Who created God? The silliest question I ever heard

reply to post by sirnex


Your not making any sense.

When did I claim the universe was too complex? You are again debating and defining a point that I never made.

You are again defining God in your terms and then asking me to debate against that god that I don't believe in.

Of course a television or computers go from the simple to the complex, but why does God have to follow this same logic? Again, your question is silly because you have to start with pressupositions based on your definition of god.

So, an atheist trying to ask the question, who created god is silly. This question implies that I believe in a God that was created and a god that's no different than a television set.

God exists, so he never went from simple to complexity like a television set from 1960 to 2009. This is what your silly question implies. Of course things that were created goes from simple to complex but I don't believe in a created god and I'm not going to debate an atheist definition of a god that I don't believe in.

I think you need to go back to the drawing board and think of a new way to ask this silly question.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

Your not making any sense.

That's a usually recurring problem for those whom lack reading comprehension skills.

When did I claim the universe was too complex? You are again debating and defining a point that I never made.

When did I ever claim that you personally claimed that? Again, don't whine about straw man arguments if your going to utilize them yourself.

You are again defining God in your terms and then asking me to debate against that god that I don't believe in.

Incorrect, this misunderstanding stems from lack of reading comprehension. Let's first point out that my opening argument has never once been centered around you or your personal beliefs; But rather has been around a generally perceived argument of complexity in which I stated that most religious people resort to utilizing when arguing against a naturally occurring universe without a creator.

This mentions nothing about your personalized concept of God or complexity, but it does state that the logic behind the opening statement made by you in regards to the atheist was initially logical if thought about logically.

This has nothing to do with your personal concept unless you also subscribe to the belief that the universe is to complex to arise naturally. You've yet to argue against that concept, so I am naturally assuming that this concept must invariably be held true for you unless you wish to state that the universe is capable of arising naturally of it's own accord and is not too complex in order to do so.

Of course a television or computers go from the simple to the complex, but why does God have to follow this same logic? Again, your question is silly because you have to start with pressupositions based on your definition of god.

So are you stating that God is less complex than the universe? As you mentioned, I am not allowed to explicitly define God itself, in order for this debate to maintain any reasonable level of intelligence we must define these concepts. I've already previously asked for such definitions, why am I still left waiting?

So, an atheist trying to ask the question, who created god is silly. This question implies that I believe in a God that was created and a god that's no different than a television set.

Your not following proper logic which is why it appears silly to you.

God exists, so he never went from simple to complexity like a television set from 1960 to 2009. This is what your silly question implies. Of course things that were created goes from simple to complex but I don't believe in a created god and I'm not going to debate an atheist definition of a god that I don't believe in.

How sure are you that God exists? Was it your God, the Christian God, the Ancient Greeks Gods, a pink unicorn that creates universes through bowel movements? Which God do you believe in and which Gods are you atheistic against?

I think you need to go back to the drawing board and think of a new way to ask this silly question.

I think you need to stay in school.

reply to post by sirnex


This one paragraph shows you don't have a clue as to what your talking about.

This has nothing to do with your personal concept unless you also subscribe to the belief that the universe is to complex to arise naturally. You've yet to argue against that concept, so I am naturally assuming that this concept must invariably be held true for you unless you wish to state that the universe is capable of arising naturally of it's own accord and is not too complex in order to do so.

You are naturally assuming this because this is what you want to debate against.

When you make these types of assumptions, you make an ass out of yourself.

Like I said, God exist. Things that are created go from the simple to the complex. I don't believe in a created god.

I don't have any particular religion.

I think you need to get your head out of the sand and realize that millions of people believe in God but they don't follow a particular religion.

So again, your statement about complexity makes no sense because things go from simple to complex that were created. I don't believe in a created God, so the question who created god is a silly one. You have to first limit God before you can even ask the question.

You need to go back to the drawing board and think of a new way to ask your silly question.

OK, guys! Enough bickering! I'll tell you the truth:

I created God.

It was me who released this teeny little joke upon our world. No reason to get mad. Laugh about it like the rest of us!

If you don't believe in him, no problem... *poof* he no longer exists!
If you do believe in him, then who am I to tell you that he doesn't?!
There. That was easy, wasn't it?

For more (capital T) Truths visit: www.principiadiscordia.com...

Again, the question is a silly on because you have to pressupose my beliefs about God in order to ask the question.

When you ask about complexity, you are ASSUMING that god is just like other created things.

This is an atheist wanting to debate a created god that he/she has defined.

Why would any person who believes in God debate on these silly grounds?

I'm not going to debate an atheist definition of a god they claim they don't believ in.

Atheist need to worry about debating certain aspects of different religions. Debating the existence of God is futile without first trying to define God.

For instance, an atheist will ask, how can God....?

This is a question that starts with a silly pressuposition.

If we are talking about a limited, created god then we can ask the question how can. If we are talking about a God that's all powerful and all knowing, then the question how can God.... makes no sense.

I fail to see why this is a silly question. Mainly because it is fairly common that when someone mentions the word God with a capital G they are usually, if not always in my experience, refering to the god of Abraham.

It is comparable to going to a foreign country and accusing the local people of being stupid for using a word in a completely different way to the way you are used to.

The christian god is described a lot, in many different ways. He appears to be very human like, in emotions and physical attributes. So it would be logical to assume that it must have been created if you assume that we as humans who are similar in nature were created.

Besides, nearly all of your replies have been based around the whole

"That's a stupid question about god because my definition of god is different to yours!"

So maybe you could just give us your definition of god and then we can start to disect and investigate your belief and tell you why it is or isn't a silly question for your definition of god.

And try not to reply with a "you cannot define god therefore I wont"
If you can't define your own god then don't be think it silly when people assume a definition for you.

[edit on 26/11/2009 by Irishwolf]

reply to post by sirnex

I disagree that math can be viewed as inherently the most accurate descriptor of reality.

I'm sorry, I probably should have clarified that a bit. I wasn't trying to suggest that by using mathematical description to model reality that we can therefore also "prove" statements of reality in the same manner or function. I merely meant to suggest that the "proof" in mathematical models and the physical evidence and observations of complexity in reality are concordant with one another.

Mathematics is the most versatile and powerful modeling tool science has at it's disposal - but it relies on axioms which are assumed true before hand. It's poor at figuring out how our reality works since objective reality just is - and gives little regard to your subjective assignments of value. In regards to reality, and figuring it out, we have to enable the correction of axioms so that their logical deductions are accurate portrayals of the objective or to remedy logical errors. Science is the process of falsifying or correcting tentative axioms. Hence, mathematical descriptions built with axioms promoted for their least susceptibility to falsification should therefore yield logical conclusions which displays greater accuracy with bulk of concordant observations/evidence in objective reality - as well as promote higher rates of predictive ability.

And it has. Science has rocketed up it's efficiency of discovery since the days of Galileo when deductive reasoning and the scientific method took over as a means of discovery. Especially with the advent of computers.


In regards to Dark Matter vs. Modified Gravity - neither one will ever be proven correct. Nothing in science ever will be. For a theory in science to ever reach the certainty of mathematical axioms - we'd need to know absolutely everything there can ever be to know about that phenomena. At that point, what's the purpose of Science - a methodology for the discovery and acquisition of knowledge - in a setting where everything to be known is already known. But we don't know, and it's beyond human capability to know all that. There will always be error, and there will always be some degree of uncertainty - no matter how minute or improbable - which may falsify the tentative axiom and throw our understanding into question.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by Lasheic]

reply to post by Irishwolf


Sorry but your barking up the wrong tree.

I don't define God. God just is.

Like I said, you are better off debating certain aspects of religion instead of the existence of God.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

You are naturally assuming this because this is what you want to debate against.

When you make these types of assumptions, you make an ass out of yourself.

Like I said, God exist. Things that are created go from the simple to the complex. I don't believe in a created god.

Your logic appears to be piss poor or your purposefully not defining your God in an attempt to stem any debate against it. I asked you to define it as well as the substance of it as you disallow me to do so.

If all created things start from simple to become more complex, do you then believe in evolution as it presupposes simple to complex; Or do you believe that the complexities of the universe and life within it arose from a singular act of creation with all thing existing as they exist in that moment of creation?

I don't have any particular religion.

I never raised any points of one particular religion.

I think you need to get your head out of the sand and realize that millions of people believe in God but they don't follow a particular religion.

And millions of others do not believe in God or hold a religion at all as well. At one point there were many who professed in the existence of Zeus and yet you are atheistic against Zeus and his entire family, which is evident by your singular descriptor of 'God'.

So again, your statement about complexity makes no sense because things go from simple to complex that were created. I don't believe in a created God, so the question who created god is a silly one. You have to first limit God before you can even ask the question.

OK, so you accept evolution then, right?

Why would any person who believes in God debate on these silly grounds?

So then the nature of this thread was to do nothing more than hope to receive ego stroking because you thought it appeared to yourself that you 'ousted' the Atheist? If you can think of no reason in which to debate, then what reason was there for posting this knowing that others would debate and that you would attempt to stem such debates?

I'm not going to debate an atheist definition of a god they claim they don't believ in.

Then please define God and the substance of God as I previously have been asking.

Debating the existence of God is futile without first trying to define God.

Enough with the straw man arguments and get on with defining God. You disallow an Atheist to define God, but then demand that because of your purposeful disablement that we are unable to debate it. Either your purposefully trolling with the intention of crap spouting without substance, or there is a more reasonable goal for posting this thread. So far I see no such goal as any attempt to discuss with you as been met with a brick wall that you've purposefully set up right from the beginning.

For instance, an atheist will ask, how can God....?

This is a question that starts with a silly pressuposition.

It no more of a silly question to ask 'How can God create a universe' than it is to ask 'How can I best wipe my ass and what material would facilitate the act of wiping my ass the best'. There are no silly or stupid questions, only silly or stupid people who pretend to have answers and then decide they don't have to answer those questions while claiming to have the answers.

If we are talking about a limited, created god then we can ask the question how can. If we are talking about a God that's all powerful and all knowing, then the question how can God.... makes no sense.

Your logic is flawed as evident from the above quote. There is nothing inherently wrong with wondering, questioning or attempting to discover. Self proclaiming yourself to have truth is more stupid than asking how, why, what, where or when. It's the innate drive to know that makes one intelligent.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


To me it makes more sense that God dosent exist. We exist therefor we cant see or really acknowledge God. God is Non existence. We are existence.

God him self tells us that he never changes. He tels us that he always was and always is.

Non existence is the only thing that never changes. If God existed he would change.

God created Existence. Therefor he cant exist.

There is a difference between existence and non existence. Existence is created.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by sirnex


This again shows you don't have a clue as to what your talking about. You keep trying to debate against something that you define. By making these assumptions you make an ass out of yourself.

Your logic appears to be piss poor or your purposefully not defining your God in an attempt to stem any debate against it. I asked you to define it as well as the substance of it as you disallow me to do so.

If all created things start from simple to become more complex, do you then believe in evolution as it presupposes simple to complex; Or do you believe that the complexities of the universe and life within it arose from a singular act of creation with all thing existing as they exist in that moment of creation?

I don't define God. This is the whole point behind this debate ant that silly question. If you asked a thousand different people to define God you would get a thousand different answers. So they question must pressupose a definition. I don't define God, so the question is a silly one and you even look worse than the young atheist who asked the question.

I can debate parallel universes because a universe is defined. I can debate Hawking Radiation because it's defined. I can debate extra dimensions because extra dimensions are defined.

In order to ask the silly question, you first have to define God which is futile.

For instance, Taoism.

To many people, a confusing aspect of Taoism is its very definition. Many religions will happily teach a Philosophy/Dogma which in reflection defines a person. Taoism flips this around. It starts by teaching a truth; "The Tao" is indefinable. It then follows up by teaching that each person can discover the Tao in their own terms. A teaching like this can be very hard to grasp when most people desire very concrete definitions in their own life.

www.personaltao.com...

So it would be silly of me to ask, who created the Tao? I would first have to define the Tao as something created.

You then talked about evolution. Again, you are trying to equate the process of evolution to God and then debate something that's just silly.

You are making the young atheist look like Einstein.

Originally posted by spy66
Well it did. Our existence is real. The question should be how did existence appear out of nowhere.

How did 0 create 1?

Well 0 never created 1. But something else did.

Then ask yourself what is the connection between 0 and 1?

There must be a connection because existence is real. Its just that we dont see it as existing.

This is easy, set theory allows all numbers to be bootstrapped from zero:
www.mathpath.org...

You can't debate with somebody who has faith in god. Their belief is not open for debate and they will use words such as "beyond human comprehension" and "unknowable". You just have to hope that gradually more and more people will see this for what it is and have enough self respect to believe that mere humans might one day, through the collective power of all of our minds come to a better understanding of the nature of the universe.

Believing in god equates almost exactly to believing in magic.

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Matrix Rising

 

To me it makes more sense that God dosent exist. We exist therefor we cant see or really acknowledge God. God is Non existence. We are existence.

God him self tells us that he never changes. He tels us that he always was and always is.

Non existence is the only thing that never changes. If God existed he would change.

God created Existence. Therefor he cant exist.

There is a difference between existence and non existence. Existence is created.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Again, your falling into the same trap as the others.

You said existence is created. It is when we are talking about a TV or a computer keyboard. Again, in order to make this statement, you have to first equate God to these created things.

It's silly.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Matrix Rising

 

To me it makes more sense that God dosent exist. We exist therefor we cant see or really acknowledge God. God is Non existence. We are existence.

God him self tells us that he never changes. He tels us that he always was and always is.

Non existence is the only thing that never changes. If God existed he would change.

God created Existence. Therefor he cant exist.

There is a difference between existence and non existence. Existence is created.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Again, your falling into the same trap as the others.

You said existence is created. It is when we are talking about a TV or a computer keyboard. Again, in order to make this statement, you have to first equate God to these created things.

It's silly.

I think it makes perfect sense. But i guess it depends on how you look at it.

From my point of whew. Existence must be created. And it must be created from Non existence some how. There is no other way.

Its the only way to fit in Infinity and finite to reality.

But i have to admit that there is a Gap between Non existence and Existence. I cant explain that yet. But one thing is for sure. Existence is only infinite because it cant become Non existing.

That means Non existence must exist.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

This again shows you don't have a clue as to what your talking about. You keep trying to debate against something that you define. By making these assumptions you make an ass out of yourself.

If all created things start from simple to become more complex, do you then believe in evolution as it presupposes simple to complex; Or do you believe that the complexities of the universe and life within it arose from a singular act of creation with all thing existing as they exist in that moment of creation?

I don't define God. This is the whole point behind this debate ant that silly question. If you asked a thousand different people to define God you would get a thousand different answers. So they question must pressupose a definition. I don't define God, so the question is a silly one and you even look worse than the young atheist who asked the question.

If you are unwilling to define or unable to comprehend in which to define then how can you determine that your undefined conception is even correct?

I can debate parallel universes because a universe is defined. I can debate Hawking Radiation because it's defined. I can debate extra dimensions because extra dimensions are defined.

The analogy is piss poor. You contradictorily claim to be able to define abstract constructs that have never been seen or proven to exist and yet at the same time claim you are unable to define a concept that has equally never been proven to exist. In short, keep your hypocritical straw man arguments to yourself as they are not intellectually significant enough to determine the nature of reality.

In order to ask the silly question, you first have to define God which is futile.

For instance, Taoism.

To many people, a confusing aspect of Taoism is its very definition. Many religions will happily teach a Philosophy/Dogma which in reflection defines a person. Taoism flips this around. It starts by teaching a truth; "The Tao" is indefinable. It then follows up by teaching that each person can discover the Tao in their own terms. A teaching like this can be very hard to grasp when most people desire very concrete definitions in their own life.


www.personaltao.com...

So it would be silly of me to ask, who created the Tao? I would first have to define the Tao as something created.

This is actually a contradictory statement in my opinion. The claim that Tao can not be defined but at the same time come to be known and understood implying definite knowledge of is illogical. Without a defined knowledge there is no definite knowledge of.

You then talked about evolution. Again, you are trying to equate the process of evolution to God and then debate something that's just silly.

In short, keep your hypocritical straw man arguments to yourself as they are not intellectually significant enough to determine the nature of reality.

...

You claimed that all things created start from simple and move to complex; I never attempted to equate this process explicitly to God, but simply asked of your opinion in regards to scientific theories that postulate a simple to complex process giving rise to the universe and life within it. If all things simple are created and move to complexity, would this not give credence to the scientific theories that postulate such same occurrences?

You are making the young atheist look like Einstein.

Perhaps due to your gross misunderstanding of logic, critical thinking and reality itself. We can't even get into a reasonable discussion because of this purposefully placed brick wall you've created just so you can sit on the other side making silly little faces screaming "nananana I'm right! I can't hear you hahahaha!!!one111one!!!"

A lot of things sound and appear silly and stupid to stagnant childish minds. Reality is more amazing, mystical and magical when you have truly opened your mind to everything rather than devolving to one static belief of reality and all that is real.

reply to post by sirnex


Pride cometh before the fall.

You error is obvious but I'm sure pride blinds you to this simple truth. You said:

You claimed that all things created start from simple and move to complex; I never attempted to equate this process explicitly to God, but simply asked of your opinion in regards to scientific theories that postulate a simple to complex process giving rise to the universe and life within it. If all things simple are created and move to complexity, would this not give credence to the scientific theories that postulate such same occurrences?

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

You are simply trying to ask the same question in a different way and your making the young atheist look like Newton.

The process of evolution has nothing to do with the topic or the current debate unless your trying to say everthing goes from simple to complex and therefore so must God. This is if God is created and you fall into the same illogocical mudhole.

This of course was your initial argument when you "naturally assumed" and made an ass out of yourself.

Your now just making it up as you go. Like I said pride comes before the fall.

Again, in the context of the question who created God, you are not making any sense. You can't ask the question without first defining God.

I haven't put up a brick wall, it's just atheist confuse God and religion. You want to debate against religion and that's why you want to define god first. It's a futile exercise and you look silly.

If you want to debate the merits of different religions that's fine, but when you ask the silly question who created god, you just look ignorant.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by Matrix Rising]

[edit on 26-11-2009 by Matrix Rising]

reply to post by Matrix Rising

You error is obvious but I'm sure pride blinds you to this simple truth. You said:

"You claimed that all things created start from simple and move to complex; I never attempted to equate this process explicitly to God, but simply asked of your opinion in regards to scientific theories that postulate a simple to complex process giving rise to the universe and life within it. If all things simple are created and move to complexity, would this not give credence to the scientific theories that postulate such same occurrences?"

...

You are simply trying to ask the same question in a different way and your making the young atheist look like Newton.

Please comprehend what you are reading. This is not explicitly the same question posed differently. This is a new line of questioning based solely upon you conclusion that all things are created and that all things created start from simple and move up to complex. Understanding begins with comprehension.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

Straw man, I never posed any question about the price of tea in China nor imply and explicit knowledge of the price of tea in China. The price of tea in China in meaningless to the discussion at hand. Let's stay on topic.

The process of evolution has nothing to do with the topic or the current debate unless your trying to say everthing goes from simple to complex and therefore so must God. This is if God is created and you fall into the same illogocical mudhole.

Please don't misrepresent a new line of questioning by attempting to define that new line of questioning as being equatable with the old line of questioning. I'm no longer discussing the complexity of God itself, but now am questioning a previously made statement by yourself in regards to created things and the complexity surrounding created things in an attempt to discern whether or not simplistic complexity can arise naturally or require creation or whether all of creation was created in a singular act giving rise to an illusion of complexity existing. If you can't comprehend what you are reading, please don't attempt to argue against it.

This of course was your initial argument when you "naturally assumed" and made an ass out of yourself.

This was never my first initial point. Please refer back to my initial point and describe how it equates to this new line of questioning.

Your now just making it up as you go. Like I said pride comes before the fall.

This new line of questioning is not an invented false perceived question on my part, it developed from an explicit statement made by you coupled with the inability to define God both by myself and yourself.

Again, in the context of the question who created God, you are not making any sense. You can't ask the question without first defining God.

It is quiet apparent right from my initial post that I never attempted to discuss *whom created God*, please keep your straw men to yourself as they are meaningless and pointless to the discussion.

I haven't put up a brick wall, it's just atheist confuse God and religion. You want to debate against religion and that's why you want to define god first. It's a futile exercise and you look silly.

Please keep your straw men to yourself as they are meaningless and pointless to the discussion. I never raised any points to any specific religion.

If you want to debate the merits of different religions that's fine, but when you ask the silly question who created god, you just look ignorant.

Please keep your straw men to yourself as they are meaningless and pointless to the discussion. I never raised any points to any specific religion.

With your many straw men, arrogant ignorance, self professed truths and derailments, it is readily apparent that you are ignorant, static in belief, and stagnant in mind. Do you understand what happens to stagnant water? The same can be said to similarly occur with a stagnant mind. Or how about a clogged artery, unable to let new blood pass through to the rest of the body, that clog in your mind is very unhealthy.

reply to post by sirnex


Pride cometheth before the fall.

You said:

Please don't misrepresent a new line of questioning by attempting to define that new line of questioning as being equatable with the old line of questioning. I'm no longer discussing the complexity of God itself, but now am questioning a previously made statement by yourself in regards to created things and the complexity surrounding created things in an attempt to discern whether or not simplistic complexity can arise naturally or require creation or whether all of creation was created in a singular act giving rise to an illusion of complexity existing. If you can't comprehend what you are reading, please don't attempt to argue against it.

Of course your no longer discussing the complexity of God because you "naturally assumed" and made an ass out of yourself.

Now your onto a new line of questioning and it's worse than the last line of questioning.

You just keep digging a deeper hole.

Pride cometh before the fall.

This new line of questioning is a silly attempt to ask the same question in a different way. I will save you the time and maybe help you save face because your looking really silly right about now.

Basically what your trying to do is play gotcha with these Junior High debating tactics.

If I say the universe can rise naturally, then you will say there's no need for God. If I say that a system that goes from simple to complex requires a creator, the you will say "gotcha" this means God needs a creator.

I can't believe your trying something so silly but it looks like your the type of person that likes egg on the face.

Material objects require a creator to go from simple to complex. God is not a material thing. So again, the question who created God is a silly unless you first define god.

It gets even deeper. The things that are created are already inherent in nature and the human mind reverse engineers the wisdom of the universe. So like Solomon said, there's nothing new under the sun. Maybe you should read up on information theory before you ask your next silly question.

[edit on 27-11-2009 by Matrix Rising]

Infinity

By man even putting words and trying to express god, you made him human. If there is nothing outside of god we can say that he is zero or 0 how do you create something from nothing? Thought! When you look into a mirror what do you see? Yourself! What is the reflection called in a mirror? An illusion!

reply to post by Matrix Rising

Of course your no longer discussing the complexity of God because you "naturally assumed" and made an ass out of yourself.

If your going to make a bold statement over a perceived definition of God then please quote such a definition explicitly made by myself. Please keep your straw men to yourself as they are pointless and meaningless to the discussion. The issue raised is one of complexity, not of definition.

Now your onto a new line of questioning and it's worse than the last line of questioning.

Please elaborate your thoughts more coherently. To claim that this question is worse than the last is to claim that your own statements in regards to the nature of complexity and created things might be wrong, which would leads us circularly back to the original line of questioning regarding the complexity of a creator.

You just keep digging a deeper hole.

Pride cometh before the fall.

Please keep your straw men to yourself as they are pointless and meaningless to the discussion.

This new line of questioning is a silly attempt to ask the same question in a different way. I will save you the time and maybe help you save face because your looking really silly right about now.

If you are unable to think critically and discern differences adequately then please do not attempt to equate unalike to like. A cookie is circular in shape; A hockey puck is circular in shape; Ergo a cookie is a hockey puck because it is circular. This is logic applied wrongly, please stop arguing and perceiving from an illogical mindset.

Basically what your trying to do is play gotcha with these Junior High debating tactics.

Please keep your straw men to yourself as they are pointless and meaningless to the discussion. We agree that we are both unable to define God and the complexity of God. I am asking a question based on a previous statement regarding the complexity of created thing's made by yourself. Either your statement is true or it is not true and the only way to validate that is to ask you to answer the question.

If I say the universe can rise naturally, then you will say there's no need for God.

It would allude to the possibility but doesn't inherently require the explicit impossibility. I'm not attempting to state that nothing was created and this was never an argument of mine. If you refer back to the initial post this is quiet readily apparent. If we can determine that things can arise naturally, then we are required to take a more critical approach to the issue of creation. It's an attempt to think, not to argue against.

If I say that a system that goes from simple to complex requires a creator, the you will say "gotcha" this means God needs a creator.

Incorrect, which again is readily apparent from previous posts where we already both agreed that we are both unable to define God as well as the complexity of God. For this statement to be true, a definition of God would be needed. Correct? Use your head for a minute, no one will think your an idiot if you do.

I can't believe your trying something so silly but it looks like your the type of person that likes egg on the face.

It's quiet apparent and knowable to all who are here that I am doing no such things that you claim I am doing. Thankfully a lot of people on ATS are capable of higher critical though and intelligence.

Material objects require a creator to go from simple to complex. God is not a material thing. So again, the question who created God is a silly unless you first define god.

It is quiet apparent right from my initial post that I never attempted to discuss *whom created God*, please keep your straw men to yourself as they are meaningless and pointless to the discussion.

It gets even deeper. The things that are created are already inherent in nature and the human mind reverse engineers the wisdom of the universe. So like Solomon said, there's nothing new under the sun. Maybe you should read up on information theory before you ask your next silly question.

A follower of God who professes the wonders of scientific achievements... Interesting. Science is only right when it fits your worldview?