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? The silliest question I ever heard

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


well yes, it is a silly question.

We all know that man created God in his own image.




posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   

First, it was a debate that occured over a younger cousins house. We talked about many things and then religion came up. When I expressed my beliefs the athiest thought I was cornered with the question,"who created god?"

Again, this is a silly question.

Your atheism does not define my God. You can't ask me who created god, when I don't believe in a God that was created.

Who's belief are you debating? Who's God are you debating if you don't believe in God?

Atheist try to debate against the existence of a created god that they define. This is illogical seeing that they don't believe in God. It's a strawman argument.


I never said it defined your god. As i first stated, being that you did not detail how the conversation started, if he just came out of the blue like tht, he is ignorant.

I went on to describe my experience with the question. In your situation I would have simply gathered more info on your faith before adding my own thoughts.

In YOUR situation, it appears to be a straw man because he did not apply critical thinking. Hopefully he has learned something. In other cases, it is not. Case in point, the situation I just explained.




[edit on 11/24/09 by IconoclasticTalamasca]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 




Yep, like it says in the bible, its a perverse world that wants miracles, to prove that god exists.


Yet it is the believers, not the atheists, who point to miracles as their reasons for belief in that religion over others. Indeed, so many believers rely on miracles to justify their belief that revelations describes the anti-Christ as seducing the masses through miraculous works.

After all, were it not for the miracles, how could anyone verify the divinity or authority of a prophet speaking for god - beyond that of just another preacher? Were it not for the miracles, what would be the intrinsic difference between the authority of Christ's words and Gandhi's words? The very crux of the Christian faith is based around a miracle, the crucifixion and resurrection for the redemption of sin.

Believers demand miracles, oh - don't kid yourself about that.



You either you believe or not


Few things in life are black & white, definitively this or definitively that, without fuzzy boundaries or patches of gray area. Absolutism is the realm of the fundamentalist.



and why the atheist has to justify there believe and project there rubbish on others.


So you think the religious should project their rubbish on everyone else, but those who do not believe should not be allowed to voice their concerns, opinions, or criticisms? I have very rarely, if ever, had much contention levied against my faith in god by Atheists. At worst, it's called irrational. And I agree with that assessment. I don't see this as an insult, and rarely is it ever intended as such I've found. My faith IS irrational, admittedly being without evidence or reason, or based on tales passed down over generations of miracles not witnessed - but attested to. But thus far my faith is not weakened by this highlighting of the obvious.



no one could possibly know any words that even desrcibe god.


Yet believers have books and scriptures and pamphlets and speeches and sermons and testaments and whatnot all full of words which describe god in brutal detail. Who he is, what he wants, how he wants it, what he wants done with you if you don't... etc, etc, etc.

Personally, I reject scriptures and books and other works of men - whether or not inspiration is attributed to god. I find Paine's argument most compelling. That if one believes in god, and that if that god is a creator of all things... then this reality is god's only true and unaltered testimony to man.



"The Creation speaketh a universal language, independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they may be. It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God."


The rejection of the reality of the creation in favor of scripts and scrolls written by men is folly, IMO. It is putting the works of man above the works of god - of holding scripture in higher regard than his own works. And while far from perfect, thus far - science and reason has been the best tool available to us in our search to understand our reality, and the creation we inhabit.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Cool, another chicken or the egg debate.

So what's the answer?



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Its not so silly question..

The point is, the creator must obviously be more complex than its creation. So if we are fine with this complexity existing without designer, then why the universe (which is less comlex) even needs a designer? We can remove this unnecessary complexity (creator), and say only the universe appeared without a designer. Its Occams razor - the simpler explanation is usually true.

Postulating the creator only hides the problem and ultimately makes it worse, not solves it.

The best approach in the current state of knowledge is agnostic atheist, IMO..



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
I've been posed with this question a few times. Normally I respond with a sarcastic "the big bang did it".



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
You guys should really check out Joseph Campbell... though he covers alot of philosophical questions and ties in a lot of religious teachings and how everythings pretty interconnected, en.wikipedia.org... , the power of myth is probably my favorite ... but i do like masks of god.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
LMAO the OP is living a contradiction. He does not believe in a created god.. ok so god just 'exists' nothing created it.. ok fine.. Yet when posed with arguments regarding the existence of the universe his same ilk proclaim you can't have all of this from nothing.. yet once again in his first breath the OP claims his god came from nothing. I love how religious can pick and chose anything they want to believe and make it so. Great stuff. You didn't PWN your cousin, you just destroyed your entire belief system and the funniest bit of all is you don't even know it lol.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
I was recently asked this question again by a young athiest. He was beaming with confidence when he asked the question and I had to take the wind out of his sail.

The question pressuposes that I believe in a God that was created. It makes no sense to debate a created god that I don't believe in.

You have the atheist defining god when they claim they don't believe in God and then they are asking you to debate a created god that you don't believe in.

I think the atheist needs to come up with a new line of questioning.

The look on his face when I explained this to him went from pride to confusion.


That's actually quiet clever, but not entirely clever enough in my opinion.

I've noticed one particular argument from the religious community that states that the universe and life are simply to complex to arise from natural circumstances. Yet, logically, a God who has always existed for an infinite period of time possessing all knowledge, being able to exist in all possible places and times at will and possess the ability to create universes from seemingly nothing is vastly more complex.

Logically, if a complex thing requires a creator, then God would require a creator vastly superior to God; Then we get into infinite regress problems.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
I was recently asked this question again by a young athiest. He was beaming with confidence when he asked the question and I had to take the wind out of his sail.

The question pressuposes that I believe in a God that was created. It makes no sense to debate a created god that I don't believe in.

You have the atheist defining god when they claim they don't believe in God and then they are asking you to debate a created god that you don't believe in.

I think the atheist needs to come up with a new line of questioning.

The look on his face when I explained this to him went from pride to confusion.


That's actually quiet clever, but not entirely clever enough in my opinion.

I've noticed one particular argument from the religious community that states that the universe and life are simply to complex to arise from natural circumstances. Yet, logically, a God who has always existed for an infinite period of time possessing all knowledge, being able to exist in all possible places and times at will and possess the ability to create universes from seemingly nothing is vastly more complex.

Logically, if a complex thing requires a creator, then God would require a creator vastly superior to God; Then we get into infinite regress problems.


Again, the question doesn't make sense because your starting by trying to define my God.

Of course every material complex thing needs a creator. I never claimed my God was a material being. This is your pressuposition that's implied in the question.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by eNumbra
 


By far definantly one of the more even headed statements I have seen in a long time.
Too bad the zealots ignored it.
But one can expect no less realistically.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   
So.... You crushed a young atheist by saying god was never made? Thats pretty much telling an atheist there is no god and thinking he is hurt. Btw, if you think god has always been or nothing created him, then you actually believe he doesn't exist.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   
What I find funny about this is that evolutionists often state that abiogenesis is so close to being scientifically proven. Would that be a step towards evolution, a step towards God, or a step towards nothing? If in fact abiogenesis can be proven, that means God would not need a creator. Likewise, it means we also would not need a creator. Everything runs the course of gnosticism.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


What I find funny about this is that evolutionists often state that abiogenesis is so close to being scientifically proven. Would that be a step towards evolution, a step towards God, or a step towards nothing?


Like almost everything I would argue it would be taken as a step in the direction the person was already pointed.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


You're absolutely right Watcher.


Oh the irony of science! Star for pointing that out.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 




Again, the question doesn't make sense because your starting by trying to define my God.

Of course every material complex thing needs a creator. I never claimed my God was a material being. This is your pressuposition that's implied in the question.


OK, so now we're just resorting to semantics arguments. I didn't say material complexity, just complexity itself. Just as your claiming that I'm attempting to define your God, your doing the same with complexity. I've never heard that aspect of the argument in that *only material complexity* requires a creator. I never once uttered that your God was a material being, where you draw that conclusion from is utterly devoid of all abilities to comprehend simple reading skill. Now that I understand it's more of a semantics issue than a real attempt to learn something, the whole argument is just moot.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:34 AM
link   
God doesn't believe in non-believers .


atheists never shutup about God , why? because really they know
there is one ,

...and , if you annoy Him enough you will get an answer .
But , be careful , you don't always get what you want,

... but you always get what you need !

God is real , and he doesn't need your permission to exist .
Only a small percentage of the population , do not believe .



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by radarloveguy


God doesn't believe in non-believers .


atheists never shutup about God , why? because really they know
there is one ,

...and , if you annoy Him enough you will get an answer .
But , be careful , you don't always get what you want,

... but you always get what you need !

God is real , and he doesn't need your permission to exist .
Only a small percentage of the population , do not believe .


Well, that's a matter of faith, not fact. Which God is the real God? How many Gods are there? How do we prove this God or those Gods? Atheists don't just not believe in the Christian God only, they don't subscribe to any created Gods made by primitive man.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 




If in fact abiogenesis can be proven, that means God would not need a creator.


That's a bit of a loaded statement, since the term "creator" implies colloquially that an outside and conscious and intelligent force executed a direct act of willful creation. Creator can, when used figuratively, can imply an unconscious process or mechanism which created.

So it's very well possible that God had a beginning; had a creation or willful creator. For instance, consider the simulation hypothesis. If we were to create a functional universe inside a computer simulation that spawned conscious and sentient life forms - we would basically be their god. We would exist outside of their reality, be able to interact with that reality via the parameters of the program - wielding apparent (to them) omnipotence and omniscience - and for whom time itself (which can be throttled by the UI) is meaningless and inapplicable. Yet we ourselves, as gods to these simulated people, would have arisen from an emergent phenomena of basic chemical interactions that formed the first life on Earth. Yet how would you explain the concept of "when god was created" and "what came before god" to these simulated beings?

Basically, the point of address is... moot. We haven't even established definitively that a god even does exist (hence, faith) because such a being is completely beyond the realm of our natural universe and any means of verification. How would one propose to verify the existence of the ones running the simulation of the realm which created the being which created your simulation?

It's pointless fantasy speculation. A fun topic to play with, but nothing for a debate or by any measure a position to argue.

What's wrong with "I don't know"? It's honest, simple, and streightforward. It encourages curiosity. I believe in a creator god - but I honestly don't know what caused or came before the Big Bang. Nor do I know what occurred or caused the creation of god.



Everything runs the course of gnosticism.


Only in regards to matters in which we cannot know without stepping beyond the bounds of the natural universe. Gnosticism is the base position. Knowing is achieved through evaluation of evidence, concordant observations, and repeatability to ascertain verification. Even so, even with topics so well evidenced that it's practically impossible to outright falsify - such as evolution (which even creationists accept to degrees covered by their "Micro" evolution). Still, to remain falsifiable; "We don't know" is the baseline statement, modified by "But, this is what we think is true based on demonstrable evidence X, Y, Z."

While the language is often confident to the degrees of probability of being correct, Science does not deal in absolute truths - and should not be taken as such.


Originally posted by radarloveguy


God doesn't believe in non-believers .


If I stop believing in god, he disappears. If god apparently doesn't believe in non-believers... they still exist and continue to hold their views.

What does that observation indicate to you about the truth of the matter? In the imagination of who's mind does the other exist?



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


I would applaud this post if I could.

Well said, sir.







 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join