What created God?

C-C-C-Combo breaker
anyway god (in my opinion)
was always here and maybe the reason we don't know
is because we need to trust that he is there(FAITH)
​

 

Via Negativa is a good song by The Kovenant.

It is also a philisophical statement, which says that since God is so powerful and beyond most forms of human comprehension, it is futile to try to say what It is. It is, instead, more effective to describe It through what It is not.

In4 some smartass atheist says "Well he's NOT real lolol"

 

Well...I'd have to say I have skeptical outlooks on most things, but when it comes to beliefs, I'm for anything that anyone tells me that they believe, although I do have beliefs of my own.

Let me clear some things up..

Most people can agree that before anything was created, there was an "eternal energy". This energy, from a lot of perspectives is considered "God".
This energy has more heat and power than the sun, yet, the cold emptiness of the sky.
It is the source to all other energy substances such as atoms, electrodes and such.
God, is believed to have created everything according to every idea presented in works such as The Bible, articles(non-wiki), etc. , etc.
Therefore the two can be considered the same thing.
Why?
I just explained it.

 

Just as "What created the universe?" is a meaningless question to an atheist, "What created God?" is a meaningless question to a theist.

Both of us have to make the assumption that either the universe or God have existed eternally, without a beginning.

It's just a matter of adding another question. Since it's a matter of faith, it's really a meaningless question.

 

I agree. No one is ever going to know. Sometimes it's better to be ignorant than question everything around you. There were questions that will be never be answered at least not in this life time.

 

I wish this was facebook so I could "like" this. XD

Yup people have said it all before me God doesn't need a creator blah blah blah... all that jazz!

However I would like to point out that if you create a circular argument about the big bang, saying "But how did all of those gas particles which started the universe get there?" and keep on asking "But how did [insert what got it there] get there?" to the answer there would be a point where someone who believed in the big bang either says "I don't know." or "It just was there." It's the same with how God got to exist for people who believe in God, "I don't know." or "He just was there."

 

Again, the notion of a god was created by humans.
In a sense, it's like a fictional character; it can exist in writing, movies, and plays, but that does not mean it exists in real life.
On the contrary, the Big Bang has actual evidence that it happened in the distant past.

 

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, once again. I believe that there is a god, and I have won many logical arguments to this effect. There is no physical evidence to support this, but there is none to deny this statement its validity, so you can't accurately make a scientifically solid claim that there is no god.

 

You are correct. Attempting to prove that there isn't a god is impossible. However this is not a reasonable argument in the favour of a deity. The burden of proof is on the side of god; the detractors have no responsibility to provide negative evidence. To demand so is a logical fallacy.

 

Yep. I've seen footage of it.

The fact that the sun rose from the east everywhere was used as evidence that the Earth was the center of the universe and the sun and other celestial bodies sat on a giant dome that spun around the Earth. Everything that didn't orbit the earth was on a smaller dome that was set on the original giant dome. Evidence can be used the wrong way. Not saying the Big Bang didn't happen, just that "fact" changes.
As far as I could tell, most theories start with an observation and then a created notion. Then evidence is collected to support that notion, but the way the evidence used is usually pretty much set in stone due to the preconceived notion being biased.

I somewhat agree with you. Supporters need to supply evidence before detractors can provide evidence against it. Still doesn't mean the supporters are wrong.

Being both a (loose) Christian and a very logical person, I question the probability of any religion being right. I'm one of those people that doesn't observe a religion COMPLETELY, but mixes and matches. So I question the chances of ME being right. I believe the Bible is a storybook, not completely true. Parents have used fictional stories to embed lessons (i.e. The Boy Who Cried Wolf) which is how I see the Bible. Instead of God as the Bible explains Him, I believe in Him as an Infinite Perfect being. Infinite in knowledge, infinite in vision, infinite in existence, infinite in infinity pretty much. Studying philosophy, I've read of a philosopher proving the existence of God. Then I read of another one disagreeing and proving how man created the idea of God. But yet, neither had solid evidence on proving or disproving his existence. They just came up with proof based on how we humans learn. As far as I've studied, no one has an exact answer on how we learn (it's really hard to explain here) or how we form knowledge. So who knows who was right?

It's going to be hundreds, if not thousands, of years before we'll know who is right between non believers, believers, and which believer (considering all the religions). Then hundreds of years after that, the one that was right will be proven wrong in some way.

I find this to be a useless argument. The only way we'll know who's right is to die. If believers are right, though, we'll have the satisfaction of knowing. If non believers are right, well, no one's going to know anything as a dead person.


I was going somewhere with this, but I can't even remember where that was. All I know is evidence that the Big Bang happened does not necessarily mean that A) The Big Bang happened or B) God doesn't exist. I have proof that machines made my car. Does that mean I have proof that there was no humans involved in the making?

 

It was originally thought that the Sun was the center. Then the church (the people, not the religion itself) wanted it to be Earth centric, and that became the norm. It wasn't until the European Renaissance that it was thought to be heliocentric again.

 

Well scientists say that before the big bang atoms were buzzing around at extremely fast speeds. So what created the atoms? A lot of Christians say that God was just always there. So in other words who knows.

 

I'm pretty sure Christians have always believed that the world is round. It's stated multiple times in the Bible.

 

She means that we orbit the Sun, not the other way around. Not that we're flat.

 

...
DERP.
I have not slept >.>

 

I was perusing the thread and this in particular caught my eye, so I thought I'd pick it out and respond to it:

I can vouch for this. I took a whole class on it, and it basically consisted of "Here's everyone who's ever thought about this enough to form a theory about it, and here's how they're all fundamentally wrong."

The study of knowledge thus far concludes that we could easily be in the Matrix.

People don't think about what this means. It means that everything we hold sacred, from the basest and most foundational elements of our thinking down to the tiniest, most insignificant phenomena which we take for granted. And even among this grand castle of illusions we call life, we cannot be at the beginning of existence to see how it happened. Even within our trappings, we cannot say if we simply exploded into being or if we were magicked here by a large fellow in a cloudy paradise. We can not. Anyone who professes anything other than agnosticism in such a world is at least slightly in denial, on either side. So neither theory is any more outrageous than me looking at my hand right now and stating that it has five fingers.

Now, if you want my denial... I say we created God(s). But this is not insignificant in the slightest, nor is it to say that God is impotent and powerless; it is simply a testament to the awesome power of the mind. Basically, we retconned the big man upstairs.

 

They are not wrong in the sense that there is scientific contradicting evidence. There is no scientific evidence to support their claim, which means their claim has no ground to stand on. To use a term I recently learned, the argument that it cannot be disproven is a Devil's Proof argument. There is, however, contradicting logical evidence. For example, why is there evil in the world if god is all loving? If god created all, and god is infinitely good, how did evil come out of an infinitely good being?

Explain further. Is he infinitely evil, infinitely good, infinitely hungry, infinitely grey, infinitely yellow, etc. Also, what leads you believe this?

That is true. But there is more evidence in the big bang than god, so we accept the big bang as fact, until something with stronger supporting evidence comes along. As for your car: there's no proof that aliens and robot unicorns weren't involved in the making either, and by your argument, that theory is equally valid.

Except we readily admit we have no clue what created the atoms. Besides, adding in a god to the equation doesn't help anything. If you're going to add in god on the basis that the atoms came from somewhere, then say he's infinite, Occam's Razor forces you to cut god out and just give the atoms the endless attribute.

 

By his logic, God is infinitely evil as well. It would make no sense for a world guided by the hand of one who has his stake in every construct of ours to be free of any one thing of which we are possessed.

Regardless, what you're looking for is a theodicy, not a logical proof.

He is infinitely everything, and rightly he must be, or it would be beyond his power to give these concepts form.

This has come up a few times, from what I can tell. I'm curious: What is held as evidence of the big bang?

 

I know it seems like a falsey argument, and there are better Christians than me here that could explain it better, but it's simple. Evil didn't come from an infinitely good being directly. Good came from it. The good was corrupted after it came from him. See Garden of Eden and the apple or Lucifer's fall from grace. God didn't just create humans and say "Do whatever the hell you want when you want, to whom you want, how you want," exactly. He gave pure beings free will. Unfortunately, it was that same will that allowed them to be corrupted. Same for Lucifer. He wasn't a robot. He had his own opinions. All that evil in the world? Those people are able to do evil because they want to and can. They're physically and mentally (albeit not legally) able to do what they want.
God created the universe. He created us. He created Lucifer. Then He backed off (for the most part). See it as abandonment, see it as uncaring, or whatever you want. Point is, He backed off and we're, as a race, screwing ourselves over.

And just so it isn't brought up, regarding the Garden of Eden, I didn't say Adam and Eve were humans as we are now or anything specific about the Garden of Eden. God may have created us in His image, but what most theists forget is that we have no idea what His image is. If all creatures come from a common ancestor, said ancestor could be Adam. Evolution took its course and here we are now. Not putting that out there as a valid belief, just saying the Garden of Eden is like every other story in the bible: not meant to be taken as literal as it and open to interpretation which, throughout time, has been claimed as religious fact.

Simple. Perfect. I have no idea what perfect is so I can't break it down in adjectives for you to understand either. But if you're hungry, you aren't perfect. You need to be complete, unchanging, reified to be perfect. Evil or good? I can't answer that either. With a being as endless as [our idea] of God, who's to say He classifies actions in the same categories as we do? Hell, I should stop calling God "Him" and refer to Him as It because perfect doesn't mean male.
What I know of philosophy, what I've observed, what I've learned, and my personal take on philosophy is what leads me to believe it. To be honest, the details I know as a Christian I doubt to an extent. The only thing I believe as absolute truth (call it ignorant, narrow-minded, or whatever all you want) is the existence of an eternal, infinite, perfect being.

Exactly what I've been saying. The Big Bang theory may be rebuked sometime in the future. What if...and just stay with me for a second....it's rebuked when evidence of God has been found? Following in the footsteps of Descartes, I want absolute certainty, which I don't even think is possible. The Big Bang Theory...theory being the key word there. Has the Big Bang been proven completely? Can't say I've been keeping up with the scientific community to know if it has. If not, again, it's just a theory. If so, oh well, like I said, it doesn't disprove the existence of God. God could have been the catalyst. God could have been the Big Bang itself somehow. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...why not through the Big Bang?


I understand the whole Big Bang and "accept it as fact until something 'truer' comes along," but then, by definition, it isn't fact.

In that case, for all I know aliens and robot unicorns did create my car. Pegasus 2.0 was the one handling the machine that put my steering wheel together. I can prove it though. I can go to a factory and watch a car being built. I could see men operating machines. (Philosophically bullshitting, I could say those men are aliens for all I really know). The Big Bang could have happened. But as I said, God could caused the Big Bang. Less religiously devoted possibility: Big Bang could have created God (although He wouldn't be eternal) So what if there's no proof aliens weren't involved in the making? There's no proof saying they were, either. Which brings us back to the start. No proof whether or not God exists, just proof that other things may have happened.

It took me a second to realize you were saying here. We can break down everything all the way do to an atom, but we can't get any simpler so we say God created them. We try to get simpler than that, and we just give him the endless attribute. Instead of giving God the endless attribute, cut Him out as an unnecessarily more complicated solution, right?
Well then why not cut out the atoms as the more complicated solution to whatever breaks down into atoms? Why not break THAT down into whatever breaks into it?
Because we've observed them?
We observed them long ago and have "proven" they exist?
Does that mean before they were observed, they didn't exist?
The people who existed before an atom was discovered, were they not made of atoms?
If God, as the eternal being we associate Him as, was observed/proven/discovered next year, does that mean He didn't exist this year?
Things tend to exist before they're discovered. Doesn't mean they didn't exist before the moment of discovery.

Exactly. I'm still taking a class and I've all I gotten is "Here's what the first person came up with, the second person came up with something that didn't match up but seemed better, the third did the same with the second." I haven't gotten to the end of the chain yet so I don't know who's the last to be disproved. Something else I noticed is that while the second may have proved the first one wrong, he only did so with his own ideas, not actual fact. So everyone afterward that has proved the previous philosopher wrong could have just been pieces in a pointless domino chain. No solid evidence to who was right.

Exactly.

Can't say I'm in complete agreement with this, but I understand completely where this is coming from.

Had to look up what theodicy was.
Good point.
Christianity claims God is just. In other words, He's the ultimate judge. So why are we trying to justify His actions? Trying to use the justification of His actions (or lack thereof) as an argument against His existence, to me personally seems like the non-believing equivalent of blaming Him for the evil in the world, which is difficult to do when you don't believe in Him.
Time is a human understanding. I've always thought that what we call "good and evil" is not what God would call "good and evil." Maybe murder in the true God's eyes is good. That makes Him evil to us. But only by our definition of the word. Get what I'm saying?

I know the commandment says "Thou Shalt Not Kill," I was just using murder as an example. God's categories of actions probably isn't the same as ours.
The only thing we know for sure is that the Ten Commandments are actions against Him in some way.

Isn't the concept of infinity everything existent, known or not, discovered or undiscovered? We can't understand all of that. We can get as close to the edge as possible...and still be wrong because there's no edge. Maybe what I said about infinite in knowledge, etc was a bad statement. The simplest way I can put it is that God is infinite. We can't comprehend Him because we can't grasp all of infinity.


My mind is making perfect sense, but I'm struggling getting my thoughts into words so I hope you guys understand what I"m saying.

 

This is, indeed, not a solid argument in the favor of a deity. This is, however, a reasonable argument against a person trying to make the claim that there is certainly NOT a god in the name of science. I have said that it cannot be done, and that a logical debate would be more effective than a scientific debate in this regard.