Jump to content


Photo

Who Created God?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
36 replies to this topic

#1 AcidBurnz

AcidBurnz

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Location:Pakistan
  • Interests:I am a theistic Evolutionist, but I am not religion at all...I dont fear my God, as he loves us all...
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Pakistan

Posted 10 July 2005 - 12:56 AM

Tell me who is the creator of God, if they say everything that is created is created by a God...

#2 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 July 2005 - 01:13 AM

The better question would be: Does a God need to be created?

#3 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 July 2005 - 02:42 AM

God was not created. His name YAWWEH from the hebrew in the Bible means "I am I am". He is the self-existing uncaused 1st cause.

Terry

#4 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 July 2005 - 02:51 AM

God was not created.  His name YAWWEH from the hebrew in the Bible means "I am I am".  He is the self-existing uncaused 1st cause.

Terry

View Post


I agree. The same question would also go along with big bang. Where did the matter come from? Who created it?

The first existance does not need to be created or we would not be here.

#5 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 10 July 2005 - 05:08 AM

Only that which had a beginning requires a cause. Science has demonstrated that the universe, ie nature, had a beginning. When & if science demonstrates that God had a beginning...

#6 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 July 2005 - 04:38 PM

Only that which had a beginning requires a cause. Science has demonstrated that the universe, ie nature, had a beginning. When & if science demonstrates that God had a beginning...

View Post


Science is not looking for God, therefore will never find God. They are more into proving God does not exist, and cutting off anything that has to do with God. Creation, free speech of religion, etc...

http://www.theregist..._science_fight/

Those who do not worry about what people might say or think show the true nature of science, and their hate for God, as shown in that link.

#7 tobomori08

tobomori08

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Atheist
  • Chicago, IL

Posted 20 July 2005 - 07:10 AM

Tell me who is the creator of God, if they say everything that is created is created by a God...

View Post


It's a good question, AcidBurnz. It concerns me that folk feel this question doesn't need to be answered/shouldn't be answered/cannot be answered, etc. but they never allow such lax standards when it comes to questioning the validity of evolution theory.

It's a more relevant question now we have, in America, folk trying to push Creation (but only the Judeo-Christian version) in public schools through the back door of unproven "Intelligent Design".

Ducking and avoiding the question, or agreeing that we evolved due to some master plan devised by intelligent designers is unhelpful. I can buy the theory that we were "created" to an extent, but all that does is shift the question of origins back to include the creator. Sadly, no one seems willing to step up and explore that - they'd rather attack science for its lack of concern with God. It's not for the skeptic to prove what he doesn't believe in, that's a job for the faithful.

So far no one has answered AcidBurnz' question (I'd like to know too), so it still stands...What are the origins?

#8 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 20 July 2005 - 08:37 AM

It's a good question, AcidBurnz. It concerns me that folk feel this question doesn't need to be answered/shouldn't be answered/cannot be answered, etc. but they never allow such lax standards when it comes to questioning the validity of evolution theory.

It's a more relevant question now we have, in America, folk trying to push Creation (but only the Judeo-Christian version) in public schools through the back door of unproven "Intelligent Design".

Ducking and avoiding the question, or agreeing that we evolved due to some master plan devised by intelligent designers is unhelpful. I can buy the theory that we were "created" to an extent, but all that does is shift the question of origins back to include the creator. Sadly, no one seems willing to step up and explore that - they'd rather attack science for its lack of concern with God. It's not for the skeptic to prove what he doesn't believe in, that's a job for the faithful.

So far no one has answered AcidBurnz' question (I'd like to know too), so it still stands...What are the origins?

View Post


My response still stands:

Only that which had a beginning requires a cause. Science has demonstrated that the universe, ie nature, had a beginning. When & if science demonstrates that God had a beginning...

It should also be noted that detecting and understanding design does not require any prior knowledge of a specific designer.

I should also note that attacking the premise that we exist due to unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes is not the same as attacking science.

Intelligent design stands on the evidence and science is not about proving. If anything got thru the back door the ToE did...

#9 Geezer

Geezer

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Judaism Orthodox
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • 3rd Rock from the Sun

Posted 20 July 2005 - 09:22 AM

The question is strictly philosophical and NOT science. Unless you have an open and honest mind, you will never grasp the concept (out of personal choice or ignorance).

Try to picture G-d before there was a universe.

Where is G-d?

Most people imagine G-d being everywhere, expanding and filling up everything. But to be everywhere, you need a space. And space hasn't been created yet! Infinite means beyond space. Boundless. Incorporeal. No boundaries, no mass, no place.

If it feels like your mind just hit a wall, relax. It means you're getting a sense of the infinite dimension. There is a built-in difficulty in trying to grasp "beyond space" because we're stuck in a finite world. Everything we perceive is filtered through our finite minds with finite vocabulary. Even though we seem to define the quality of being beyond space, we can't fully grasp what our definition really means.

Besides infinity in space, there is also infinity in time. 


From:
http://judaism.about...s_godnature.htm

Another good article about why G-d created the world:
http://www.aish.com/...Love_Part_1.asp

#10 tobomori08

tobomori08

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Atheist
  • Chicago, IL

Posted 20 July 2005 - 10:32 AM

Why not duck the question entirely and suggest everything merely exists without a beginning?

Better yet, let's leap off the premise: everything that exists began. It's entirely reasonable. Otherwise I must ask for more information on the laws governing how some things began and others didn't begin - where can I find more reading material on this theory? The question still stands.

I agree with you: detecting and understanding design does not require any prior knowledge of a specific designer, but you seem to contradict this by talking about unintelligent, blind/undirected processes as if you need a specific designer behind them.

Is gravity unintelligent, blind/undirected? Is the sun? We have these tremendous and mysterious forces at work in the universe, do we really need to attribute them to a higher life form (God, intelligent designers)? Can't we study them without retreating into supersition and personification, particularly when that frequently involves placing humans at the center of some master plan (which to me sounds more like mankind's self-worship than a search for understandable fact)?

What evidence does ID stand on? What evidence have we for the existance of these designers? Does this evidence support or oppose the tired supposition that proof denies faith?





My response still stands:

Only that which had a beginning requires a cause. Science has demonstrated that the universe, ie nature, had a beginning. When & if science demonstrates that God had a beginning...

It should also be noted that detecting and understanding design does not require any prior knowledge of a specific designer.

I should also note that attacking the premise that we exist due to unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes is not the same as attacking science.

Intelligent design stands on the evidence and science is not about proving. If anything got thru the back door the ToE did...

View Post



#11 Geezer

Geezer

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Judaism Orthodox
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • 3rd Rock from the Sun

Posted 21 July 2005 - 06:08 AM

Well, the OP was "Tell me who is the creator of God, if they say everything that is created is created by a God..."

Why move the goalposts now?

#12 Roland Deschain

Roland Deschain

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Location:The Calla
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New York

Posted 23 July 2005 - 04:13 PM

Well, the OP was "Tell me who is the creator of God, if they say everything that is created is created by a God..."

Why move the goalposts now?

View Post


It's not moving the goalposts because no one has gone and answered the question. All they have given has been philosophical and requiring that you actully believe in god to begin with.


Science is not looking for God, therefore will never find God. They are more into proving God does not exist, and cutting off anything that has to do with God. Creation, free speech of religion, etc...

http://www.theregist..._science_fight/

Those who do not worry about what people might say or think show the true nature of science, and their hate for God, as shown in that link.


All you provided with that link was to show fanatical christians trying to overturn something that has been taught in a science classroom for years. All the NAS is trying to do is do exactly what those fanatical christians are doing to them, attacking the weak points.

Science is to be taught in a science classroom. if you want to teach a child creationism and such, do what many parents like mine did and put them in a Catholic school or teach them at home.

#13 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 July 2005 - 10:34 PM

R.D. said:

All you provided with that link was to show fanatical christians trying to overturn something that has been taught in a science classroom for years. All the NAS is trying to do is do exactly what those fanatical christians are doing to them, attacking the weak points.

Science is to be taught in a science classroom. if you want to teach a child creationism and such, do what many parents like mine did and put them in a Catholic school or teach them at home.


First off, who do you refer to as a fanatical christian? Anyone who fights for the right for God to be heard? If so, you just called every Christian at the forum one.

It's not moving the goalposts because no one has gone and answered the question. All they have given has been philosophical and requiring that you actully believe in god to begin with.


What's the difference in believing in a glob of matter that it's origins cannot be answered as well? So science has the same problem, and is in the same boat. Unless someone here has the Nobel Prize winning answer that no other scientist has. Anyone?

#14 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 July 2005 - 10:41 PM

tobomori08 said:

Why not duck the question entirely and suggest everything merely exists without a beginning?

Better yet, let's leap off the premise: everything that exists began. It's entirely reasonable. Otherwise I must ask for more information on the laws governing how some things began and others didn't begin - where can I find more reading material on this theory? The question still stands.


Do you have the Nobel Prize winning answer for the beginning of matter?

#15 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 July 2005 - 05:58 AM

Science is to be taught in a science classroom.  if you want to teach a child creationism and such, do what many parents like mine did and put them in a Catholic school or teach them at home.


This is something that we all agree on. The question is how do we define science?

If we only taught that which can be obseved in real time, then molecules-to-man evolution would get about 5 milliseconds in the classroom.

Atheists have no more right to teach origins science with a materialisitic bias than Christians do to teach creation science with a biblical bias. Either teach both, or teach neither.

The whole point in teaching evolution in the classroom is to undermine God's word, it has nothing to do with teaching science.

Its rather arrogant to dictate that people have to spend alot of money(which many don't have) not to have their religous beliefs attacked by sending their kids to "State Schools", especially when they are compelled to do it by law.

Terry

#16 Guest_Aristarchus_*

Guest_Aristarchus_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 July 2005 - 10:29 AM

Atheists have no more right to teach origins science with a materialisitic bias than Christians do to teach creation science with a biblical bias.  Either teach both, or teach neither.

View Post


In my own opinion, science classes should teach what the majority of scientists believe. History classes should teach what historians believe etc. Science classes for example should not teach where God came from. However, I think if you can get even 5% (or some such number) to state that they believe in an alternative theory of evolution, then I think that should also be noted.
However, in my own opinion, science classes should make a big point of where scientists have strong evidence and where scientists have only untested speculation. I would even be happy with a poll of some sort of scientists. My guess of what we might get ...

What was around before the big bang is mere speculation.
The evidence for the big bang is very good, but maybe not excellent.
The evidence of the for an old earth (around 4.7 billion years) is very strong and has very high confidence (judging by the Kansas hearings, most IDers accept this too).
Theories and clues of how replicating chemicals might have begun replicating has certainly improved over the last 50 years but still one can't say we have much confidence.
Replicating chemicals --> cell. Lots of interesting ideas but still speculation (although some pretty good evidence as to when it happened (between 4 and 3.7 billion years ago)
Single cells --> multicellular. Have a good bound on when this happened, but still speculation as to how (although there is progress).
Excellent evidence for long evolutionary periods and transitional species between most evolutionary lines.
Evidence for comon descent is good but early periods were likely "quirkey" (e.g., there is evidence for chomosome doubling, cells co-opting other cells etc).

Evidence of a worldwide flood. None. I don't think any trained geologist believes in this, but I am sure someone here will point out one or two.

So this is what I think would be taught if you polled scientists about what is believed by the community. I do agree that those areas that have low confidence should be taught as such. And of course, scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory should be presented. But simply because a handful of scientists have an alternative view (whether it includes aliens bigfoot or theories of the ice ages), does not mean it should be taught as an alternative.

#17 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 24 July 2005 - 10:24 PM

"In my own opinion, science classes should teach what the majority of scientists believe. "

What a joke. The majority of scientists used to believe that the planets orbited around the earth. They were wrong. The majority has been wrong in many many cases. The "majority" of the world hates Christians. The majority of "scientists" believe in evolution, even though they're not scientists at all. Wouldn't you think that science classes should teach THE TRUTH? Dr. h*vind was debating an atheist, and h*vind pointed out 20+ lies in the textbooks. The atheist stood up and said something like, "You're right Mr. h*vind, all those things in the textbooks are lies, but if we're going to take the lies out of the textbooks, you have to figure out what we're going to replace it with." If all you have is lies to back up your theory, then get a new theory.

Now, on to the God having a beginning. This idea can be approached logically.
A: God created time
B: God is therefore greater than, not bound by, and outside of time.
C: If God is not bound by time, he does not require a beginning.

The only reason that we think God would have to have a beginning is because we live in a world that is bound by time. Things only have beginnings because time exists. No time, no beginning needed. He simply is.

#18 The Debatinator

The Debatinator

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 198 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 25 July 2005 - 09:46 AM

God is not affected by time and is ageless and therefore has no beginning.

Even if that was actually a plausable arguement against God's existance what would you do to explain all the intelligent design anyways?

#19 Geezer

Geezer

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Judaism Orthodox
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • 3rd Rock from the Sun

Posted 26 July 2005 - 06:56 AM

It's not moving the goalposts because no one has gone and answered the question. All they have given has been philosophical and requiring that you actully believe in god to begin with.

So are you a Christian or not?

All you provided with that link was to show fanatical christians trying to overturn something that has been taught in a science classroom for years. All the NAS is trying to do is do exactly what those fanatical christians are doing to them, attacking the weak points.

Science is to be taught in a science classroom. if you want to teach a child creationism and such, do what many parents like mine did and put them in a Catholic school or teach them at home.

So, are you a Christian or not?

#20 Roland Deschain

Roland Deschain

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Location:The Calla
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New York

Posted 27 July 2005 - 01:51 PM

I'm Roman Catholic, not that it A: has anything to do with it or B: matters.


First off, who do you refer to as a fanatical christian? Anyone who fights for the right for God to be heard? If so, you just called every Christian at the forum one.


The rights of god should be fought for, but anyone who who fights for what they believe in without concession is fanatical. You cant have everything, it's give and take.


Atheists have no more right to teach origins science with a materialisitic bias than Christians do to teach creation science with a biblical bias. Either teach both, or teach neither.


While this is only a little true, it happens anyway. But the difference is, science teaches evolution through discoveries. In Human evolution, we have the Austrolopithecus Genus, some of the first upright "Human-like" beings. With these skeletons, we can show that evolution of humans has occured. Creationists cannot point to a skeleton and say, "That's Adam and Eve, our first ancestors."

The whole point in teaching evolution in the classroom is to undermine God's word, it has nothing to do with teaching science.


Can you prove that? Have you had a teacher actully say that to you?

Its rather arrogant to dictate that people have to spend alot of money(which many don't have) not to have their religous beliefs attacked by sending their kids to "State Schools", especially when they are compelled to do it by law.


Not really. I was sent to a catholic school for the first 3 years of my schooling. Uniforms and everything. It cost a little more then having me sent to a regular state school. When I transfered to a regular state school, not much changed save for the lack of things like prayer and the uniforms. No law compelled my parents to send me there.

Also, if people went so ridged with their beliefs and understood patience and understanding, they wouldn't believe that a basic science class was attacking their beliefs.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users