For the love of god, can someone explain who created god?

[BilliardsBall]

Sorry, I meant to say "multi-verse". And sooner or later there will be a root cause but we may never find it. The fact is that the universe needs a creator as much as god needs a creator. The same "logic" that leads to the conclusion that the universe needs a creator leads to a conclusion that God needs a creator. The "Sumthin must have made it" argument falls flat on its face.

No, I think both perspectives have an issue with infinite regression, on their face.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No miracle. Just a natural result of 13.8 billion years of time and chemical and biological evolution.

How is that not miraculous?! You seem unaware of the low probabilities involved, even given longer than 13.8 billion years!

 

[LuisDantas]

How is that not miraculous?! You seem unaware of the low probabilities involved, even given longer than 13.8 billion years!

It is because the time involved is so huge that the probabilities are not nearly as low as you seem to assume.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I think both perspectives have an issue with infinite regression, on their face.

My point exactly. That sort of argument does not prove anything. If theists want to make a case for their gods they need to find another source.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How is that not miraculous?! You seem unaware of the low probabilities involved, even given longer than 13.8 billion years!

Most anti-evolution types do not know how to use probabilities. Every "odds argument" that I have seen to date is a strawman of what is thought to go on. One needs no math to refute such arguments, one must merely demonstrate that the methodology is bogus.

What makes you think that the odds are so low?

 

[Apologetics]

To all my dear creationist friends, I have a simple question which you might divine from the title.

In another thread, I came across a post whose author clearly believes that god created everything including us. What I want to understand is, how come creationists can suspend their disbelief in regards to the origin of god, and yet in the same breath vehemently deny the possibility of origin of life without a creator.

Can someone explain this apparent schizophrenic belief?

To all my dear creationist friends, I have a simple question which you might divine from the title.

In another thread, I came across a post whose author clearly believes that god created everything including us. What I want to understand is, how come creationists can suspend their disbelief in regards to the origin of god, and yet in the same breath vehemently deny the possibility of origin of life without a creator.

Can someone explain this apparent schizophrenic belief?

When we look around at all the abundant life that surrounds us day by day. Because of our highly intelligent brains . Its an automatic response to that abundant life that we asked the question where did all this come from. Since all that abundant life is so complex its mind boggling to try to understand how it all came to be. It all indicates a designer. Example The sound waves that come out of our mouth when we speak our ear drums are designed to hear that specific wave length otherwise we could not hear speech. Our eyes were designed to see a specific range of electromagnetic spectrum wave length we call light. Not infrared or ultra violet. Most of our internal body functions are on automatic . We dont have to communicate to our T cells and B Cell and tell them to destroy foreign objects, they do that automatically without us think about it. Our brain literally performs trillions of action every second. Its just beyond our comprehension.

And thats just the point I wanted to make. Those of us that come to these kinds of logical conclusions realize that there is a maker, a designer. That maker /designer has a grand plan that he has prepared for his creation. Thats what the Gospel of Christ is all about. The maker/Creator revealing Mankind is plans for eternity.

When we were designed .We were designed with certain limitations. Ex we can not flap our arms and expected to fly off into the sky. We cant see through walls with our natural eyes Ect. So likewise Our intellect was also designed with limitations. When we conclude by looking around that all of this had to be designed, and if it was designed then there has to be a designer. We automatically ask the question where did the designer come from or who made him. You could actually take that line of reasoning to infinity.

We we purposely designed not to understand that perplexing question that all believing men ask Where did God come from?

If you do not believe in a designer/maker and believe all this happened by chance. You still have the same perplexing annoying question where did all the material come from?
You can talk about the chaos theory and throw in millions of years to get it all done.
But you still have the same problem as an evolutionist.

The Believer of the Maker asks where did the maker come from?

The atheist asks where did the material come from that made the universe and all we see hear and feel.?

Neither one has or ever will have that answer.

Weather you believe in a creator or not. The same perplex question exists.

Where did it all come from?​

 

[ImmortalFlame]

When we look around at all the abundant life that surrounds us day by day. Because of our highly intelligent brains . Its an automatic response to that abundant life that we asked the question where did all this come from. Since all that abundant life is so complex its mind boggling to try to understand how it all came to be. It all indicates a designer. Example The sound waves that come out of our mouth when we speak our ear drums are designed to hear that specific wave length otherwise we could not hear speech. Our eyes were designed to see a specific range of electromagnetic spectrum wave length we call light. Not infrared or ultra violet. Most of our internal body functions are on automatic . We dont have to communicate to our T cells and B Cell and tell them to destroy foreign objects, they do that automatically without us think about it. Our brain literally performs trillions of action every second. Its just beyond our comprehension.

And thats just the point I wanted to make. Those of us that come to these kinds of logical conclusions realize that there is a maker, a designer. That maker /designer has a grand plan that he has prepared for his creation. Thats what the Gospel of Christ is all about. The maker/Creator revealing Mankind is plans for eternity.​

That's what's called a non-sequitur. Your argument is basically:

1) Our bodies and the way they function are complex.
2) ???????????
3) Therefore, we are designed.

The question is why do you think "complexity" is necessarily a result of design? What makes you think complex, organic, biological systems cannot arise through natural processes?

When we were designed .We were designed with certain limitations. Ex we can not flap our arms and expected to fly off into the sky. We cant see through walls with our natural eyes Ect. So likewise Our intellect was also designed with limitations. When we conclude by looking around that all of this had to be designed, and if it was designed then there has to be a designer. We automatically ask the question where did the designer come from or who made him. You could actually take that line of reasoning to infinity.

We we purposely designed not to understand that perplexing question that all believing men ask Where did God come from?

If you do not believe in a designer/maker and believe all this happened by chance. You still have the same perplexing annoying question where did all the material come from?

It's not "God vs. chance". "Chance" is not the only alternative to "intent".

You can talk about the chaos theory and throw in millions of years to get it all done.
But you still have the same problem as an evolutionist.

The Believer of the Maker asks where did the maker come from?

The atheist asks where did the material come from that made the universe and all we see hear and feel.?

Neither one has or ever will have that answer.

Weather you believe in a creator or not. The same perplex question exists.

Where did it all come from?​

The difference is whether or not you're willing to admit you don't know, or erroneously assert that everything came from an eternal creator. One is a guess based on nothing but speculation and/or wishful thinking, the other is an honest response that leaves room for further inquiry. Which do you think is better?

 

[ArtieE]

Weather you believe in a creator or not. The same perplex question exists.

Where did it all come from?​

 

[Audie]

Most anti-evolution types do not know how to use probabilities. Every "odds argument" that I have seen to date is a strawman of what is thought to go on. One needs no math to refute such arguments, one must merely demonstrate that the methodology is bogus.

What makes you think that the odds are so low?

Probably for one, the need for the answer to be goddidit.

For another, lack of the tools to actually look at probability in this.

Maybe it would help to have at least a little background
in organic chemistry.

It is not just the multiple billions of years involved.

The earth has around 330 million cubic miles of water.

There is an awful lot of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen around. Organic molecules-amino acids- even show up on comets!
A lot of chemical reactions work pretty fast. Put the mix together under
a wide variety of conditions, and anything that can happen, will happen.

Now if one of our creationists can show us why any particular reaction
(such as happen every day!) cannot happen and therefore God, let them
speak.

If they cannot identify the "barrier" between life and non life, and say why
it takes "God" to take that step, well, maybe they dont have much to say.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It is because the time involved is so huge that the probabilities are not nearly as low as you seem to assume.

No, there are numerous skeptical scientists and atheist scientists who are having trouble with the probabilities, logical, reasonable trouble.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, there are numerous skeptical scientists and atheist scientists who are having trouble with the probabilities, logical, reasonable trouble.

No, there is a mere handful of science deniers. Any large enough group will have some loons in it. By percentage the acceptance of evolution is almost universal among scientists.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Most anti-evolution types do not know how to use probabilities. Every "odds argument" that I have seen to date is a strawman of what is thought to go on. One needs no math to refute such arguments, one must merely demonstrate that the methodology is bogus.

What makes you think that the odds are so low?

At the risk of oversimplifying, life is proteins telling other proteins how to make proteins. I need 30 such just to clot blood without bleeding out from a small wound. My liver has over 500 known functions.

I've heard both skeptical and religious scientists say/write that if every atom in the universe were carbon, and interacted with every other atom--abiogenesis and mechanistic evolution would still be a steaming crock.

 

[LuisDantas]

No, there are numerous skeptical scientists and atheist scientists who are having trouble with the probabilities, logical, reasonable trouble.

Eh. Sure there are. I totally believe you.

Or not.

No, there is a mere handful of science deniers. Any large enough group will have some loons in it. By percentage the acceptance of evolution is almost universal among scientists.

This.

I should expect so-called creationists to play fast and loose with facts, but it still impresses me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

At the risk of oversimplifying, life is proteins telling other proteins how to make proteins. I need 30 such just to clot blood without bleeding out from a small wound. My liver has over 500 known functions.

I've heard both skeptical and religious scientists say/write that if every atom in the universe were carbon, and interacted with every other atom--abiogenesis and mechanistic evolution would still be a steaming crock.

That is because you are relying on ignorant fools. By the way, name one skeptical scientist that supports your claim and has an expertise in that area. At best it looks like you are making an argument from ignorance.

You do not seem to realize that nature is not as random as you think that it is. The amino acids in proteins cause the protein to "fold". Basic chemistry limits those folds making the strawman arguments of creationists worthless. Like I said all that one has to do to refute an "odds argument" is to find the strawman.

 

[savagewind]

That is because you are relying on ignorant fools. By the way, name one skeptical scientist that supports your claim and has an expertise in that area. At best it looks like you are making an argument from ignorance.

You do not seem to realize that nature is not as random as you think that it is. The amino acids in proteins cause the protein to "fold". Basic chemistry limits those folds making the strawman arguments of creationists worthless. Like I said all that one has to do to refute an "odds argument" is to find the strawman.

I think that most people just hate to be called stupid so they must play along. You know?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think that most people just hate to be called stupid so they must play along. You know?

Most creationists are, of course, not stupid. But when one has to deny reality to maintain one's beliefs one begins to look stupid as a result. That is why they often argue out of desperation. Strawman arguments are not used by people that are sure of their beliefs. If one knows that one is correct one will find no need to distort the views of others.

 

[savagewind]

Most creationists are, of course, not stupid. But when one has to deny reality to maintain one's beliefs one begins to look stupid as a result. That is why they often argue out of desperation. Strawman arguments are not used by people that are sure of their beliefs. If one knows that one is correct one will find no need to distort the views of others.

What reality?

 

[Audie]

Most creationists are, of course, not stupid. But when one has to deny reality to maintain one's beliefs one begins to look stupid as a result. That is why they often argue out of desperation. Strawman arguments are not used by people that are sure of their beliefs. If one knows that one is correct one will find no need to distort the views of others.

Stupid is as stupid does.

The fundamentalist churches that promote creationism
draw their members from the lower rungs of the socio-economic-education ladder.

Atheists tend to be far better educated than creationists.

We have yet to see any creationist make a sensible,
educated objection to evolution.

 

[Audie]

What reality?

That realm that is not composed of strawmen and
falsehoods?

 

[savagewind]

If the physical universe need have no creator, then why do people say that if we believe that it does then The Creator needs a creator also?

The physical universe is present and real. Correct? It has no creator. Correct?