What created God?

I understand that one explanation is more complex than the other. And I understand that the concept of god is theoretical (rather than hypothetical, "hypothetical" implies a scientific experiment of some kind), however the concept of there not being a god is just as theoretical. And just because one is more complex than the other DOES NOT make it less likely to happen because both are equally theoretical (this is less so as we near Catholocism xD). We could go into Murphy's Law and Rube Goldberg machines and such, but my point is that adding one step to a process whose circumstances you know nothing/next to nothing about does not affect the probability of the scenario.

 

in the bible it was not until eve had sinned that she needed to be submissive to adam

 

Oh awesome. brb, stealing, murdering and drop kicking nuns because apparently God doesn't care about sins anymore despite large amounts of biblical texts saying otherwise. I used to be a rather devout Christian; Jesus dying for our sins simply means that according to Christian doctrine you can be forgiven if you're willing to repent, but that in itself is a flawed statement since passages of the Bible exist that state that if you deny God's existence, you are pretty much automatically condemned to Hell.

This is the weakest argument ever. And it's not because of your wording or anything, but simply because "God is omnipotent" is the deus ex machina of all deist defenses in debates. If you can't prove he exists, you can't say that this "uncaused cause" is God so confidently.

That's the thing, there's so much of this completely false text in the Bible: where do we stop and finally say "Wow, the people who wrote this had no idea what they were talking about."? While there are certainly some historical accounts in the Bible, you can't just say that they writers of the Bible were trying to be poetic or flowery writers when science proves their writings wrong. After all, why would God mislead them and tell them that that is the way things are when in reality it isn't?

 

If Jesus really existed, which is fairly likely he did, he didn't die on the cross for sins. He died on the cross for leading a "cult", essentially.

Still, I believe that the notion of God (or any god, for that matter) was created by people to explain things. When the Bible was put together, the science was nowhere near as advanced as it is now. There are still energies we do not understand in the universe, hell, even dark matter is a recent discovery, and it comprises most of the known universe.
And Guardian, I meant in the historical "God says do this in the Bible, so we must", even if it meant killing people. Since it can be interpreted in different ways, it can be twisted to fit a given situation.

And adding on to what Advent said, not only is there false text in the Bible, there's also text that has been completely cut out because of what it says. Which further adds to making the Bible sound how people want it to.

 

He IS all of those things. You sound so much like an atheist right now. *sigh* This a very simple answer, He existed before anything or anyone else did. He also spoke everything into existence except for man (and woman) who he sculpted into His image. I go to a Christian school so that's why i know so much, and I AM A CHRISTIAN. If you are too and you're reading this send a private message to Jaden Yuki asking to be invited into the group "The Christians of KH-Vids". Just putting the word out there. ^_^ XD

 

We humans are naturally curious, so we wander about life and beyond. We need to answer all the big questions but all I want to do is say why? I want to know as well but we spend so much time on these questions when ultimately we may never get to a conclusion. I think that what people believe is real, to Christians like myself God is real to me because I've felt him there but to an atheist there is no higher being and that is real to them because they reject the idea of a God.

God is eternal meaning he has no beginning therefore no end. He/She is self-existence so he depends on nothing to exist but existence depends on him. Nothing created God as he wasn't created, he just was. This is just something we can't understand, and forever we will strive to find the answer but probably never reach it.

@Advent
I believe Jesus dies on the cross for all our sins and God forgives those who are willing to confess, but I also believe God loves all his children too much to let them go to hell. By denying God's existence I don't think God gives up on you, I don't believe he goes in a huff and lets you fall into Hell. God is benevolent, and some passages in the bible were from the words of humans and I believe they got it a bit wrong at times in interpreting God's message and the fear that was drummed into people heads about Hell was reluctant to leave.

 

You do know that the Bible contradicts itself and the image of Jesus that most Christians believe is wrong, right?

And if God sculpted us in his image, why do we share 94.6% to 99.4% of our genes with chimpanzees, who are animals and NOT created in the image of a god. That being said, again, humans came up with the concept of God, so why would we make God look any different from us?

 

Very true Ienzo, very true. We can't understand it but i believe that when the rapture comes He may explain it to us and maybe, just maybe He may allow us to understand. And I believe that He died for us as well. He also doesn't give up on the non-believers because He sends His children, us. to bing the non-believers to Him. So He truly doesn't give up. ^_^

 

I like how you ignored my post. O:

But anyway. I still stand by my previous statements; there's quite a bit of evidence in the favour of science. Moreso than in favour of religion.

 

Hey, guess what? You're completely off topic. You haven't brought up any new points to support your argument. Care to try again?

 

I fail to see the point in stating that there's a lot of scientific evidence to support science.

 

I know why you find it to be redundant, but if you think about it, it makes sense. Science is the universe around us, undeniably. Every little thing that happens has a scientific cause; whether it was caused by God or Buddha or Allah, or just the fact that it's natural is up for debate, but the point is that science runs the natural universe as we know it. Deist belief systems don't have much factual basis in the realm of science, so saying that the natural systems of the universe support scientific knowledge and thoughts processes is actually pretty acceptable in a religious debate, especially one such as this.

 

There is no problem with your argument, though there is a problem with Wolfie's. She used the immense amount of scientific evidence (which is defined by science) in favor of science and lack thereof supporting the existance of a God as an attempted offense against theism, as if they were two opposing forces. My point was that this cannot be used against the idea that a God exists because scientific evidence is, quite literally, only existant to support science.

 

So let me get this straight: God wants his people to be happy and wants them to be in as ideal a world as possible- such is implied when you call him benevolent- but at the same time he wants to let his children interpret the inner truths of the universe and the deep secrets to happiness and peace via poetic messages and not straight forward instructions?

 

Jumping into this knowing nothing about the prior conversation

BUT

The way I figure it, if God wanted to give us perfection and full understanding straightaway there's no point in creating existence. God gave us these lives so we could live them, not to wallow in perfection and not have nothing left to do.

Pls don't murder me because I don't really know what you guys were talking about beforehand I just wanted to get this out there

 

So basically what you're saying is that the Christian idea of Heaven is boring and/or meaningless to reside in? After all, it's always referred to as a perfect paradise, no? Not to drastically change the flow of the argument, but I thought of that when you mentioned the whole perfect world being pointless to live in thing.

 

Heaven is the concept of life, by Episcopalian standards. It is, rather than a concious perfection, an eternal state of life and all of it's downfalls, coupled (in my belief) with a certain contentedness. I'm sure you've felt it before, where you sit down with whatever you like most and feel like you don't need anything else in the world.

WHY DID YOU HAVE TO DRAG ME INTO THIS

 

Probability? No. I have no clue how it really works. Perhaps it really is a man in the sky. I can't say that because of the Razor, the man in the sky is less probable. However I can argue that in logical arguments such as St. Thomas Aquinas' ones that were recently posted, I can use Occam's Razor to prove that it is superfluous to bring in a god into a theory, just so the theorizer can make the god the exception to the rule and thereby 'prove' that god exists.

Onto those arguments.

Firstly, Thomas is wrong in saying that the sequence cannot extend ad infinitum. We know nothing of the nature of time of the universe. It may be that it extends infinitely.

Moving on, I do not know what the first mover was, nor do I have any proof that there even was a first mover. However there is nothing to suggest that the first mover was a god. In ancient times, we didn't know what caused lightning. We were in awe of it, and said that it must be a tool of a god. Now we know for a fact that this is friction between the clouds. We can extend this to earthquakes actually being tectonic plates, the sun crossing the earth actually being us rotating around a big ball of gas, as opposed to a god pulling a bright, fiery object across the skies. We simply use gods to explain what we cannot understand. So far, gods have a very poor track record of being right, so I'd much rather claim ignorance of what the first mover was, than resort to using a recycled fairy tale to explain it.

Same answer as to question one.

Furthermore, this begets another question. What set the god in motion? Nothing? Then all we have achieved here is trading acceptance of something tangible being infinite (or the first efficient cause, as Tom puts it), such as matter and antimatter for something we have no proof of existing, much like a wizard out of a picture book.

I suppose this answer can also apply to question one. Swap them as you see fit.

Some being may be required to exist. There is no reason to assume that such a character should be a god. It may be as simple as matter/antimatter.

There is no reason the power of existing in the beginning should be limited to a god. It's entirely theoretical, so there's no reason for infinity to be exclusively for a deity. A hole in our knowledge is not an opportunity to ram a god in there.

Also, these are all the same argument. There's something we don't know the origin of. We say it must be god, because we've given god x trait so he perfectly fills the void. This does not make the abilities we've given to god exclusive to god. This is no different to what people did many years ago.

An infinitely hot thing would destroy everything, thus cannot exist.

Furthermore, heat is measured from the melting point of water, not from a being with infinite heat.

Since when did "the maximum in any genus [become] the cause of all in the genus?"

Charles Darwin.

 

You're missing the point. It isn't that God "Doesn't care", it's that he forgives. You did a bad thing. He looks past it. It's as simple as that.
If you murdered, stole, and drop kicked nuns all your life, and in the end you were truly sorry about it and asked God for forgiveness, then in a way the drop kicking of the nuns really didn't matter.

If you murdered, stole, and dropkicked nuns, and in the end really didn't care and didn't believe in God, well then you go to Hell. But murder, theft, and/or dropkicking or not, that goes for whoever doesn't believe.

The point is, NO sin is unforgivable, it's just a matter of who's sorry about it.

 

Sweet. brb, drop kicking nuns and living a life of atheism only to convert at the last second.

Am I the only one who sees the enormous potential for abuse here?