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

[InChrist]

So no reliable evidence at all since the many contradictions in the Bible demonstrate alone that it is hardly "inspired".

There are difficulties in the Bible, but I don't agree with your idea of contradictions. Have you read the Bible or are just just repeating the claim of "contradictions" you've heard from others?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are difficulties in the Bible, but I don't agree with your idea of contradictions. Have you read the Bible or are just just repeating the claim of "contradictions" you've heard from others?

Read it, not in one sitting, but I have looked into some of the contradictions myself. One cannot be an honest Christian and deny the fact that there are contradictions. Sometimes they are minor, sometimes they are major. The problem is that even a minor one demonstrates that it is far from perfect.

 

[InChrist]

Read it, not in one sitting, but I have looked into some of the contradictions myself. One cannot be an honest Christian and deny the fact that there are contradictions. Sometimes they are minor, sometimes they are major. The problem is that even a minor one demonstrates that it is far from perfect.

I certainly would not deny that there are things in the Bible which appear to be contradictions, yet I don't think there are any real contradictions. What do you believe constitutes a contradiction?

 

[savagewind]

I am wondering why there are people who can imagine that the physical universe always existed and that it had no creator, but the same people can't imagine that God always existed and had no creator.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I certainly would not deny that there are things in the Bible which appear to be contradictions, yet I don't think there are any real contradictions. What do you believe constitutes a contradiction?

Look up the meaning of the word. What you have already admitted that you are going to do is to rationalize those contradictions away. That does not mean that they do not exist. For example minor contradictions such as the number of warriors in a battle can be found. Whether it was a man or angels, the number of them, who saw them, and the condition of the tomb are all different in the various gospels. Those are contradictions.

 

[InChrist]

Look up the meaning of the word. What you have already admitted that you are going to do is to rationalize those contradictions away. That does not mean that they do not exist. For example minor contradictions such as the number of warriors in a battle can be found. Whether it was a man or angels, the number of them, who saw them, and the condition of the tomb are all different in the various gospels. Those are contradictions.

I'm not going to rationalize away anything or claim that there are not differences in some of the details in various accounts of the scriptures, but differences such as you have mentioned do not qualify as contradictions. On the contrary, the accounts in the scriptures which include variation in the different perspectives of the author and the details they each chose to record only further validate the amazing way the scriptures are inspired by God working through humans, because while the variation and even mistakes of humanity are there, the overall message and theme of the scriptures remains consistent throughout.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not going to rationalize away anything or claim that there are not differences in some of the details in various accounts of the scriptures, but differences such as you have mentioned do not qualify as contradictions. On the contrary, the accounts in the scriptures which include variation in the different perspectives of the author and the details they each chose to record only further validate the amazing way the scriptures are inspired by God working through humans, because while the variation and even mistakes of humanity are there, the overall message and theme of the scriptures remains consistent throughout.

Sorry, but it if was "inspired" then basic facts should be consistent. As I predicted, you are rationalizing. Just for your entertainment, this site should keep you busy for days:

BibViz Project - Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized

One can't both claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and then ignore the countless contradictions, failed prophecies, bad science and worse morals in it.

 

[YmirGF]

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?

Man created god to explain that which he did not know. Anything else?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I am wondering why there are people who can imagine that the physical universe always existed and that it had no creator, but the same people can't imagine that God always existed and had no creator.

Imagining, or believing in the existence of something greater than ourselves(God(s), Soul, infinity, etc.), can provide many positive benefits for our psyche. But these are only mental constructs, and thus, not real. History has demonstrated how our society has benefited from the results of man's natural curiosity of natural phenomenon. The problem is, people do not claim that they simply believe that their beliefs are real, they claim that they KNOW that their beliefs are real. Ask any believer whether they believe or know that their God is real. No prizes for the answer. Skeptics, Atheists, and other Rational Freethinkers, simply want to know, "How do you know?".

Using man's imagination to somehow imply an inconsistency or contradiction, is just not very well thought out. So, when you claim that you believe that what exists in your imagination is real, no one cares. But when you claim that you know what exist in your imagination is real, then you must demonstrate it. Even if all of science was proven wrong tomorrow, you must still prove, explain,. or demonstrate why your knowledge is true. Don

 

[savagewind]

Imagining, or believing in the existence of something greater than ourselves(God(s), Soul, infinity, etc.), can provide many positive benefits for our psyche. But these are only mental constructs, and thus, not real. History has demonstrated how our society has benefited from the results of man's natural curiosity of natural phenomenon. The problem is, people do not claim that they simply believe that their beliefs are real, they claim that they KNOW that their beliefs are real. Ask any believer whether they believe or know that their God is real. No prizes for the answer. Skeptics, Atheists, and other Rational Freethinkers, simply want to know, "How do you know?".

Using man's imagination to somehow imply an inconsistency or contradiction, is just not very well thought out. So, when you claim that you believe that what exists in your imagination is real, no one cares. But when you claim that you know what exist in your imagination is real, then you must demonstrate it. Even if all of science was proven wrong tomorrow, you must still prove, explain,. or demonstrate why this knowledge is real. Don

What knowledge? That the same people who mock the people who believe God has no creator themselves believe that the universe wasn't created?

I think the universe is real. Do you agree or must I prove it to you?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

And a challenge to believers is to demonstrate eternity exists. Lets face it, its you making claims of the unknown.

Yes, to a fly, we are eternal as long as it wasn't alive during our birth or death.

Heck, a dog giving birth to a cat would refute the theory

A pile of dirt becoming a man would refute the theory. Getting a non-twin sister from the rib of a man would refute the theory.

Since all Deities are culturally-specific(no Black Gods in America, or Japanese Gods in Australia) there is no doubt that all deities are created from the mind of man.

I disagree. Many gods and goddesses were more like cultural heroes (and the Lord Bubba taught our tribe how to make pointy sticks and we became great hunters). They were born, lived, reproduced, died, sometimes came back, and all had limited jurisdictions. Even the ones in charge of "the world" or "the heavens" or "the seas" were really only involved in local areas, because one would visit the temples or whatever of other local gods if you took a long trip. I think this idea of an omnimax cosmic being is the result of seriously over-thinking and desire to ignore historical precedent when it came to what was divine.

Tribe 1: Our goddess taught us how to farm.
Tribe 2: Oh yeah? OUR goddess sacrificed her life and her body became the farm.
Tribe 3: Oh YEAH? OUR GOD is the parent of that goddess and ORDERED her to sacrifice herself to become the farm because OUR GOD is in charge of all the lands.
Tribe 4: OH YEAH? (Etc etc)

Read it, not in one sitting, but I have looked into some of the contradictions myself. One cannot be an honest Christian and deny the fact that there are contradictions.

I was reading through James recently for a book I'm writing.
James: Don't judge a book by its cover. Don't be mean to your brothers in Christ.
Also James: Anyone who doesn't hate the planet they're on are satanic and deserve to die.

I'm like: O_O

 

[Truly Enlightened]

What knowledge? That the same people who mock the people who believe God has no creator themselves believe that the universe wasn't created?

I think the universe is real. Do you agree or must I prove it to you?

I do believe that the Universe exists, because the evidence is so overwhelming, consistent, and verifiable. So, providing proof is unnecessary. Let me ask you, "Do you believe or know that a God(s) exists?". Also, "Do you believe or know that the Universe is eternal?". If you answer that you KNOW, then you must provide the KNOWLEDGE(evidence) to support this claim. Since both claims are extraordinary, it is you that have the burden of proof.

Many earlier scientists(Galileo, Newton, Einstein, etc) were mocked for their beliefs and ideas, until the evidence supporting their knowledge(Gravity, Electromagnetism, General Relativity, Tectonic Plates, Heliocentricity, etc.) became irrefutable. Beliefs require absolutely zero evidence, therefore zero knowledge can be gained. Beliefs have zero predictive properties, therefore zero specific applications. For thousands of years, beliefs have maintained the same unchanged primitive rhetoric, hence the same questions remain unanswered.

If this is just you asserting your unsupported beliefs, then why can't you just keep it to yourself? Why do you and others, insidiously infect our schools, our children, our government, our abilities to excel and learn, our individuality, and even try to stifle the nature of being human? Do you think that somehow your unproven, illogical, and immature beliefs, are somehow rational or real? Do you think that truth is number dependent? Thousands of people said that the king was wearing clothes, but it only took one to see that he wasn't. As long as man is cognizant of his own mortality, he will supplant this irrational fear with the irrational belief that God(s), myths, and superstitions also exists. It may simply be nature's way of coping with man's awareness of mortality. ??? Don

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Yes, to a fly, we are eternal as long as it wasn't alive during our birth or death.


A pile of dirt becoming a man would refute the theory. Getting a non-twin sister from the rib of a man would refute the theory.


I disagree. Many gods and goddesses were more like cultural heroes (and the Lord Bubba taught our tribe how to make pointy sticks and we became great hunters). They were born, lived, reproduced, died, sometimes came back, and all had limited jurisdictions. Even the ones in charge of "the world" or "the heavens" or "the seas" were really only involved in local areas, because one would visit the temples or whatever of other local gods if you took a long trip. I think this idea of an omnimax cosmic being is the result of seriously over-thinking and desire to ignore historical precedent when it came to what was divine.

Tribe 1: Our goddess taught us how to farm.
Tribe 2: Oh yeah? OUR goddess sacrificed her life and her body became the farm.
Tribe 3: Oh YEAH? OUR GOD is the parent of that goddess and ORDERED her to sacrifice herself to become the farm because OUR GOD is in charge of all the lands.
Tribe 4: OH YEAH? (Etc etc)


I was reading through James recently for a book I'm writing.
James: Don't judge a book by its cover. Don't be mean to your brothers in Christ.
Also James: Anyone who doesn't hate the planet they're on are satanic and deserve to die.

I'm like: O_O

So if you love the planet that you are on, you are satanic and deserve to die? Charming philosophy! I'm sure this is NOT your personal view. Tell me what does man creating God(s) that are culturally-specific, have to do with a God(s) level of popularity or importance? Nothing! Let me put it another way, in Australia, do Aboriginal deities look like Aboriginals? In America, do American deities look like White Americans? In Japan, do Japanese deities look like Japanese people? What do you think would happen if we changed this? What if we simple represented the true image of Christ, as the majority of religious scholars agree, into all the churches in the world. Although this would probably be the best way to expose the folly of man's need for answers, his superego would simply dominate, and competition between which is the best cultural likeness would ensue. Eventually, we would return to creating a new God(s) that is more culturally-specific again. Such is the nature of being human. But on a small scale this could be clearly demonstrated(although no minister would participate). Take one church, and represent Christ as appearing Black. In another church, have Christ as appearing Chinese. And, in another church, have Christ as appearing Indian. I'm afraid that any religious message or belief will become irrelevant to the culture's majority's ethnicity. Soon the congregation would dwindle in attendance, and eventually disappear.

What does your own intuition say? This behavior supports one of my theories, confirming man's evolved need to compete. Don

 

[Etritonakin]

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?

Many are afraid to consider God's origins -or do not believe there can be any explanation at that level. They do not -or do not want to -challenge the belief that God has eternally existed as a complex, self-aware creator.

One thing that science and religion/faith both seem to agree upon is that, at some point or level, something simply just was. Something cannot come from ABSOLUTE nothing -so SOMEthing "always" existed.

Some religious don't believe God necessarily developed -and some of science do not believe that any supreme being exists or developed.

EDIT follows....

From what I have read in scripture, God does not claim that which some believe about him -or they make assumptions about what is written.

God states that he IS both the beginning and the end -that which was, and that which will be.
That indicates DEVELOPMENT.
God can be eternal even if he was -developed from -the most simple state possible -as that which developed has "always" existed.
That would actually explain his position as all-powerful, all-knowing, etc.

Some things must precede self-awareness, creativity, etc., and some things only become possible with each stage of development of self-awareness and creativity.

The Big Bang and other events which transformed that which was into specifically the universe and that which it contains (especially mass-produced life which has no personal input until becoming aware as already-complex and extremely capable beings) indicates an intelligence -even if that intelligence does not readily personally reveal itself.

If it is believed that the development of self-awareness and creativity is inherent in the nature of "nature", then there is no reason this could not apply to "everything".

Unlike mass-produced beings which have no personal input until they become aware as already-complex and capable beings, an original would have had all personal input as it became a more complex self capable of personal input. In other words, God would have increasingly self-created as God became a self-aware "self" -though it would not be possible for God to have been personally responsible for that of which God is composed -or its basic nature -which would be the foundation of absolute truth.

As with anything, "Everything" could not become certain states until it decided to become those states, and it's ability to decide would necessarily be preceded by those states which allowed the development of such and preceded such.


I do not know that these things are all true, but I have not seen that they are contrary to scripture.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There is no violation of that law. Do you understand it?

The Law of Conservation was not a Law immediately until after Planck time. So you now have Law and order coming from chaotic disorder, which is a trick of evolutionists as well. We can also have a pile of concrete and metal, with bulldozers sitting atop it, and it will never become a skyscraper without the advent of intelligent designers.

So please explain again how everything came from nothing, so that "even I" can understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Law of Conservation was not a Law immediately until after Planck time. So you now have Law and order coming from chaotic disorder, which is a trick of evolutionists as well. We can also have a pile of concrete and metal, with bulldozers sitting atop it, and it will never become a skyscraper without the advent of intelligent designers.

So please explain again how everything came from nothing, so that "even I" can understand.

Even then it appears to have been in effect. I see that you do not understand that law.

And you appear to be very very confused. We were discussing cosmology, not evolution.

Try to get over your confusion and ask your questions again.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Even then it appears to have been in effect. I see that you do not understand that law.

And you appear to be very very confused. We were discussing cosmology, not evolution.

Try to get over your confusion and ask your questions again.

Interesting, I must misunderstand you. You are saying matter could not be created or destroyed at the "time" when all matter and energy first appeared?

Or are you saying the Big Bang singularity was pre-existent and eternal, which begs the goddidit question, doesn't it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting, I must misunderstand you. You are saying matter could not be created or destroyed at the "time" when all matter and energy first appeared?

Or are you saying the Big Bang singularity was pre-existent and eternal, which begs the goddidit question, doesn't it?

Matter being created does not violate that law. That has been known for over one hundred years. Like I said, you do not understand that law. You can pretty much bet that whenever a creationist claims about a violation of a physical law that they do not understand that physical law. Over one hundred years ago Einstein demonstrated an equivalence between energy and matter. You will still screw it up, but one correction at a time. Do you see your error yet or do you need further explanation?

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

But my question to you @FlyingTeaPot is, why does god or any deity need to be created or have an origin? Why do you want so badly to prove or disprove the existence of whatever deity?

Hi there! It is not my contention that god or any deity needs to be created. It is simply the logical extension of what a creationist believes. I merely want to understand the creationist's perspective.

I'm sure you already know by now that most believers are gonna quote their scripture, mention some experience they had involving that deity, or will say that god is beyond our comprehension.

You have to look at it from their view to understand where they are coming from. I was a believer once, I once believed that God of Catholicism (yeah, glad I'm no longer catholic) is infallible, infinite in pretty much everything, but lost the faith when I started to really question things that are not in the bible, and because I couldn't get any sort of answer from God, I then thought "Maybe he hates me, maybe he'll ignore me regardless of what I say or do, and maybe he isn't really there".

I use to think that God wasn't real, but then realized "How could I know? Yeah, he didn't respond, but how does that mean he isn't real?" best way to treat it: You call someone, you leave messages, they never respond to those messages, is it right to assume the person you're calling isn't real because they never pick up?

I still can't say that I believe in God, but I won't act like there is no deity just cause I can't communicate with one. If it was bull, why do so many MILLIONS believe their god is real & say they have communicated with their god?

I know its hard to accept their viewpoint since there are so many contradicting things to do with God. But if you're trying to look for a logical reason, honestly they are threatened with hell (eternal torment) if they refuse to believe and are promised paradise (eternal happiness & peace) if they believe.
If you look at it from their view, wouldn't it be illogical to refuse, to risk going to a realm of eternal torment simply because you don't believe?

I know you want answers, but from scientific stand point, I doubt you'll get the answers that you want, they'll all basically be the same answers that every believer would say.

While I agree with most of what you've written here, I think you may have misunderstood my motivation in asking the question. I want to understand how different people justify their beliefs to themselves and to the world. That's it.

 

[ExVasterist]

While I agree with most of what you've written here, I think you may have misunderstood my motivation in asking the question. I want to understand how different people justify their beliefs to themselves and to the world. That's it.

Justify? Care to elaborate on what you mean?

I was raised catholic, but I don't believe anymore, not completely anyways. And though I have a strong animosity towards Catholic belief (because Inquisition, Crusades, Vatican censorship, they welcomed Hitler with open arms, etc), I'll still find myself thinking about the 7 Deadly Sins, even when attempting to join another belief. (Attempting: I think they are good, then I see the red tape & contradictions in their beliefs).


EDIT:
Here's some answers I found via Quora, asking pretty much the same question:
https://www.quora.com/How-can-seemingly-rational-people-justify-their-belief-in-God