe the Earth is 6kyo, Noah had kangaroos on the Ark... that's ID bud... RUN!' Or, "see the flagellum is IC and couldn't have evolved in a Darwinian* fashion therefore Jesus is Lord! *(gradual, step-by-step) (note: NOT could not have evolved mind you, but that's chapt1 stuff missed by most internet critics - who are really just Bible critics in a cheap suit)*


Funny then how I keep seeing the eyeball used as evidence for intelligent design. As a theory it is, itself terminally flawed due to its definite un-scientific nature. It's certainly not helped by the throng of followers who are simply grasping at straws to "prove" evolution wrong.



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 06:26 PM
link   
The problem with science is that it relies on limited perceptions and cognitive abilities to explain the unlimited. Every scientific 'fact' should bear the addendum 'as best we know'.

The problem with applying faith to science is that faith requires no explanation. Every statement of faith should be known to be utterly separate from 'pure' scientific observation. That's not to say that there is never scientific support for a religious belief or writing.

A God that is created is not a God. Bad news for those who wish to make themselves god.



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistor
The problem with science is that it relies on limited perceptions and cognitive abilities to explain the unlimited. Every scientific 'fact' should bear the addendum 'as best we know'.

The problem with applying faith to science is that faith requires no explanation. Every statement of faith should be known to be utterly separate from 'pure' scientific observation. That's not to say that there is never scientific support for a religious belief or writing.

A God that is created is not a God. Bad news for those who wish to make themselves god.


The entire premise of science includes the "as best we know" as a given. Thus why it's consistantly being updated, revised, added to, straightened out, improved. if it was unquestionable and written in stone, we'd still be using leeches and believing that the sun had to pass through hte underworld on a boat to get back to the eastern horizon.



posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox


So, if life is designed, then the designer must ALSO be alive... and would, by the theory's own natural laws, have to have been created. This creates infinite regression, rendering the theory as scientificly plausable as backwards time travel.


Could I get an example of 'ID's own natural laws' as proposed by any ID theorist [or critic.] I'm not quite sure what you mean by that ie, not its philosophical implications. You know of an origins theory that doesn't involve an infinite regress or an un-caused first cause or a singularity? Either we have an infinitely old universe or an infinite number of them, or just one - exquisitely fine-tuned - universe.


Which model, in your opinion, has the most evidence? Which one can be tested/falsified? Should we invoke philosophical and/or theological arguments for and against? What about the personal opinions and/or religious convictions of each theory/law's advocates?


Should we throw out BigBang Theory because you'd also like it to explain what preceded it, and what preceded that, and so on, and so on.... ad infinitum? How many other theories fall short of explaining everything [hmmm... carry the two... let's see I got... ALL OF 'EM, what'd you come up with?]



There's also the problem that ID apparently can' stay within its borders. It's supposed to be an alternate theory to evolution,


As it pertains to evolution (bio-chem) ID is opposed to 'blind evolution'. It's not an alternative to common descent. Most of what (most) people know about evolution wouldn't change were an ID paradigm adopted. I don't think it fair to label ID concepts like Front-Loading or Behe's concept of irreducible complexity (IC), or Dembski's Mathematical Foundations of ID(.pdf), etc, etc as appeals to the supernatural. How do you justify that, based on the religious beliefs of some of its' proponents? We'd have to throw out alot of science if that's how it should work, most of it infact.

You can argue that they're wrong but they do not invoke miracles, attempt to explain God['s nature], nor even special creation (which is a fundamentally Biblical model where nothing in ID is Biblically based.) ID may be used as a tool by apologists but that does not mean that ID *is* apologetics. I'm an OEC and by your defintion every theory discussed by them becomes creationism/religious. That's sloppy reasoning.

Try this link (also read the short ID101 link from my last post): But Doesn't Intelligent Design Refer to Something Supernatural?

From an ID perspective, the natural-vs.-supernatural distinction is irrelevant. The real contrast is not between natural laws and miracles, but between undirected natural causes and intelligent ones.
Mathematician and philosopher of science William Dembski puts it this way: "Whether an intelligent cause is located within or outside nature (i.e., is respectively natural or supernatural) is a separate question from whether an intelligent cause has operated."








but it keeps throwing itself into astrophysics and geology, too. Its supporters thus basicly propose it as the Ultimate Answer To Everything™.


Have any examples of geological ID? The ID/telic origins arguments wrt astrophysics have been around a very LONG time (See: 'timeline' )





I know it doesn't specify a designer. But it does state that there IS an intelligent designer pulling at the strings of life - and regardless of whether this designer is Jesus, Brahma, space aliens, or whatever, according to the theory, it's there.


Irrelevant, by definition. Also, got a link to the 'designer pulling the strings' argument? Or is that just your definition of ID.

If we want to talk about ID's philosophical implications then, at best imo, ID proposes/implies that the 'dice are/were loaded'. ID is agnostic (can't/don't know) wrt God, or secular if you prefer. Life could be inevitable via some natural laws, as ID theorists often discuss/consider. We don't know, yet. Perhaps we never will. How should we proceed? Is it all blind dumb-luck, by default? When was that decided, and by whom?

You complaints wrt ID are with issues ID theorists say are outside of the scope/ability of ID. You want it to be an "answer for everything" it seems, and until it can answer all your [non-scientific] questions it's not worth considering... I'm tryin' to square your circle here man but it's tough. Um, let me see if I got it: ID is not science because it refuses to answer the question[s] that science, by definition, cannot answer. How's that? :shrug:



So the question is, AGAIN, "well where the hell did this designing force come from", to which the ID-ists inevitably declare "Oh it was self-created and always there" ...Thus ending up with a singular, immortal, omnipotent and omniscient creatrix that is above all natural laws that does not need a scientific explanation to exist that has the magical ability to create everything out of nothing.


Theists, like me, argue that. It's got nothing to do with ID... nothing in ID can be used as evidence of such. Disagree? Give some specific [scientific] examples.

I believe that you've just bought the propoganda ie, the mainstream ID strawman.

Repeat a lie [eg, ID is simply religious apologetics/creationism in disquise] long enough and loud enough, eventually it becomes "truth." That's an interesting playbook... anyone remember how that worked out for the author?



Funny then how I keep seeing the eyeball used as evidence for intelligent design. As a theory it is, itself terminally flawed due to its definite un-scientific nature. It's certainly not helped by the throng of followers who are simply grasping at straws to "prove" evolution wrong.


You're conflating 'cannot have evolved' with 'cannot have evolved via a blind[accidental] step-by-step [gradualistic] process.' "Evolution" [the word you should have put in quotes] is a BIG tent. There's much more under there than neoDarwinism and much of that is viewed by ID theorists as evidence of the telic (goal-oriented) nature of the evolution of the biosphere.

However, your opinion has been noted and your name has been added to "The List." But you should know... resistance is futile.


Regards,


(edit)fixed link

[edit on 18-3-2007 by Rren]



posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   
The fact that most things on this earth came from "somewhere" may have no bearing on where the universe came from at all, because it may have always been there in the first place. Our temptation to define where things came from, so they are placed rationally in our understanding of them, has a tough time encompassing the concept of "always been there" and "infinity." It just defies "logic."

The subject of who created God falls in the same paradox. First, seeing as God is technically not a "who," even though it says that man was created in God's image, your question in the thread title undermines itself somewhat. No one created God, and most would see that as impossible, because if anything created anything, God created man and woman.

So "who" might not be the best choice of words there. Even "what" would not do, because words simply are not enough to achieve a full understanding of God, let alone who, or what, created God. Another issue is that the question assumes God is real. I am one to believe that God may well be just the natural course of universal propagation, as it was set in motion at the beginning, if there is such a thing.

Imo, the natural and bible-educated tendency to class God as good, and Satan as evil, is also erroneous, as life's examples would tend to indicate that they both come from the same place. Where? From the beginning. Mere words continually make feable attempts at trying to describe and categorize concepts which are naturally beyond man's ability to fully do so.

When discussing concepts like this within myself, I make an effort to always remember that my words and thoughts are mere tiny pointers to actuals that are beyond the ability of man to really comprehend.

[edit on 18-3-2007 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Hi, Nip--

All joking and attempts to explain aside, you are asking some good and valid questions, that deserve some clearer and simpler answers than I have so far seen posted. In order to help you to understand further, I am going to use the currency of Astrophysical Science and the field of Theology, (in which I hold a doctorate degree).

From the standpoint of Science, and data from research done with the Hubble and Schmidt STs, the "Big Bang" Theory has been relegated to the realm of a slim 'maybe'. Research has confirmed that the visible Universe is homogeneous, and likely had, or has, neither a beginning nor an end. IOW, it has always been. Even so, if the Big Bang were, indeed, a fact, then something had to have initiated the Bang, and that is difficult to to explain in any other way than by "Causality". (eg, Why would a homogeneous, stable, mass suddenly explode?) In that case, "God" is the Causality.

From the Theological standpoint, we have this: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and is God." Let's look at that with the knowledge of where the current Bible has it's roots. The Mosaic Books, The first 5 Books of the Bible, are transcriptions, originally from Sumerian cuneiform tablets, transcribed into writing from Middle Eastern Tribal Oral Traditions, and the Sciences of the Time. They have been copied many times into almost every language since. Most of today's Bible comes from scrolls and books transcribed into Greek Vulgate and Latin. In terms of. "---and the Word was God"--- the word(s) used is Logos in the Greek, andlegendus in Latin. Both of these are translated into "Word" in the English Bible.

Now, Logos, in the Greek means "Reason", and it's 2nd definition is* the divine Order of the Cosmos*. From that, what we call God is the Divine Order of the Universe.

Who created the Creator? Well, that is a matter of the Third Order of Knowledge; the Unknowable. We don't know, and we can never know, but, the consesus is that God, like the Cosmos itself, has no beginning nor end. Does God exist? YES!!. Who was Jesus, (Yesua bin Sera)? He was the complete hypostatic manifestation of the Persons of God into a single Human Being, conceived of nature, and born of the Woman, Miriam, wife of Joseph.

Finally, is there "proof"? Yes, and it resides in the Order of Nature and Natural Law.

Nip. where it concerns the Relationship between yourself and Belief in God, let me have you understand that this is a deeply personal thing, and the overall answer for yourself resides within you, and not somewhere outside yourself. This is the way of our Order in such matters, as Relationship with God and Life are uniquely a personal matter between an Individual and the Almighty. Our mission is to help others answer such questions as you have posed, and since I have offered what I can, I'm done. I sincerely hope it has helped you.



posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 11:58 PM
link   
I didnt read comments, so this may have been said but check it out.

Consider this: I walk into a room and my girlfriend is explaining to the dog what to do, yes explaining! Bull# right? Like why would a dog understand that? Exactally he wouldnt, a dog can understand simple commands like, "sit" or "go lie down" or some times some really cool stuff... and sometimes we say "wow thats one smart dog!" but could you explain to a dog how his owners house got there? could you say "ok, a goup of people with tools and what not came in and constructed this house" That dog has no concept of the simplist things...


Now consider this:
we are inferior, we have no way of understanding how this universe got here other than the simplist way a powerful mind like Gods could explain, he created it. God will answer our questions when we meet him. But right now we just have to have faith.
What Im trying to say is that God could come here and tell us exactally how everything came to be, just like we could go to our pets and explain how our car works, but they would just look up at us with stupid faces wondering where our food is. Just like we would look up and wonder where our cell phone is.
Its not the best way of explaining it I guess....but im tired and thats the best I could do. U2U me or comment or whatever if you have more questions.



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Maybe god was created by aliens as a way to control man. Its possible that we were created by aliens from apes ( hence evoltion and the missing links). Ya just gotta be open-minded



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 05:55 PM
link   
When I say God... I mean religion being created as way to control humans



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   
God is the Alpha and Omega. The Beginning and the End. The Author and Finisher of our Faith. Its in the bible.



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Some good debate here. My opinion, for what little it is worth is as folllows: Our Universe involves cause and efect relationships. For example a force can cause movement in a staionary object. However, a Creator who creates matter and the Laws of Nature is not subject to the same Laws. He is not made of matter. The Universe is our domain. What if the Creator is outside of the Universe and has created it for us to admire and debate His artistry and design and then to worship.

As for cause and effect, if a Creator created God etc... You are still assuming that SOMEONE started it all off - The Prime Mover hypothesis.

I just love this abstract stuff!



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 07:59 AM
link   
In my mind there isnt a god , i believe the universe has :

1 => Always been there !!!
In a way that time wasn't there before the bigbang
2 => Was created by a "hit" by an other/parallel dimmension as predicted in String-theory


And how life began is still a mystery!! But as i see it , it must have something to do with those 'Key-protieëns' who form the RNA . I'm reading i nice book about it right know: 'the art of genes' ISBN 0-19-286208-1 .

Still sometimes when i look at the Universe i wonder how it al began! I believe that the Human isnt developed enough to grasp the idea of something that is infinite or ever been ! Our brains live for to short periods to get an idea of anything like that, maybe in the not so distant future we will have the chance to use CPU's for those things


And for who created god??? I follow the idea that Faith was developed in the human mind for many different reasons. Ppl needed something to believe in back then or they would freak out by the harsh conditions . And most of us up here are human ( i hope
) so we al know how we think :we believe what were told unless we taste an other idea that seems more possible.

Just my idea on it !!!



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhoKnows?
God is the Alpha and Omega. The Beginning and the End. The Author and Finisher of our Faith. Its in the bible.


"its [sic] in the bible" isn't a valid argument.

the same book also tells us that it is ok to commit genocide, sell your daughters into slavery, and to stone a woman who was raped for not yelling loud enough to be heard and saved.



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 06:24 PM
link   
If there was nothing in this universe nothing would have been the answer we would not be here. So what ever is out there before our time frame it certainly existed otherwise no time frame. So what created it? Nothing it could not be created as to create from nothing is impossible so there must have been a constant in the first place a created realm an existence.

[edit on 10-4-2007 by The time lord]



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 06:26 PM
link   
I was asked to give a speech at a University of Theology in Colombia, and I spoke, in part, about this very topic. here's the exerpt from my speech. Apologies if it's dull.

Man, in the most basic sense, has only one tool to discern what his surroundings consist of. His mind, or intelligence. The most used part of the body, and by far the least understood, the brain takes in information through five means, the basic senses: smell, sight, tough, taste, and sound. These senses are the tools the mind uses to take in stimuli to by analyzed and understood as reality. In addition to these are emotions, but we shall delve into that later. Now as our mind takes in this information, it finds patterns, or consistencies, and through the unknown workings of the brain, retains this information and applies it throughout its existence. In a purely physiological sense, some might mistake this as a proof of a higher power. Unfortunately, complexity does not denote design, and so it is an invalid arguement at present. Now as we observe these patterns we begin to pick and choose which of these are more consistent, and we call them laws. This, when it really comes down to it, is what science is, a series of tests to find out which of these patterns are universal. In it's most basic sense, science is nothing more than "I did this, at this time, to this onject, and this was the result", and I think the more you study science, the more you'll agree with me.

This is why, unfortunately, science will never gie us the answer to the question at hand, how did the universe come into being. It will clearly help us understand better what it is that we have her ein this existence, just as observin a good game of football will help us better understand how the game is played, but it will never give us the answer of why these people are playing football in the first place. Equally, science will never give us the answer to the question of how all these laws came about, it will only help us define their function.

Now among these so called laws which we oberve, one of the most basic is the cause and effect theory, which states that every event in the universe has a cause, and so is an effect, and as an effect, at the same time is the cause of another effect, thus perpetuating the entire univers in an endless dance of action and reaction. Just as me moving my finger to pull the trigger of a gun is the cause of an effect, the motion of the hammer, the motion of the hammer is also the cause o the explosion of the gun poweder in the bullet, which in turn is the cause of the motion of the bullet, etc. Now here we come to a bit of a problem. Many theologians have used this law to say that science itself cannot explain what the first cause was, and therefore disproves itself as the "Great Mover", or first cause in this endless and dear infinited string of effects. Whatever started this great chain reaction is, by defention God. Unfortunately this begs the question "What cause God"? The smae principle would apply to a God that existed withing and was subject to the laws observed.

To me, the idea of a God being dubject to any such laws is contradictory. In this case, I would like to use the cause and effect theory in a slightly different, but similar manner. The question I propose is, if the cause and effect theory is universal, and all the laws that science has showus state that it is, what then is the cause fo the laws of science themselves? What is the cause, not the first cause mind you, but the cause of the cause and effect theory itself?

Let's step back for a moment from the game of football itself, and ask why the rules are the way they are. Why does the quarterback throw the ball, and not the linemen? Why do two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule give us water, and not steel? Why did the apple fall and hit Newton in the head instead of flying off into outer space? What is the cause of the laws?

A good question, and one that has been given much thought by great minds throughout time, usually without coming to a solid, stable conclusion. And unfortunately, this is where Atheism and I must part wasy. Atheism states that because God is not observed in the unverse, it is improbably that he exists, mostly due to Ohkam's Raxor, the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. But this conclusion is based on reasoning, the idea that if a law applies here, it applies throughout the whole of existence, universally, from my best friends bakcyard to the furtherst, smallest nebulae. But reason is the invention of man's mind, which according to the athiest, is nothing more than a collection of random chemical reactions and tissue. It has no design, but has come about by chance, and therefore is an unreliable source. This is further proved by the many logical contradictions we find, for example, apply logic and reason to the following sentence. This statement is false. One will get a headache simply thinking about these contradictions, and by claiming that the brain is simply the result of evolutionary whim and survival, Atheism thereby discounts his only advocate, reason. Reason can only exist as a reliable source of information if it was designed to be such.

The only rational answer man has come up with is the existense of God. God created everything, the universe, us, and the laws that govern his creations. God created the cause and effect theory, and thuis he existed before it, and as such could not possibly be subject to it. This point is very hard for our small and limited minds to understand. It is to say that the man who invented the rules of football certainly is not limited to only actions that are within the rules he made up to govern the game in every other aspect of his life. Quite the contrary in fact. If a man has set up a series of rules, it would stand to reason that there is a whole spectrum of other actions possible, and for that reason he has made the rules to begin with, and thus avoid complete chaos on the field. Of course, when he is playing the game he obeys the rules, but not because he is forced to, but because he chooses to. Many critics will say "God exists because God exists? That's circular reasoning", but this is the same circular reasoning the Athiest himself uses. Science exists because science exists, the laws of physics exist because they just do, and therefore God does not. The contradiction remains on either side of the fence



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by WhoKnows?
God is the Alpha and Omega. The Beginning and the End. The Author and Finisher of our Faith. Its in the bible.


"its [sic] in the bible" isn't a valid argument.

the same book also tells us that it is ok to commit genocide, sell your daughters into slavery, and to stone a woman who was raped for not yelling loud enough to be heard and saved.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again people do not understand the Bible; slavery in those days was the same as you being a slave to your Job today. It's not the same infrastructure as we have now, slavery was a way in which today man was able to form this society now. Genocide was in its forms for different reasons, one for the corrupted bloodlines of man through fallen Angels, two was for God's way to protect the future of the promised people, if God could foresee the other tribe effecting his message and ongoing promises he would do something about it. God has also warned of mans final days of Judgements when man will join the devil to fight God and his laws them selves against God. If something’s were not done we would not be here today and if God did not intervene as he predicts in the future comming, mankind would wipe it self out so along the way God would have pushed his limit on our freedoms to the edge.

[edit on 10-4-2007 by The time lord]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join