If god created man, then who the shiznit created God? Chuck Norris?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





Well, if He had been created He wouldn't be God


Says what expert? And how many gods has this expert studied, and how closely? I had no idea gods were such a definitive subject. I will want scientific sources, of course. That is, if we're taking fact. Otherwise, all opinions are created equal.


Common sense. If God were created He would be part of creation, not the Creator. He wouldn't be the first cause, whatever being that created Him would be. And sorry, illogical arbitrary conjecture isn't equal, not on any topic.



Maybe it is like the Escher painting of the hands drawing themselves.




posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   
The basic Idea of God is that He is Uncreated and Eternal because if He is Created then there is someone "above" Him. The chain would continue till infinity..
The One at the end of the Chain is God, ofcourse for that, one has to accept that the chain is finite. The theist accept it and reach the idea of God while in general atheists don't. A finite chain makes more sense than an infinite one as its just ridiculous. If their is an infinite chain of causes how would you ever reach an effect. The Unverse should not exist as the infinite causes will never reach a point where the universe starts but Universe exists so the chain must be finite. Infinity is just a theoretical idea.

So the question "who created God?" is not a valid one. It is only asked by someone with an atheist mentality to try and disprove God.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 



The One at the end of the Chain is God, ofcourse for that, one has to accept that the chain is finite.


Why? Why, pray tell, does the chain have to be finite? Because you're too lazy to imagine where an infinite chain might go? Or maybe...you would be confounded to learn that it leads right back to us!

Because after infinity...comes more infinity. Always.



So the question "who created God?" is not a valid one. It is only asked by someone with an atheist mentality to try and disprove God.


Stop being so obtuse. You're hindering the process of learning by insisting there is nothing to learn. Stop trying to stonewall us. Just because you are easily stymied, does not mean we're ready to give up.
edit on 17-7-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by br0ker
No really.. Who created god?


Ahh, the old "prime mover" argument. Atheists really need to try better instead of slinging this tired tactic around.

"Who created God? Then who created God's creator? Then who created God's creator's creator?"

This argument is just a fallacy couched with smugness and a lack of imagination. The fallacy lies in the assumption that God needed a creator and that God's creator needs a creator etc. ad infinitum.

The very nature of the question suggests there is an underlying mechanism which we do not fully understand--infinitude (whereas we like to look at things in linear terms.) And just because we can't conceive this concept doesn't mean God doesn't exist


edit on 17-7-2013 by NarcolepticBuddha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by NarcolepticBuddha
 



Ahh, the old "prime mover" argument. Atheists really need to try better instead of slinging this tired tactic around.


It's not a tactic, it's an honest question. And now I'm asking it, and I want an answer.


"Who created God? Then who created God's creator? Then who created God's creator's creator?"

This argument is just a fallacy couched with smugness and a lack of imagination. The fallacy lies in the assumption that God needed a creator and that God's creator needs a creator etc. ad infinitum.


Everything requires a creator, even if it's not a conscious influence. Like the sun affects the atmosphere resulting in changing temperatures which causes wind which erodes rock and creates the spectacular rock formations we see today. Isn't that a law of physics?


The very nature of the question suggests there is an underlying mechanism which we do not fully understand--infinitude (whereas we like to look at things in linear terms.) And just because we can't conceive this concept doesn't mean God doesn't exist


That's not what I'm asking. The question itself presumes the existence of a higher power, so you can just quit beating that particular horse. For the sake of argument, we're leaving that part alone so we can explore the nature of such a deity if it were to exist.

And you can drop the attitude too.
edit on 17-7-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 





Why? Why, pray tell, does the chain have to be finite? Because you're too lazy to imagine where an infinite chain might go?

lazy to imagine where an infinite chain might go?
Wait! Wait! I know the answer..
to INFINITY!!!
no matter if i spend my whole life doing this exercise there would be still an infinite chain to imagine!
So yes, better play smart n lazy and realise the absurdity of this exercise.

Or maybe...you would be
confounded to learn that it leads right
back to us!

oh so we created ourself? Thats really a genuinely smart idea!!
It means we existed and non-existed at the same time, how intriguing and yet IMPOSSIBLE


Stop being so obtuse. You're
hindering the process of learning by
insisting there is nothing to learn. Stop
trying to stonewall us. Just because
you are easily stymied, does not mean
we're ready to give up.

a dog enjoys chasing its own tail, it sure appears a lot of effort and maybe that makes the dog satisfied, it however leads nowhere.
Anyways,
ENJOY!


you are playing with imagination and not reason.
edit on 17-7-2013 by logical7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 





oh so we created ourself? Thats really a genuinely smart idea!! It means we existed and non-existed at the same time, how intriguing and yet IMPOSSIBLE


I didn't say that. I would compare it to the water cycle.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


One has to be a creator to be a god? According to whom? And since when? I think you're being awfully narrow here...


How is that narrow? If God were created He would not be the first cause.


He WAS FIRST CAUSE, but needed an AUDIENCE to define ITSELF.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by damwel
Man created God in his own Image


Of course Man did. This is the primary joke-a-rama nobody sees. Nothing to do with Darwism, nor creationism; its walking into a carnival wondering whos taking my money from me first. Ring Toss Babtists, Wack a Mole Catholics, Tilt-a-whorl Islamists, Pony Ride; Buddists; Bumper Car Judaics? Who knows.
edit on 17-7-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





How is that narrow? If God were created He would not be the first cause.


It's narrow because the term "god" used to cover quite a large and variant range of characters, few of which really qualified by such standards as the participants here have described. But that was thousands of years before Christianity and Islam tried to monopolize the word.
edit on 17-7-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





How is that narrow? If God were created He would not be the first cause.


It's narrow because the term "god" used to cover quite a large and variant range of characters, few of which really qualified by such standards as the participants here have described. But that was thousands of years before Christianity and Islam and Hinduism tried to monopolize the word.


Yes, the term "GOD" is quite new comparatively and the cast and characters of that such name includes those 100s of thousands of years ago. Enlil, Enki, Anu too many to mention.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 


That's not fair to Buddhism. Buddhism shouldn't be lumped in with those others.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





How is that narrow? If God were created He would not be the first cause.


It's narrow because the term "god" used to cover quite a large and variant range of characters, few of which really qualified by such standards as the participants here have described. But that was thousands of years before Christianity and Islam tried to monopolize the word.
edit on 17-7-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


Why not stay within the context the OP created the thread with?



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by vethumanbeing

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


One has to be a creator to be a god? According to whom? And since when? I think you're being awfully narrow here...


How is that narrow? If God were created He would not be the first cause.


He WAS FIRST CAUSE, but needed an AUDIENCE to define ITSELF.


I know He was the first cause, He wouldn't be God otherwise. However I reject your statement, His existence or definition as you put it, is independant of His creation. If He chose to create nothing He would still exist as the first cause.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


We wouldn't be asking the question then. Obviously you don't have an answer for me, so I'm not asking you...with all due respect.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 


That's not fair to Buddhism. Buddhism shouldn't be lumped in with those others.


What? ARE you saying? You have sympathy for a belief system that may have God Concept? Or think Im unfair in picking upon just another one of the "FIELD OF UNREQUITED IMPOSSIBLE DREAMS" to choose from? Why single out Buddists, they are as guilty as believers in a higher power as any other religion.
edit on 17-7-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


We wouldn't be asking the question then. Obviously you don't have an answer for me, so I'm not asking you...with all due respect.


That isn't the truth. I already responded to you. The truth is that you don't like the answer provided to you. And that reality is something I have no control over.

edit on 17-7-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Originally posted by NOTurTypical


vethumanbeing
He WAS FIRST CAUSE, but needed an AUDIENCE to define ITSELF.



Notyurtypical
I know He was the first cause, He wouldn't be God otherwise. However I reject your statement, His existence or definition as you put it, is independant of His creation. If He chose to create nothing He would still exist as the first cause.


You would not know this unless you were first cause prodgeny meaning you retain first cause memory.
edit on 17-7-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
[He WAS FIRST CAUSE, but needed an AUDIENCE to define ITSELF.


I know He was the first cause, He wouldn't be God otherwise. However I reject your statement, His existence or definition as you put it, is independant of His creation. If He chose to create nothing He would still exist as the first cause.

You would not know this unless you were first cause podgeny, meaning you retain first cause memory.
edit on 17-7-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)


False premise. There are other possibilities, such as revelation from the first cause entity.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


If by that you mean i am not satisfied, then yes, you are correct. I was looking for a meatier answer than just the generic nonanswers you get in sunday school.





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join