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: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   
He was probably confused because that made no sense.
That's an expected response from you, though.
One that avoids the question.




posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


You don't believe ina god that was created so i'm assuming that means you believe god was always there. By this merit an atheist could argue that the universe was just there or could argue that the dimensions which make up the universe were always there and that a collision of these dimensions caused the big bang and the universe as we know it.

The difference between these arguments is that one can be proven mathematically down to femtoseconds and the other has no proof at all.

I agree with others here that when you say he looked confused it is because your answer made no logical sense and was barely a coherent idea. A confused thought will seem confusing to anyone that hears it.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
It's not such a silly question. Many people believe that the Universe is such a miraculous place that surely some Intelligence had to create it. Blind chance alone, they say, could never have done it no matter how many years it had. OK, fine.

Then, where did this Intelligence come from? Here you've got a problem. Either you have this Intelligence being created by some greater Intelligence, which gets you into an infinite regress. Or you say that the Intelligence has always existed eternally. If this Intelligence could exist eternally, why not this Universe we're living in? If you say that the Universe has always existed - a claim as reasonable as saying that this Intelligence has always existed - they you eliminate the need for a creator of any sort.

Neither option is attractive, of course. However, the question "who created God" isn't that silly, because humans can't imagine anything that wasn't created, nor can we imagine anything that has existed eternally. Our finite minds boggle at either concept,



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


I think if "god" is an actual truth in this universe, that "god" is everything. Not material, not emotional, just is. So therefor there is no answer because at the heart of it if "god" actually exists then it is everything so on any plane we'd never be able to get any specific answer because we'd be hitting the wall. Kind of like the cells in our body flow harmoniously but they'll never no what they're flowing through.

The question has no answer, whatever you believe.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by NoJoker13]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
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.


You are going in circles.

If not material complexity then what substance outside the material are you referring to?

Again, this is a silly question because your trying to debate my God as defined by the atheist that doesn't believe in God. It's just a silly question.

Are you talking about complexity independent of the material? Where would this complexity reside if it isn't material?



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
The real question is.... Who created religions. God is within ourselves.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by chiron613
 


Why does this intelligent being need to be created by another intelligent being?

Again, this is the atheist trying to define God in their terms and then debate against a god that nobody believes in.

Who said God was a material substance? Why should God be bound by the laws of physics when He Created them?

Again, I'm not debating your definition of god. You are describing a god that I would never serve.

What atheist do is define and limit god and then debate against this strawman god that nobody believes in.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 



You are going in circles.

If not material complexity then what substance outside the material are you referring to?


Your right, this is going to go around in circles. You tell me God is not material, that I can't define God because I don't explicitly believe in your particular God, but then you ask *me* what substance if not material.

That was a claim made by you. I never raised the materiality of God at all, only the complexity of God. In order for me to discuss the complexity of the substance of God, I would need to know what that substance is, which I honestly do not know. Nor am I apparently "allowed" to attempt to define it by you to begin with.

In the end, it's just going to be a circular semantics argument, so why bother, right?


Again, this is a silly question because your trying to debate my God as defined by the atheist that doesn't believe in God. It's just a silly question.


I'm not debating your God as defined by atheists. I'm debating God based on the complexity arguments favored by creationists. The two arguments are uniquely distinct.


Are you talking about complexity independent of the material? Where would this complexity reside if it isn't material?


As I mentioned above, since I don't believe in your particular God you will not allow me to define that substance. If you can define that substance for me, then we can discuss issues of complexity for that substance compared to the complexity of material substances.

I won't define it despite being asked because you've already demanded that I am not allowed to define it.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


God is a strawman argument.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


You just proved my point.

It's a silly question because your asking, who created God when I don't believe in a created god.

I posed all those questions to show how silly the question is because an atheist can't aske me a question like that without first definin god in his/her terms and then they can't debate the God that I believe in if they can't first define a god that's limited and created.

See atheist confuse God and religion. There are many people who believe in God who are not religious. God can be a personal God in say Christiany or a person may believe and see God in things like non locality and entanglement which supports what mystics have been saying for years, that the worl is one and it's connected.

So for atheist to try to debate against God is futile. They can't do it absent their personal definition of god as created and limited. If the atheist wants to debate religion then that's legitimate.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 



You just proved my point.

It's a silly question because your asking, who created God when I don't believe in a created god.


I disagree, I never made any questions in regards to *whom* created God. Only that the question itself of a created God can be taken seriously when thought about logically using the creationist arguments against a naturally occurring universe as being to complex. If you can't comprehend what you read, then please don't attempt to argue against it.


I posed all those questions to show how silly the question is because an atheist can't aske me a question like that without first definin god in his/her terms and then they can't debate the God that I believe in if they can't first define a god that's limited and created.


I never defined God itself; I only drew the conclusion that God would be invariably more complex than a static universe incapable of possessing intelligence, knowledge of all things and powers of creation by it's own accord. It's not a semantics problem, it's a complexity problem, which is quiet logical if one is capable of higher thinking.


See atheist confuse God and religion. There are many people who believe in God who are not religious. God can be a personal God in say Christiany or a person may believe and see God in things like non locality and entanglement which supports what mystics have been saying for years, that the worl is one and it's connected.


I never raised any issues of religious dogma. This statement is moot and pointless to the argument.


So for atheist to try to debate against God is futile. They can't do it absent their personal definition of god as created and limited. If the atheist wants to debate religion then that's legitimate.


I never raised any definition or materiality argument of God, so this statement is moot and pointless to the argument.

If you wish to get back into the debate, then I believe you should answer the points I made in my previous post discussing complexity and my inquiry to the substance of God as to discuss the complexity of that substance versus material complexity.

And please, for future reference, don't whine about straw man tactics if you wish to employ them yourself. It's hypocritical and makes you appear unintelligent.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by reasonable
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.


I typically don't get involved in these type of threads, but I felt you deserved a reply. The responses to the OP from the non believers seem to equate the physical universe with the spiritual God. I think this is a fallacy. The two are not the same. God, by definition, is beyond the physical, inhabiting a spiritual plane above the physical. We, as humans in the physical world, have a VERY LIMITED perception of the spiritual. We think we know many things, that we (including "Christians"), really don't know. In light of that, I do not think that it is a stretch to conceive a "self existent" God capable of godlike powers, including creation of a physical universe. Truly, the "Cause" was greater than "effect".

P.S. Love your avatar

P.S. P.S. No, your message isn't lost on me



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 




Again, this is the atheist trying to define God in their terms and then debate against a god that nobody believes in.


It's probably more a case of most of the engagements Atheists find themselves in with religious believers tend to revolve around the various flavors of theAbrahamic God. While it's very poor form to assume somebody's concept of god is synchronous with common experience, it's nothing to be surprised about - nor is it a sturdy foundation for claiming or implying the moral or intellectual high-ground. It's like calling somebody blind or suggesting deficiency for their falling for an optical illusion. We are pattern-seeking monsters, and our brains are constantly making mental evaluations in anticipation of social interaction. We all do it, even you, and the vast majority of the process is subconscious.

And by being intentionally vague or by using common terms which apply to multiple varying faiths - you're just baiting a trap and waiting for it to spring. It's a detestable tactic, especially when followed by smug judgmental evaluations.

My beliefs, sparse as they are, closely align with Deism - which itself is almost unheard of by the majority of the people I engage in the topic with. I've found it easier and more courteous to simply preface your argument with a brief outline of what your beliefs ARE, rather than (even if unintentionally) misleading others into making a false assumption.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by Lasheic]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 



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.


My experience with this subject, is that atheists are debating the god that believers put forth. An omnipotent and omniscient god. This is the god put forth by most Christians and other religions. And again with my personal experience, this debate does not start with an atheist challenging the theist. It starts with the theist challenging the atheist. This is not always the case but my experiences have always gone this way.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by iamcamouflage]



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 




*snip* using the creationist arguments against a naturally occurring universe as being to complex. *snip*


Ironically, the universe is actually very, very, simple. The properties and interactions of particles - such as the interaction of the four known basic forces at work inside of atoms (WF, SF, EM, G) - are still being fleshed out and tested for accuracy. I wouldn't be surprised if we could describe our entire universe with a simple and elegant equation set.

The complexity comes from the sheer volume of interactions and causal reactions of those simple rules.. and the interaction of those reactions causing further reactions that interact... etc... patterns emergent from sheer chaos, driven by the enormous energies of the Big Bang. We're like an echo in a canyon, or like ripples on water - the cascading and fading rumblings of an event 14.5 billion years ago (est).

A complex system does not require an even more complex designer, but can (and does) emerge and self-arrange from the interactions of simple properties. Counter-intuitive as it may seem - it's demonstrable and has been proven definitively via mathematics (the only academic field where anything can be proven definitively), observed as trends in data-sets, evidenced in every field of science, and utilized to real-world application in the commercial sector, - as well as modeled, demonstrated, and repeated.



Yet beyond "trippy" fractals like the Mandelbrot Set posted above and buzzwords like "butterfly effect" picked up from Jurassic Park... the idea hasn't really penetrated most people's perception.

We're seeing the universe upside down... because that was what was useful for the immediate necessities of survival and reproduction of our ancestors interacting with the environment in social groups. Arrangement in our universe (and even our own human societies) comes almost exclusively from the bottom up... not the top down.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic
reply to post by sirnex
 




*snip* using the creationist arguments against a naturally occurring universe as being to complex. *snip*






Great video. But would it preform just as good in 3D?

You start out with a element. How did it appear from nothingness or Non existence?

Non existence would be the blue boundaries out side the element displayed at 0:08 seconds. Right?

How would you explain the existence of the element that the video is displaying. When the space surrounding the element displays Non existence?

This element can never disappear because Non existence takes up all space.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


...

The Mandelbrot Set is the result of an understanding and application of the principals of chaos/complexity theory. By trying to use the single example of fractal geometry I posted as a means of poking at perceived flaws in the concept is about as inapplicable and unproductive as someone suggesting that GA's used to produce more intricately connected cochlear implants exposes a flaw in evolution since GA's do not produce the technological equivalent to Atavisms.

The only... ONLY... reason why I posted it, was to provide a widely familiar example of chaos theory that most people already readily accept, but may only have tenuous cognitive associations with vague terms and buzzwords. If even that. I could have just as easily posted a video of the Lorenz Attractor model, and it would have the same validity to my point at hand. But it's less well known and less visually stunning, making it a poor "hook" to generate interest.

... and yes, it can be modeled in 3D.




I'm not suggesting that the universe is one big Mandelbrot set, or can be explained by the Mandelbrot set. I'm saying the same principals which explain the infinite complexity of the Mandelbrot set are fundamentally the same, and can also explain our universe's incredible complexity - and do it without the need for a MORE COMPLEX designer.


... and ultimately, it's not even an argument against the presence of a creator god. Nor is it an argument for a creator god. In regards to god and creation, the only significance self-arrangement and emergence represents is in falsifying the claim that intelligence is necessary for the emergence of apparent order and complexity. It's not necessary. ... and there's no reference point or data set evident or implied that tells us anything demonstrable about what came before the Big Bang to even start to suggest speculative guesses on probabilities.


Though a better understanding of the workings of our natural universe can be used to further help falsify positive assertions about such a being in regard to proposed interactions with this reality.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


You should bow out before you embarrass yourself further. Sirnex is schooling you to the point this could end up on Digg or Reddit resulting in global laughter.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 



A complex system does not require an even more complex designer, but can (and does) emerge and self-arrange from the interactions of simple properties. Counter-intuitive as it may seem - it's demonstrable and has been proven definitively via mathematics (the only academic field where anything can be proven definitively), observed as trends in data-sets, evidenced in every field of science, and utilized to real-world application in the commercial sector, - as well as modeled, demonstrated, and repeated.


I agree; The point of what I was discussing with the OP was not that the universe is less complex than most understand, but that the arguments and questions given in the OP are logically sound inquiries by his atheist person. The usual response of a religious person is not that the universe is not complex, but that it is inherently very complex and thus couldn't arise naturally without a creator. So from that viewpoint, it's mainly nothing more than a complexity issue.


You start out with a element. How did it appear from nothingness or Non existence?


I currently do not subscribe to the nothingness argument as nothingness has ever been observed. I can't make an honest decision in regards to whether something can come from nothing as this has never been demonstrated before. For now, that concept will remain on the back burner, so to speak.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


I forgot to raise this in my last post.


it's demonstrable and has been proven definitively via mathematics (the only academic field where anything can be proven definitively), observed as trends in data-sets, evidenced in every field of science, and utilized to real-world application in the commercial sector, - as well as modeled, demonstrated, and repeated.


I disagree that math can be viewed as inherently the most accurate descriptor of reality. We can mathematically 'prove' quiet a few things and mathematically 'invent' a lot of things that may appear to exist.

Two competing mathematical constructs exist, one being dark matter and one being modified gravity. Both mathematically describe a certain observation and those observations are inherently evidence for those descriptors. Logically both can not be true and be accurately describing the same phenomena arising from two distinctly separate phenomena. I don't currently hold mathematics with that much regard and respect.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by sirnex]

[edit on 26-11-2009 by sirnex]




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join