There are plenty of creationists pointing the finger at the big bang theory because it doesn’t explain what existed before the big bang as well as the theory of evolution what trigged life on earth. I say fair enough (though, science in progress) every theory has holes in it – nothing’s perfect. But as soon as you ask a creationist the origins of god they simply say god has always existed.

Logical fact – everything has to come from something and so a simple question to creationists, what created god?

The main question is "what created god?" There had to be something before god to create god. And who ever or whatever that something that created god was, who created him? And it goes on and on untill you realize that it can not end. The funny thing is you keep coming up with the same answer, who ever or what ever was there "first" was and is the supreme being.

Have you read Ezekiel??? The very first chapter starts giving you clues...oh and make it the KJ version.

I believe the concept of a supreme being and religion is an explanation and a guideline to help the human race last longer. If you think about it the Taurat, the Holy Bible, and the Glorious Quran tell you countless times to educate yourselves and search for the truth. Infact it even challenges you to reach the heavens (or in scientific terms, deep space). In order for you to do that you have to solve the small problems that exist on earth first. You remember "real life"?? Where there are constant wars and widespread of HIV's / AID's, several new viruses and deseases, and a whole continent full of homeless (Africa). The books solve all those problems very simply. But people just read and believe then contradict. They don't follow their books or try to understand the message. Which is why this world is coming to an end just as it was written in all of the holy books (and that can not be changed no matter how hard you try).

Religion divides. Period. In all likelyhood the Christian United States will one day be confronted by Muslim martyrs with weapons of mass destruction. Now tell me... and excuse the rhetoric... is that what you call a guideline to help the human race last longer?

Let me repeat, perhaps this time you'll read carefully. First of all, the muslim and jewish "martyrs" have been confronted and afflicted by the Christian United States for decades (learn your history). So to directly point your fingers at the Muslims or the Jews or, any other religion and say they will "confront" the United States with WMD's is irrational. No matter how much religion divides they all teach one simple and basic idea or way of life. Which is to live righteous (do right from wrong, common sense here). Now what im trying to say is that majority of the "Christians", the "Jewish", and even the "Muslims" are of that religion only by name and birth. To them living righteous is the path to Heaven and sinning is the path to Hell. This is where the concept of a hereafter comes to play. So they become arrogant because of todays advanced civilization and scientific knowledge, they really don't believe in a hereafter. Therefore they really don't follow the "guidelines" that religion has revealed to them. And the "guidelines" are not just a passage for the hereafter but for the better of mankind. If they actually followed the righteous teachings there would be no problems...

Forgive me, my english isn't perfect. Im still learning .

[edit on 23-4-2008 by Lookdeeper]

Fair enough, and I agree, if every religion was taught subtly the world would surely be a better place. But this sort of religion is in the minority.

I did not intend to single out Muslims, I was simply pointing out that big, fundamentalist disagreements + weapons of mass destruction tends to equal something that is not desired. And creationism + science always equals similarly undesirable effects.

I also personally tend to think that empathy is a more rational and effective motive to "be good" than is threat of eternal damnation. God may or may not exist, and may or may not be offended by blasphemy, and one may or may not got to "hell" for "sinning", but real people, right now, will certainly be hurt if they are insulted or hit. And yet people lend much more sympathy and respect to the being who currently has no proof of existence on his side. This is the fault of theism.

Note: when I type "religion" I refer mostly to Abrahamic religion.

P.S.
I suppose I should cite my source for the WMD claim. It is according to Sam Harris, on page 150 in the book What is Your Dangerous Idea?, that

"The possibility that we could elect a U.S. president who takes a biblical prophecy seriously is real and terrifying; the likelihood that we will one day confront Islamists armed with nuclear or biological weapons is also terrifying and growing more probable by the day."

...

As an answer to the OP, according to creationists God has always existed. But, according to the known laws of physics something cannot arise from nothing; so, God bent the laws of physics to exist. Which brings us to the question, how could He bend the laws of physics, to allow Himself to exist, without existing? That would seem to be a fairly formidable handicap...

...which brings us to the inevitable conclusions that neither science nor creationism can explain the origin of the universe at the present, and that Young Earth Creationists are fundamentalist, and indeed would need to be in order to keep their beliefs in the face of a complete lack of evidence.

[edit on 24-4-2008 by SlyCM (work)]

This is why I personally have no issue with Deism.

However, if science can eventually explain the true origin, even Deism will lose it's place. The reasons for the Big Bang idea to have credibility is the fact that galaxies are flying apart from each other, from a central point. But currently, no human idea can explain the origin of the universe to my satisfaction.

Just my opinion, as always.

Originally posted by andre18

Logical fact – everything has to come from something and so a simple question to creationists, what created god?

there is nothing logical about this at all, if EVERYTHING came from something then nothing would exist. your saying to have something, you need something else, but this something else would have to arise from something.

i think if anything is logical, it would be that SOMETHING has always been around/come from nothing. because by what your saying nothing should exist.

and whats with "logical facts" anyway, logic can be different for different people, its not some absolute.

[edit on 20/5/08 by cheeser]