Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum who created 'god' then

no one has ever answered this question, they just avoided it. now you silly believers have no choice.

ALSO, answer the classic;

if god is omnipotent, can he make a rock so heavy that even he can't lift it?

Rob,

No one created God - you fall into the trap of thinking temporally about it. Even in the Bible God talks about himself specifically in atemporal terms - He simply states - 'I AM'.

And as for the second part of your question, I am surprised that someone with your obvious intelligence would ask it.

It is simply nonsense and far from 'The Classic'.

Can God build a wall he can't climb?
Can God speak and not speak?
Can God exist and not exist?

They are all nonsense and are questions more worthy of a child.

Omnipotence is surely understood to mean all-powerful within the realm of what is logically possible.

I do not actually believe that God can create sentient beings with free will that do not have the ability to do things contrary to his will - the two things are logically incompatible. But I still don't have a problem with him being omnipotent and having the ability to impose his will upon those beings at any particular moment - it would simply mean that in that instance he is over-riding their free will.

Regards,

Blacknad.

if god is omnipotent, can he make a rock so heavy that even he can't lift it?
He can make it but holds no promises.

Blacknad, so you admit that even your 'god' is limited by logic. So who invented this logic? You seem to believe that everything needed to be created in order to exist. What about the rules of maths, the rules of physics? They were always there, were they? Are we in agreement? Therefore I argue that we are a mere product of these rules. And if a god existed to create us He would be a product of these rules. So, you see ultimately we would still be a product of these rules. I have decided to skip the whole ?god? part because I believe it to be a very false method of making myself seem special or important in some unconditional way.

P.S. once again you haven't actually answered my question. Why couldn't nature JUST BE? (It is not conscious so it couldn't say I AM)

Rob said - 'Blacknad, so you admit that even your 'god' is limited by logic.'

REP: Logic is 'the relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events'

Therefore, it is not logic that limits God. Logic is simply the reasoning method that allows us to understand what is a reasonable proposition about God and what is nonsense. It remains that the question 'can he make a rock that is so heavy he can't lift it' is sheer nonsense. The two ideas are irreconcilable.

Or I could simply play along with the nonsense and say 'yes - of course God can create a rock he can't lift... and he can also lift it at the same time'. - and it is just our small feeble minds that can't comprehend how that can be so.

Also, it is not the word omnipotent that defines what God can and can't do. What God can and can't do defines the word omnipotent.

Rob said - 'You seem to believe that everything needed to be created in order to exist.'

REP: 'Everything'? I have said that God was not created.

Rob said - 'And if a god existed to create us He would be a product of these rules.'

REP: The one thing does not necessarily follow the other. I would check your application of logic here. It is quite possible to conceive that God is so 'other' that he just exists outside of all your rules and that in creating our universe created the laws at the same time.
So from our limited perspective everything must be framed by these laws, but why does it follow that God is?

Why couldn't nature JUST BE?

Whether nature could JUST BE or not has nothing to do with my reason for believing in God. Those who say 'nature cannot JUST BE - so there must be a God' are mistaken in their logic. You cannot argue from one thing to the other. Equally you can't say 'Nature could just be - so there must be no God'.

God?s existence is neither provable nor disprovable by human reasoning.

I believe because of a wealth of experience and because I find the reliable historical evidence for Christ and his actions and words compelling.

Regards,

Blacknad

If anyone created god we did, in our own image. We also created goddess, but that's another thread. People who need a magical reason for doing the right thing, being the right kind of person, acting in right ways, need a magical person to answer to. god exists as a mirror of the culture and the people who define it. I cannot take the god of the Hebrew people with its fire and brimstone very seriously. If there is a god, I am at peace with my conception of it, and need no one to tell me yeah or nay. I won't argue the attributes, but I concede the necessity for some people to have a "Big Brother" to answer to for their transgressions. I have no one to blame but me if I don't get kerosene for heat or don't light a candle in the darkness. No one will be cursing or forgiving if I curl up with a nice warm cat. I am the cause of my own predicaments. No god to blame. What a shame. I could have a field day with the blame and shame if I should choose to do that. I'll refrain and leave the airwaves for someone else to fill.

Sometimes it's not a question of weather or not one has the intelligence, but weather or not they're using it...

[Edited]

The creation of organised religion seems to me to have been to create a frame work to guide people to lead a good life. The problem is if someone doesn't want to lead a good life there are loop holes in every major religion. Christianity "thou shalt not kill" on to "an eye for an eye, a life for a life". Islam "Jihad" which can be interpreted in any number of ways. You can not force someone to be a good person, who isn't. That is why religion has some monumental failures, Osama bin laden, Richard the lion heart. Seems like a good man according to history but let take a step back. Didn?t he take a toddle across Europe and wage a war on a bunch of people who said "This Christianity thing seems nice but not really my cup of tea." You can give someone any book and they can infer from it what ever they see fit. Religion is not the answer, but it?s not really the problem either.

NOT THE PROBLEM?! People are living a lie! There's so much that people miss out on because they believe in life after death. That's my main issue with religion.

"There's so much that people miss out on because they believe in life after death."

WHAT?
I?ve never meet any body who doesn't live there live because there's a life after death.
Suicide bombers don't count as they are, I can't think of the right term so let?s just leave it as, ****ing nuts.
I admire most people who have faith, as long as they realise it has no bearing on this life, but if it helps them come to terms with death and tragedy, let them believe.
As Kryten said in Red Dwarf when told that silicone heaven doesn't exits "Then where do all the little calculators go?"
Most people just don't like the idea of oblivion after death.

Beaker said - Most people just don't like the idea of oblivion after death.

I think I could live with oblivion. In fact, I definitely don't have an issue with it. Accepting God's existence has many benefits but not one of them would be worth believing in such a collosal lie.

I believe because of the historical evidence for Christ's divinity - there was never anyone like him, amongst other things. This is backed up by my present day experience of him and the transformative effects of encountering him. None of this is unreasonable. Maybe unbelievable - to others, but real nonetheless.

And Rob, sorry to be confrontational, but your assertions about religious people not fully participating in life is patently untrue. It displays an ignorance about religion and where it leads people who approach it without an agenda.
You are painting us all with the same ill conceived brush.
Christianity is not essentially about obeying rules that stifle the living of life (as you would put it) - it is all about relationships. It is clear from the Bible, no one is found acceptable by keeping rules, and rapists, murderers, the selfish, the 'scum' of this earth, and even George Bush may be accepted.

You should understand Religion before you become so evangelical in trying to attack it. Your words remind me of the very worst of Christian Fundamentalists.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Fine, I suppose since there is most likely oblivion when you die (like before you were born), it seems reasonable that you should choose to simply ignore facts that cause you sadness and enjoy your short life as much as you possibly can.

But look at it from the point of view of people who don?t believe in life after death. They want to live longer so lets say they join the cryogenics club, in the future if it is possible to revive them and the cryogenics club is not one big scam, they get revived and enjoy a much more fulfilling, longer life. Heck, the secrets of science (the biggest mystery in existence) may have even been revealed by then. Now THAT?S what I call living.

Then again, these people will also die some day regardless, so (still assuming that death is oblivion) it really doesn?t matter.

Blacknad,
I already know what you're going to say; "we do not ignore facts that make us sad..." well I'll save you the trouble and answer you. If you believe that your dead loved ones are somewhere 'looking down on you' or whatever, then you are ignoring facts -that they are DEAD, gone, finito. And yes, it may not be a proved fact that there is no life after death, but take for example, the fact that you have already been dead, for infinity years before you were born. Have you got any memories to account for that time ?NO!

I don't think memory can be used to prove or disprove past consciousness or past lives. We all can forget dreams moments after waking. It doesn't mean that we never dreamt. Also, most of us can't remember life as an infant. I think memory has more to do with language in that situation. Something to do with our internal dialoges. But we know that we were all infants.

There is no death only a rearrangement of particles, right?? So maybe there's no death of conscience, just a rearrangement of some kind. Maybe DEAD realtives are just rearranged. There are mediums that have entered into experiments and have proven their communications have a higher probability to be right compared to average people who guess or make up a story about the same individuals.

Leaving chaos-theory aside, if, in the middle of no-where you shouted out "I'M VERY THIRSTY!" then forgot that you have done that and no living thing heared or saw you, then, as far as you are concerned, it never happened.

As for this statement; "Maybe DEAD realtives are just rearranged." This is just so improbable that I'm just going to go ahead and say it's impossible. You'r dead relatives particles are most likely skattered across the globe blowing in the wind or something. NOT in an iguana's brain that's on a mission to reassure you that they are alive and well.

I think we should look to George for the answer to this one.

http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/carlin.html

VB

I don't like that guy.

Bellator,

There are better things you could have posted to support the No God idea, (even DA Morgan?s arguments come closer). Carlin?s article can be picked apart line by line to show misconception, misrepresentation, sweeping generalisation, lack of reasoning and quite everything that a scientific mind should decry. A rant starting with his inability to find God and concluding as a result that ?so therefore there is no God? is hardly reasonable and worthy of serious consideration. Whenever I talk to people who say they have tried the God thing and it didn?t work, I usually find that they approached God on their own terms and not his. He will not be what we want Him to be, but will remain what He is ? however unacceptable that may be to us. Funny, the article may be, but mockery doesn?t get at the truth.

If this is the sort of thing that bolsters your belief that God doesn?t exist, then you stand on shaky ground.

Regards,

Blacknad.