Who/what created god?

[M30USA]

Oh my... Well, we can just make up the physics as we go...

 

Incorrect. Physicists have already proven the existence of at least 11 dimensions, most of which are invisible. In fact, the visible ones are the minority. Brush up on your research before attacking the beliefs of Christians.

Edited July 31, 2014 by M30USA

[Robert Z]

Incorrect. Physicists have already proven the existence of at least 11 dimensions, most of which are invisible. In fact, the visible ones are the minority. Brush up on your research before attacking the beliefs of Christians.

 

And those are all spatial dimensions, not temporal. There is only one known temporal dimension.

 

Also, the existence of additional dimensions is still purely theoretical. We only know that four exist - three in space and one in time.

Edited July 31, 2014 by Robert Z

[M30USA]

And those are all spatial dimensions, not temporal. There is only one known temporal dimension.

 

Also, the existence of additional dimensions is still purely theoretical. We only know that four exist - three in space and one in time.

 

You are correct. They are theoretical. But by qualification anything which is not observable and measurable cannot be proven by the scientific method. Many things which are "theoretical" are spoken of as if they're fact.

 

I'd also suggest that your understand of the term "spritual" is flawed. The Bible makes it clear that the spiritual world is physical--as strange as that sounds. You just can't see it with the eye.

[Robert Z]

You are correct. They are theoretical. But by qualification anything which is not observable and measurable cannot be proven by the scientific method. Many things which are "theoretical" are spoken of as if they're fact.

 

 

That isn't how it works. We develop theoretical models. The models suggesting the existence of additional dimensions still cannot be tested properly. It has been beyond the limits of our technology. But there are methods planned that allow for M-Theory [string Theory] to be tested properly, which if successful would be the first hard evidence for additional dimensions.

 

 

If it fails, it may well falsify M-Theory, which would mean simply that the theory is either inaccurate or just plain wrong, and perhaps there are no additional dimensions.

 

I'd also suggest that your understand of the term "spritual" is flawed. The Bible makes it clear that the spiritual world is physical--as strange as that sounds. You just can't see it with the eye.

 

 

What are you talking about? I never said anything about "spiritual". I was talking about the total nonsense posted about physics.

 

 

Edit: I think you read spatial to be spiritual. Spatial, as in "space".

Edited July 31, 2014 by Robert Z

[central]

Not as logical...can you substantiate your claims with a logical argument? Or are you limited to insults (the main "logical/scientific" evidence presented by the majority of atheists)...this will let me know if I'm wasting my time.

 

Of course I can - but I'll just refer you to many of the excellent books on cosmology that address this topic logically and from a scientific perspective. There are also many good books on anthropology that explain human nature and the rise of superstitious thinking in an attempt to explain the world.

 

You may consider those a waste of your time, of course, if you're unwilling to consider or understand logical argument. If you think my post was insulting, then you missed the point. It was more on the level of a sarcastic counterpoint to unsubstantiated superstition - IMO.

[bippy123]

Sort of like the multiverse, only not as logical or real.

 

Most likely, man created god to explain things he didn't understand.

 

 

Please of please purveyor of great wisdom tell us what is so logical about the multiverse in which we cant see or validate these multiverses expect in the mind of a few physicists who have a good imagination. If you had bothered to do any reading at all you would have seen the one of the most solidly excepted theorems called the BGV theorem states that if the multiverse is true even it has to have a beginning, so you cant use the universe or the multiverse as a first cause.

 

 

The fact that you use the same tired old "God did " God of the gaps argument shows that your intellectually too lazy to even want to know these things and your happy with your dogmatic atheistic cultic beliefs.

 

 

This is the first cause argument

The First Cause Argument by Peter Kreeft

 

 

This is the BGV argument

 

 

 

 

Or Maybe Just maybe these old goatherders were chosen by God to purvey the truth of his word to us.

 

 

My subject of expertise is the shroud of turin which I have studied for 5 years. That started out as a curiousity which I really didn't believe was real at the beginning, but I was in a religious forum and a large contingency of atheists came in and yelled as if they won the lotto or something "the shroud of turin has been replicated , finally its proven to be a fake"

 

 

I thought at first big deal, but I was wondering to myself what was the big deal about the shroud that made these atheists lose their cool in this way.

I started first researching the shroud at skeptical sites to see what the evidence was against it.

 

 

The more I studied it the more I started to realize this is most likely the burial shroud of the historic Jesus but when I started to study the image on the cloth, this was when I started to think it was very reasonable to believe that it was caused by the resurrection of Christ.

 

 

Just because a book of old doesn't mean it doesn't speak truth or the ultimate truth. Just saying it doesn't because it was written 2000 years ago is an argument from assumptions and an argument from ignorance.

 

 

im available by email anytime to discuss the shroud as I know all the arguments for and against it. There is a very good reason why it makes atheists scared.

 

 

If your happy being an atheist stay far away from the shroud, you wont like what it tells you and what you will find.

[bippy123]

There's a lot of talk on here about "god" but can I ask what one you're talking about? Zeus, Shango, Hanuman the Hindu monkey god etc etc. There have been thousands of gods throughout history so why we should all think the biblical god is the only one that's real is beyond me.

 

The fact that you didn't know that most of those other Gods were know by historians to be written of in mythical style writing should help u in ruling most of them out. The fact that you don't know much about the others doesn't make them all mythical, its just makes you too intellectually lazy to do your research. Your response is usally found on most pseudo logical atheist crackerjack box sites and even the more intelligent atheists know that your argument is an old , silly and debunked one.

 

 

You can start by reading about the criterion of historicity then progress to the fact that the new testament has the best historicity of any ancient book or figure.

 

 

A mind is a terrible thing to waste

[darkmoon]

I have a theory but no proof. Here it is:

 

God is energy lurking in Dark Matter that always was trying to figure out what went wrong with the particle game.

 

say that without the professional cosmologists' jargon

 

what are...

dark matter

particle game

 

I am fascinated, intruiged

[Victoria7]

i know that ppl will say it is all hooey

but apart from that...how did god come about?

 

any thoughts?

 

Did the universe have an creative designer?

 

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)

 

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)

 

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)

 

It seems science has agreed that there must be a God. So who created God?

 

God is nothing which doesn't need creation.

[ThisIsTherapyOkay]

we did. We also created santa and the boogeyman~~~

[todreaminblue]

And 13.8 billion years ago, what time was it?

(and by whose clock?)

 

Useta just love debatin' infinity when I was 10.

 

I sorta like the idea of something existing beyond our understanding.

Creates a certain sense of humity (as opposed to humiliation.)

 

 

asa child ...i was always the one who got to say infinity plus one......they would say you cant do that and i would say why not?

[littleplanet]

Well, I'm kinda glad the pen I just dropped didn't float. And that a hall of mirrors bounces reflections perfectly toward infinity.

Natural laws like gravity keep my feet on the ground (they kinda like it like that) and that natural and wonder can be expressed in the same breath.

We can play at gods inventing miracles, I suppose...

but natural laws can still kick out butts back into line.

 

And that little star twinkle that just breezed in to say hello for the first time in a million years...that's an awful lot of lonely travelin'.

Distance is as close as a hug - or as far away as a missed thought.

[littleplanet]

asa child ...i was always the one who got to say infinity plus one......they would say you cant do that and i would say why not?

 

 

Maybe the plus one is the tipping point?

[bippy123]

Not as logical...can you substantiate your claims with a logical argument? Or are you limited to insults (the main "logical/scientific" evidence presented by the majority of atheists)...this will let me know if I'm wasting my time.

 

 

Yopur expecting common sense from an atheist? If you are then I got some prime beach front property in Alabama that you would really love

[bippy123]

You can't ask some one to provide a logical argument when your own argument is a faith, and not logic, based one.

 

 

 

You think your opinion is right because your book says so, and that is not logic, its faith. There is nothing wrong with that opinion, but if you do not wish to come to the table with logic and reason, you do not get to demand dissenting opinions do the same.

 

 

I can accept your belief as your belief, and still disagree. Can you do the same ?

 

 

Your confusing Christian faith with fideism , which shows that you have not actually studied Christian philosophy or Christian Logic. The first cause argument is a philosophical argument based on logic, and it philosophy professor Peter Kreeft explains it beautifully here.

 

 

The First Cause Argument by Peter Kreeft

 

 

The argument is basically very simple, natural, intuitive, and commonsensical. We have to become complex and clever in order to doubt or dispute it. It is based on an instinct of mind that we all share: the instinct that says everything needs an explanation. Nothing just is without a reason why it is. Everything that is has some adequate or sufficient reason why it is.

 

 

 

 

Philosophers call this the Principle of Sufficient Reason. We use it every day, in common sense and in science as well as in philosophy and theology. If we saw a rabbit suddenly appear on an empty table, we would not blandly say, "Hi, rabbit. You came from nowhere, didn't you?" No, we would look for a cause, assuming there has to be one. Did the rabbit fall from the ceiling? Did a magician put it there when we weren't looking? If there seems to be no physical cause, we look for a psychological cause: perhaps someone hypnotized us. As a last resort, we look for a supernatural cause, a miracle. But there must be some cause. We never deny the Principle of Sufficient Reason itself. No one believes the Pop Theory: that things just pop into existence for no reason at all. Perhaps we will never find the cause, but there must be a cause for everything that comes into existence.

 

 

 

 

 

Now the whole universe is a vast, interlocking chain of things that come into existence. Each of these things must therefore have a cause. My parents caused me, my grandparents caused them, et cetera. But it is not that simple. I would not be here without billions of causes, from the Big Bang through the cooling of the galaxies and the evolution of the protein molecule to the marriages of my ancestors. The universe is a vast and complex chain of causes. But does the universe as a whole have a cause?

 

 

Is there a first cause, an uncaused cause, a transcendent cause of the whole chain of causes? If not, then there is an infinite regress of causes, with no first link in the great cosmic chain. If so, then there is an eternal, necessary, independent, self-explanatory being with nothing above it, before it, or supporting it. It would have to explain itself as well as everything else, for if it needed something else as its explanation, its reason, its cause, then it would not be the first and uncaused cause. Such a being would have to be God, of course. If we can prove there is such a first cause, we will have proved there is a God.

 

 

Why must there be a first cause? Because if there isn't, then the whole universe is unexplained, and we have violated our Principle of Sufficient Reason for everything. If there is no first cause, each particular thing in the universe is explained in the short run, or proximately, by some other thing, but nothing is explained in the long run, or ultimately, and the universe as a whole is not explained. Everyone and everything says in turn, "Don't look to me for the final explanation. I'm just an instrument. Something else caused me." If that's all there is, then we have an endless passing of the buck.

 

 

God is the one who says, "The buck stops here."

If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a great chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing. If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a railroad train moving without an engine. Each car's motion is explained proximately by the motion of the car in front of it: the caboose moves because the boxcar pulls it, the boxcar moves because the cattle car pulls it, et cetera. But there is no engine to pull the first car and the whole train. That would be impossible, of course. But that is what the universe is like if there is no first cause: impossible.

 

 

As you can see here Christian Faith is reason as well as belief. What do you think the apostle paul said to the greeks in Corinth. Did he say believe or your dumb and stupid? NO, he said "come let us reason together"

 

 

If you believe that Christian faith is all belief with no reason and logic then you obviously haven't read Saint Thomas Aquinas's 5 ways which anyone deep in philosophy will tell you is a masterpiece of logic and reason.

[BetheButterfly]

i know that ppl will say it is all hooey

but apart from that...how did god come about?

 

any thoughts?

 

In Hebrew, the Name of God (initials being YHVH) basically means that He is who He is.

 

A Hebrew scholar explained that YHVH was, is, and will be.

 

While God Himself does not seem to say how He came to be, people can of course wonder. Personally, I think time is created by God for the rest of His Creation, and that time itself didn't exist until God created it.

 

Since in that case, time does not exist before God, it is hard to say when God was not, and then became, especially since his name implies always existing... in the past, present, and future.

 

God's always being is a mystery to beings whose existence is marked by time. Humans have a timeline; when we are born and when we die is notable. YHVH however is outside the realm of time, which again is hard for humans to comprehend, since we are bound by time. My lunch break is over, talking about being controlled by time.

[Disillusioned]

It begs the question of how a bunch of ancient Mid-Easterners who were prone to having hallucinations, could be so freakin' smart that they could make contemporary scientists look like idiots.