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

[Subduction Zone]

All things that begin to exist require a cause. If God never began to exist, then He does not require a cause. Hence certain of his titles: First Cause, Unmoved Mover, etc. The challenge for the skeptic is to demonstrate that an eternally existent being is a logical impossibility.

It is the other way around. The burden of proof is always upon the person claiming that something exists. Theists know that they will fail this burden so they falsely try to shift the burden of proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not sure how broad the term "creationist" is. Never-the-less, I have the same feeling about non-godists. How can they suspend their disbelief in the alternative theories? Ah well, different strokes I guess. Ever wake up slowly in the morning and go through several mental places, each one totally logical until the next one totally debunks it? Waiting for the pudding.

What "alternative theories"? What testable and falsifiable theories are out there besides the major ones that people find in the sciences?

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

I'll do my best....

First off, you can't simply classify an entire system of beliefs as being that of a mental disorder.

I didn't mean to classify it as a disorder. I guess I should have chosen my words more carefully. I wanted to know why some people can believe two opposite things regarding the question of existence.

Whether you like it or not, we all have those beliefs... all of us. Things we "know" but we don't even "know." For example, the average person "knows" how the U.S. came to existence and who wrote the constitution bla bla bla. But to be quite honest, none of them know. Typically, the ones who fight so hard to defend their beliefs are typically those who have built a life around said belief. So, to accept that the belief may be wrong means your whole life was a lie. This is a very uncomfortable for humans, we hate it.

Agreed.

So... I guess now that I've brought a little attention to the condition we all share, let's examine the belief in God before God. IMHO, I liken it all to a computer program. It's all a fantastic illusion of code and energy, but it's all the same energy source. Whatever flipped the switch (e.g. creation/big bang/who knows), the electricity came on and avatars came to life. Now.... 46 billion years later on a spec of dust, we're arguing about the guy in the sky with the beard, who's actually a cow, but held by a turtle, flies a flaming horse and brings the dead back. Now, while I quasi-mock religious beliefs there, I also feel there's some truth to them. All cultures share similar details around the flood, adam and eve, etc.... there is truth to it. Scientifically that passes the smell test by way of independent verification... loosely. The problem is everyone claims ownership and true knowledge over details they can't possibly know. "God has a beard" like really? I've never met him, doubt it's a "He" in the sense of anything we could comprehend, and who gives a **** what "that" looks like, is, etc. Even if we built a telescope that could see through Heaven's Window and booya, we proved there's a God, it changes nothing. We are still left on a spec of dust arguing about something so far removed from everyday life that we're sacrificing everyday life in order to debate that which does not matter. This is not me attacking you either, by the way, this is a developing point so bare with me here.

So, I'm your average {InsertBeliefSystemHere} {InsertNationalityHere} living in {InsertCityNameHere} and damnit, I know that {InsertOriginTheoryHere} is true. There's unfortunately no way for me myself to test any of these wild assertions being handed to me that I know of, so... I guess I better start filling in the blanks there so I can find a social circle that also believes {InsertVariableBeliefs+Desires/Effort to Achieve} is what {InsertOriginTheoryHere} is all about. Now comes Joe Schmoe who thinks {InsertOriginTheoryHere Where OriginTheory != SelectedOriginTheory}. Man f*** that guy, what does he know? What an idiot! I mean... if he's saying {OpposingOriginTheory} that means {SelectedOriginTheory} is wrong and that's all I know.
^ This is where our core is attacked... and any good machine defends it's core with a vengeance unless controlled to do otherwise.

Don't get too upset over people who can't listen. All {InsertOriginTheoryHere} people are not crazy... just trying to make sense of a world that doesn't make sense.

As a note; I feel it important that I should add that mainstream science is largely false. This is not me saying science is not the answer or trying to weigh in on any of that whole mess... just know that while one extreme of beliefs is being attacked (and rightfully so), that doesn't mean that what's being sold as the better answer is anything more than snake oil. There's truth out there, and then again there's only more questions. The key is to let go of the details and just be humane. Truth comes from experience, and experiencing diversity exposes that truth as really, it's the silver lining we're all looking for.

There's a quote from the movie gladiator that.. if you actually consider the response, and in the context of the movie, well it's powerful.
When preparing to attack the Germane-ans, Quintus turns to Maximus and says: "People should know when they're conquered." To which Maximus turns and replies "Would you Quintus? Would I?"

We all believe we're open minded and taking into consideration everything.... but we're rationalizing animals, not rational animals. We fight to the death to defend that which we don't understand, and we're all guilty in some way.

I couldn't agree more. All I wanted to know is how people who believe what they believe and will defend it with every breath tackle contradictions in their beliefs.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

To all my dear creationist friends

Depends on the god? Some were "promoted" humans or other lifeforms and some where simply born of other gods.

No... atemporal means "independent of or unaffected by time" Definition of ATEMPORAL which means that there would have to be some time existing to be independent of or unaffected by...

We were in normal time, but God was using Daylight Savings?

God is uncreated. Always was and always is. The uncaused cause of everything else.

Aristotle could be very smart and very dumb at the same time.

If he was created He would not be God

Who says? Is there some objective rule book or something? Does someone have a copy of "The Biology of Divinity" textbook on their shelf?

 

[ExVasterist]

Kudos to you for recognizing that we are "open to" certain possibilities but that these "possibilities" are not doctrinal certainties with us. Most people I've encountered don't seem to get this.

Well I've noticed there are a few types of mormons, sure they are share the same beliefs, but a good portion of them do not think like the now minority of mormons (thankfully).
The General Mormons I've met are ones born & raised outside Utah, they are the majority, and tend to be a lot more open to other viewpoints of the bible and try their best to help others see the good, even in the obvious bad parts of the bible, and don't shun or bash people for their opinions. For the most part, this type tries its damnedest to be as positive as possible even when dealing with the extremely negative.

The Minority Mormons are mostly those born & raised in Utah, a small portion of them don't act like this and are trying to change that, basically eliminate this minority in a positive sense. Mostly to others and mormons that aren't part of this minority see them as arrogant, "holier than thou", about as open as a cracked rock, have racist tendencies, try to shove their beliefs down people's throats instead of letting them choose & grow into it at their own pace (like the General types do), carry abnormally high expectations of others (Accept the truth or You're evil kinda attitude), basically they are what is becoming the new definition of "Bad Mormon".

I once explained to some missionaries about one missionary that felt overbearing and very much like she was judging us, and the missionaries immediately cracked up saying "Yup, definitely born in Utah!"

I've also heard of another Sect of Mormons, but based on the opinions of mormons I've met, they say they are Lost. Apparently do things differently than the usual mormon like taking multiple wives instead of one, their prophet is always female (I guess as a way to be more different than the Utah based one or maybe to spite them), and they share the same arrogance all across the board as the Minority Mormons born in Utah.

 

[David T]

Were laws of physics created or do we just happen to live in a universe that happened to have the laws of physics that made our existence possible?

No its a divine computer.

 

[ExVasterist]

I didn't mean to classify it as a disorder. I guess I should have chosen my words more carefully. I wanted to know why some people can believe two opposite things regarding the question of existence.
All I wanted to know is how people who believe what they believe and will defend it with every breath tackle contradictions in their beliefs.

Well about the defending part:
When thinking about God, the same one who is worshipped by Muslims, Catholics, Christians, and Mormons (mostly the the minority of mormons, the general types know god doesn't need defending), its mostly cause the bible demands it.

Take this for instance:
(Just an example - not saying this is what religion is to anyone who is a believer)
(And for Rule 6: this is not a suggestion of doing or committing anything illegal, it is an example)

You have a sibling, that sibling is kidnapped by The Mafia, and they expect you to work your butt off for them. They want you to work for them, you'll get compensation but not as much as those willingly part of the Mafia, and if trouble arises, you have to defend them to your dying breath, you have to not spread their secrets, or involve the police in any of their activities.
Price if you don't comply with their demands: Your sibling dies.
Reward if you do comply with their demands: You and your sibling are well taken care of and will NEVER have to worry about money, bills, food, luxuries, the best education, and they'll ensure your sibling never comes to harm by them or anyone else, your sibling will be treated as prince/princess.

So with that example, think of God as the ultimate being who has absolute control over your existence. He lets you choose to follow him or not, lets you choose to be good or bad or a moderation of both, but every choice you make has consequences & rewards - like training a dog to learn the difference between "Good Dog" & "Bad Dog". If you follow his commands and be good, you get Paradise. You do not follow his commands, and don't say "I'm sorry" to God in your prayers, then you go to Hell.

Now consider the "Heaven or Hell" bit. You as a mortal reads a book talking about this deity, many many people believe this Deity is real (they don't know for sure, but they don't want to risk the chance that if they ignore it & are wrong about that deity not existing), you don't know with 100% certainty whether or not this Deity exists.
If you believe the Deity is real, you too would defend it as that Deity demands it.
Course if you don't believe this deity exists, why would you defend it if you didn't believe?

Yeah, they say he is a powerful deity that could end creation with a thought, bestow never ending paradise on us for being good followers, but he also threatens that if you refuse him, all you'll get is eternal punishment. Now as a hypothetical Believer, would you want Eternal Paradise or Eternal Suffering? Every single believer on the planet agrees, they want paradise and will do whatever their Deity commands them in order to go Paradise instead of Hell.

That Answer your question?

 

[InChrist]

Humans and other creatures are created beings, therefore have a Creator. God is eternal, does not have an origin, and is not a created Being, so God does not have a creator.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Humans and other creatures are created beings, therefore have a Creator. God is eternal, does not have an origin, and is not a created Being, so God does not have a creator.

And the reliable evidence that supports this claim is ... ?

 

[Jedster]

Bazinga?? Sheldon??

Indeed so,

 

[Grandliseur]

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?

So, you guys believe in Abiogenesis, evolution, and that a singularity exploded, or rather inflated and created all things out of nothing. This chaos god of yours even made things so complex and beautiful that we have a branch of science dedicated to copying it, transferring this, (Biomimetics) over to our material goods we ourselves make. Wonder how your chaos god got to be so smart !

Yet, you being blind to your own nonsense cannot accept that we have things you consider nonsense which we are perfectly happy about. You are the only one not getting it, yet, you still can understand your own nonsense. How queer !

Aren't you just a little tiny bit confused here thinking you are standing on a higher pedestal than ours, except yours is totally in the dark as to how and who did things.

Just go about believing in your chaos god, and your hope for the future. Ohh, sorry, you don't have any hope for the future except dying forever, and have the earth become uninhabitable according to the best prophet scientists you have in a soon to come future.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Okay, so if god is infinity, what does that mean for us?

Nothing because it isn't our nature as humans. There are things that are just the way they are? There is a reason my right hand is created and designed the way it is and my left is designed the way it is.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ah, and yet you don't have an answer for it, only a childish retort.

No - actually I've addressed the silly 'gotcha' more than once.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not sure how broad the term "creationist" is. Never-the-less, I have the same feeling about non-godists. How can they suspend their disbelief in the alternative theories?

Excuse me?

May you please elaborate a bit on this? I don't know what you mean.

 

[LuisDantas]

^ pretty dumb question childishly posed.

Actually, it is a very reasonable, even unavoidable question.

How come creationists expect people to agree that "everything needs a creator" and make an exception for that supposed creator?

I don't think that makes any logical sense until and unless it is acknowledged that it is a simple appeal to aesthetical preference with no value whatsoever as an argument.

 

[ArtieE]

So, you guys believe in Abiogenesis

I don't "believe" in Abiogenesis, it's just the best theory we have until some theist can show that his particular creation god exists and created life. Or a Raëlien can show that life was created by aliens. Or somebody can provide evidence for any other convincing theory.

evolution

I don't "believe" in evolution, it's just the best theory we have until some creationist can provide enough evidence for creation to beat out all the evidence we have for evolution.
Evolution Is Finally Winning Out Over Creationism, Especially Among the Young

and that a singularity exploded, or rather inflated and created all things out of nothing.

If you are referring to the Big Bang theory that came from a Catholic Priest...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître
Your "you guys" covers a lot of different people...

 

[Faux Goat]

If God never began to exist, is it possible for him to exist?

Why wouldn't it be? Clearly something must be eternally existent, the so-called "Ground of Being," or else you have the problem of an infinite regression of causes.

Actually, the challenge for the monotheist is to demonstrate that one such thing can exist, but more than one is impossible. Good luck with that.

More than one is possible, if they are also all one. Hence the doctrine of the Trinity.

To elaborate a little, the Christian position is that God is three in person but one in being. Because each person of the Trinity is infinite, and because all true infinities are infinitely overlapping, the being-ness of the Father is not separable from the Son, which is not separable from the Holy Spirit. It's sort of like a three-way Venn diagram where each of the circles stretches out forever.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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?

Can you explain the schizophrenia that lies beneath:

1. The universe is everything that came from nothing.

2. Everything other than the whole universe has an origin.

or this:

1. The universe (or multiverse) is eternal, uncreated.

2. Therefore, there cannot be possibly be an eternal, uncreated God.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Actually, it is a very reasonable, even unavoidable question.

How come creationists expect people to agree that "everything needs a creator" and make an exception for that supposed creator?

What "creationists expect" likely depends on the individual creationist. My concern is with the way you and others define the claim and the consequent conundrum: I suggest that the reference to 'everything' is thoughtless at best. So, no, the argument is not simply that "everything needs a creator" but that we live in a causal universe in which all natural phenomena are the product of natural causes and, therefore, either (a) there was no first cause, or (b) that first cause was preternatural.

There are fairly well known critiques of the cosmological argument, but this in no way renders the OP any less condescending and puerile.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why wouldn't it be? Clearly something must be eternally existent, the so-called "Ground of Being," or else you have the problem of an infinite regression of causes.

That is not known. Neither of these two claims that you just offered is logically known to be true. They are not even likely to be true.

More than one is possible, if they are also all one. Hence the doctrine of the Trinity.

Why so? And why three as opposed to any other number, or even to arbitrary and changing numbers?