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: 6
2
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
here is some food for thought.

If there ever was a time when nothing at all existed, then there would be absolutely nothing today. It is an axiomatic truth that if nothing exists, then “nothing” will be the case -always, for nothing simply remains nothing - forever! Nothing plus nothing equals nothing. If there is absolutely nothing but nothing, there cannot ever be something. “Nothing” and “something” -applied to the same object, at the same time - are mutually exclusive terms.
Since it is the case that something does now exist, one must logically conclude that something has existed always. Let us state the matter again: If nothing cannot produce something, and yet something exists, then it follows necessarily that something has existed always. The question then becomes this. What is the “something” that has been in existence always?
In logic, the “law of the excluded middle” states that a thing either is, or it is not. A line either is straight, or it is not straight.
Let us apply this principle to the matter at hand. Something has existed forever. That “something” must be either material in nature, or non-material. If it can be demonstrated that the eternal “something” is not material in nature, then it must follow that the eternal “something” is non-material in nature.
Another term for the “non-material” would be “spirit.” The question now becomes — what does the available evidence reveal? Is it the case that “matter” has existed forever, or does the evidence argue that the eternal “something” is non-matter, i.e., spirit?

The most reputable scientists in the world concede that “matter” is not eternal. In his book, Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton, 1977), Dr. Robert Jastrow, founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and himself a professed agnostic, describes his perception of the initial creation of the universe. He speaks of that moment when “the first particles of matter appear” , thus, prior to that moment, matter did not exist.
Subsequently, he declares emphatically that “modern science denies an eternal existence to the Universe?” . There is not a particle of evidence that the universe has existed forever. The very fact that scientists attempt to assign an “age” to the universe is revealing within itself.
In view of the foregoing, namely that something has always existed, and yet that “something” is not of a material nature, the student of logic is irresistibly forced to the conclusion that the “something” that is eternal is non-material — which means it must be “spirit” in its essence. The Scriptures identify that spirit Being as God. “God is spirit?” (Jn. 4:24) — an uncreated, eternal Spirit Being.
Both Scripture and logic, then, in marvelous concert, testify to the fact that God is eternal. He had no origin. He is the everlasting I AM. No one “made” him. He simply IS.

By WAYNE JACKSON




posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
life/consciousness is a paradox of the void/nothingness
hence god is created by the paradox

simple, eh?



peace



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. You just have egg on your face because your initial argument was made to look worse than the young atheist argument.

So when you looked silly on that you had to find something else to try and hang your hat on.

Anyone can understand that you can know the attributes of God but you can't define God because he's not a material being.

I'm not going to go much further and you can play ignorant all you want if you feel you have to delude yourself in order to make a point on something. Your one of those people who will make themselves look foolish in order to try and make a point. Your first argument fell flat and now your looking for anything.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 



I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. You just have egg on your face because your initial argument was made to look worse than the young atheist argument.


Straw man.


So when you looked silly on that you had to find something else to try and hang your hat on.


Straw man.


Anyone can understand that you can know the attributes of God but you can't define God because he's not a material being.


To define is to define, there is no intermediary of half define.


I'm not going to go much further and you can play ignorant all you want if you feel you have to delude yourself in order to make a point on something. Your one of those people who will make themselves look foolish in order to try and make a point. Your first argument fell flat and now your looking for anything.


Straw man; I never argued a *whom created God*.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Good question. We know spacetime came into existence after the big bang. Another interesting note is the Bible was saying this while science was saying something else. Science eventually confirmed that spacetime has a beginning. In the beginning........


To measure something in an amount of time means that time must exist first. Without time, there is no way to say before or after a certain point "in time."

If the Big Bang created spacetime, then that time didn't exist before the Big Bang. There was no "points in time" for the Big Bang to iterate over through the creation process, especially the very first. You can't define the first without time, and without time you can't have the first.

Quite a dilemma.

I'm not biased about this, as I say the Big-Bang, Evolution, and God are all possible.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 



If the Big Bang created spacetime, then that time didn't exist before the Big Bang. There was no "points in time" for the Big Bang to iterate over through the creation process, especially the very first. You can't define the first without time, and without time you can't have the first.


Whoa man, chill... Go easy on him, that is way to advanced logic to just drop on someone like that who can't grasp the concept. We're still working on circular reasoning.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Hmmm tough question, but I think God wasn't created, he's just there all along and replaced by another highly advanced being. There was no start or end. Highly advanced civilizations have the technology to create other Universes, when Universes do collapse and die. But who created those highly advanced civilizations. Here's an answer, other highly advanced civilizations did. And who knows how long this has been happening for. So picture this, maybe some of us are older than this Universe.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
To make the point more clearly, for there to be a God, there must be uncaused cause. In other words, God has to exist outside the physical universe and not depend on the universe to bring Him form or define His parameters.

Actually, positing an uncreated God solves the infinite Bang/Crunch scenario that lies at the end of logic.

Funny thing - there are some things that logic is no good for. Love, altruism, and other traits that are present in many higher animals and humans.

Do I? Sure. I feel God's presence every day in my life. Same way other people feel the presence of their cherished ones in their lives. Is that logical? Nope. Do I care? Not really.

Dawkins' assertion that belief in God is delusion is fine with me. Belief in the supernatural is something uniquely human. The need for humanity to yearn for a higher power is something innate to the human soul. I don't need someone to tell me what I can internally justify for myself.

I guess that's the crux of this, right? Atheists want rigid proof and the proof is something soft and intangible and immeasurable.

Drink your medicine, make your bed, and lay in it then. If the religious are wrong and we meet the Big Black at the end - then that's ok. We had comfort and warmth in our delusion. If we are right, then we bear the riches of standing in faith and watching our persecutors fall.

Either way, I fail to see what the big deal is. Believe or don't, but none of us will objectively know until we die.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Personally, I choose the honest route as honesty is the best policy, right? We don't know where this universe came from, why it exists or how it exists. The only way we can ever come to know it is to work together to explore it.

People need to start being more honest and just swallow their pride and say 'I don't know'.

There is no need to worship a death cult icon. Work today to make tomorrow better, don't be good today just because you think you'll receive a reward when you die. That isn't moral or just, that's selfish.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by oliveoil
 


I dont agree. Nothingness does exist. Its just that existence cant acknowledge it.

Every time you say that nothingness cant exist you your self admit that it does. You are saying it cant exist. That means it exists as Non existence


If something is existing it exists as existence. If it doesn't exist as existence it is Non existence.

Take time for instance. The only time that exists is the present time. No other time exists. The future is Non existing for existence at present time.


[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 04:20 AM
link   
You should have just asked him what was before the big bang. His head would have probably exploded and that would lead to another topic we could debate on with athiest. Did god make his head explode? Or was it the big bang?



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Sorry for bumping an old topici but i just went through all this convo and i just saw that the one's who believe in "god" have always expressed god with a capital G. Could they give us one reason for doing so?
+ there are some posts that address "god" as a HE. Now if god isnt describable, then how do you know if god is a HE/SHE?? Heck how do u know if God is a living being to address him as a male or a female?
Just goes to show their height of ignorancy.
If you cant describe god then please dont address god with a capital G and please dont refer to god as a He/She.
+The topic starter at one point said he isnt following any particular religion and yet in one of the last few posts he quotes a line from the Bible.
Now who's the silly person here??



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Well I'm certainly not going to debate who created God as I know that the theory of God was created in the minds of men, and the OP obviously doesn't agree. Neither of us is going to abandon our viewpoints so a debate over this is pointless.

What I will say though is this. I was once scoffed at by a Xtian during a discussion about creation. He even laughed a little as he looked at me and said, "So, you think that this whole universe just came from nothing?" He further "enlightened" me that to believe such a thing was absurd, and that the only reasonable stance was that the Universe was created.

I asked wasn't that the very argument of Xtians? That God(something) sprang from nothing... His smug expression quickly left, and he decided that he didn't want to talk about religion.



[edit on 10-1-2010 by Majiq]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
What comes before the absolute beginning? What follows the absolute end? What is heavier than the heaviest object? Who is richer than the richest person? What is more complex than the most complex thing? What is bigger than the biggest possible thing? What is the sound of one hand clapping?

Maybe the ten commands are not really prohibitions. Maybe they are just statements of complex truths that serve as a starting point to understanding. Maybe the first commandment is just a statement of physical law.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Good question. We know spacetime came into existence after the big bang. Another interesting note is the Bible was saying this while science was saying something else. Science eventually confirmed that spacetime has a beginning. In the beginning........


To measure something in an amount of time means that time must exist first. Without time, there is no way to say before or after a certain point "in time."

If the Big Bang created spacetime, then that time didn't exist before the Big Bang. There was no "points in time" for the Big Bang to iterate over through the creation process, especially the very first. You can't define the first without time, and without time you can't have the first.

Quite a dilemma.

I'm not biased about this, as I say the Big-Bang, Evolution, and God are all possible.


i´ve pondered the same thing , what do we realy know about the nature of time and what it realy brings forth ,

and at the same time does life exist outside space time ?



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 




The only thing that always existed was Non existence. Non existence is Infinite. Existence is Finite. Finite means it changes. Non existence cant change.


LOL. Even "non existence" is existence itself. Something or nothing is always existence or a reality.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join