who created God

last SG · 2012-07-11T19:59:57+00:00

What God?Hindus have their Gods.Muslims have their God.Christians have their God.Primitive people have their God.And there are many more.All claim their God...

BroInChrist SG

yes what I find odd was the belief in an imaginery god and holy book which was written by ancient primitive people who doesnt have our knowledge now. the people in that era was illiterate and science was rudimentary. when you tell them it was acts of god then, people who not challenge you, but if you ask a modern man that earthquake as an act of god, to hell with your act of god.

Well, there are people today who believe in little green men from outer space and all kinds of alien UFO stuff, and of course the ultimate crazy belief that nothing created the universe. Looks like not much less "primitive" than those before us. Duh.

BroInChrist SG

I hope besides listening and reading the views of others' , you all have your own opinion.

If your belief is based on what you read and heard, then you would be no different from those who believe in holy books.

Some of Sam Harris views corresponds with mine, though not all. And I have not heard of him until that link.

Actually I think the majority of what we know is based on what we have read and heard.

Jacky Woo SG

Except your questions aren't the sort that says, I really want to know, but more of a mocking and scoffing remark. You honestly care for the answer? I don't think so. You will spit on ANY answer given you. But I don't expect you to admit that here.

seriously you expect people to take you seriously other than a lunatic when you command people to kill people who worked on sundays? come on, dun be a fool.

if this is not contemptible, I dunno what is. The other is testicles lol oh my.

[imdestinyz] SG

if this carries on, i see fireice coming in soon.

BroInChrist SG

seriously you expect people to take you seriously other than a lunatic when you command people to kill people who worked on sundays? come on, dun be a fool.

if this is not contemptible, I dunno what is. The other is testicles lol oh my.

I would expect sincere seekers to ask serious questions and take serious answers seriously. But I won't expect that from you. So thanks for admitting that you never intended to take the answers seriously and was only pretending to. I suggest you take your ranting to EH.

BroInChrist SG

"You failed to get the meaning about not having enough faith to be an atheist."

Please do elaborate.

"
No knowledge --> no faith --> no believe, Also, knowledge --> faith --> believe

" It is only recently that atheists redefine atheism as lack of belief so they can evade the burden of proof that comes with declaring that there is no God. It is an intellectually dishonest cop out. You like dictionaries ya? See http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.sg/2011/07/atheism-is-lack-of-belief.html?m=1"

You were thinking that a link from a blog would be convincing... see below
http://atheism.about.com/od/Atheism-FAQ-Questions/f/Dictionary-Definition-Atheism.htm

You do seemed to choose what you wanna believe... and lacked the initiative to seek beyond own's knowledge...

From the topic, the focus is on believe of God... not the asserted non believing... why the divertion?

Not having enough faith to be an atheist means that the less evidence you have for your position, the more faith you need to believe it (and vice versa). Faith covers a gap in knowledge. And it turns out that atheists have bigger gaps in knowledge because they have far less evidence for their beliefs than Christians have for theirs. In other words, the empirical, forensic, and philosophical evidence strongly supports conclusions consistent with Christianity and inconsistent with atheism.

By the way, your flow diagram is flawed. If you have no knowledge of something then you should zip your mouth and not speak ignorantly. But atheists do not keep quiet, they claim to know that there is no God.

Did you even read my link? I think not. Did you know that the blog writer used Dictionary.com to support his argument that defining atheism as lack of belief is really lame? So you think your link is better? The Noah-Webster's define atheism as the DISBELIEF or DENIAL of the existence of a God, or a supreme intelligent being. There is NOTHING about lack of belief. See http://www.1828-dictionary.com/d/search/word,atheism

So who is cherry-picking things to suit himself? You, not me.

Anyway, the focus is on what one thinks about the question "who created God". As mentioned, I have already commented on it. Have you?

BroInChrist SG

When there is evil there is good.

There maybe God, but there is definitely no God like a grand old man with a white beard seeing everything and rewarding every good deed carrying a stout wooden walking stick.. There maybe Devil, but definitely no Devil like a red skinned being with two horn and an arrowhead tail carrying a trident.

For want of a better word, God and all its variants is used for good, and Satan or Devil and all the bad spirits for evil.

Both God and Satan should they exist, would be equal. God can create religion and Satan can also create religion in order to win the eternal battle of good and evil. We humans are the pawns.

God would represent life, growth, flourshing, energy, happiness, fairness, compassion, strength, freedom, pleasantness, love etc and Satan represent constriction, degradation, sadness, stiffling, biasness, suppression, revenge, enslavement, hate, etc.

Different ethnic groups have different ideas of God and Satan. No one is wrong or correct. It is just their idea of the champions of good and evil. And they would want their community and others to adopt their belief for their own betterment and safety.

This discourse would go endlessly, and to get to the point I want to make in this topic about God is that God would be omnipotent and not petty, so it matters not to Him what "faith you belong to". Just chose to live the good life. It matters to Satan, for He represents evil and wants your unwavering allegiance to stifle humanity.

God "whatever you conceive Him to be" wants humanity to flourish, to progress, to advance, to be happy. It takes time to build. The reverse, Satan wants the opposite, and has the advantage because to destroy is easy. Thats why evil is rife while good is plodding along.

Nobody knows the truth about heaven, hell, reincarntion and rebirth, or curtains where death means zap! nothing. This is not the time to worry about it.

Human are different from other creatures, because of the ability to think more deeply.

And to decide what is better. Advance in harmony or regress in misery.

Think. Don't be afraid to be wrong.

You are right on some points but wrong in many.

Evil presupposes the existence of good. More importantly, it presupposes the existence of a moral law by which we judge what is evil, and this points to a moral lawgiver who is wholly good.

Christianity does not teach a bearded God or a fork-carrying red devil, so I think you must be referring to some other religions. The Bible teaches that Satan is a fallen angel which means Satan is a created being. Therefore he is NOT God's equal. Nevertheless Satan is a powerful evil being, but not all powerful.

While Satan treats us as pawns, God does not. God gave life to man while Satan comes to steal, kill and destroy. God loves man so much that He came in the flesh to die in order to redeem sinful man.

There are right and wrong views about God and the devil. We cannot be relativistic about the truth. The Bible teaches that right beliefs matter. Doing good does not qualify one for heaven at all. If it could then Jesus did not need to come and die for us. This is what Paul taught in the book of Galatians.

The truth about heaven, hell and spiritual things can only be revealed by God, not reasoned out by man. The Bible teaches that it is appointed for man to die ONCE and after that to face judgement. There is no reincarnation or second chance. So death is not the end.

Humans are different from animals because only humans are made in God's image. Humans can think because that's how God made us. But as a result of sin, our thoughts are no longer after the things of God.

BroInChrist SG

I certainly rejoice in the wisdom and interesting literature of the Bible. I used to learn and teach from it over the past 12 years after all. However, over the past 3 years, I have come to find certain portions of the text to be insightful whilst others horrifying.

I would agree with you that the Bible writes about things that one would find "horrifying", but the issue is not what kind of emotions you get out of reading it but whether what it says is true. The truth can be horrifying and unpleasant, but the truth is that which sets us free.

BroInChrist SG

As for original sin, I'm opposed to the idea that God made the world to suffer because of the 1st man's 1st mistake.
Its is inevitable that the fruit would be taken, perhaps Satan just wanna hasten the process. I mean, its there in the garden of Eden, well within reach of the duo. Why else its there? Its meant to give the eater the knowledge of good and evil. This could well be the answer to the missing link of human's evolution from apes.
The 1st thing the original duo realized after taking the fruit is that they were naked when they were for as long as they remember. It wasn't wrong before but now it became wrong after having the idea of good and evil.... so the sin spreads from there.
All was well and things were meant to be, became either good or bad with the judgement of self and others. There is no "good" without the "evil" and vice versa.

As for free will, its just an easily believable idea that one has the choice to be good or bad.
Personally, I make choices based of what I know(or not know) and experienced at that moment. My choice could change if what I know(or not know) or experienced was different. Even with seemingly random events, the causes and effects can be determined. With enough foresight, the course of actions could be determined.
Also, free will would be meaningless if someone else has the final say if one is eligible for the next stage.
However, the above does not discount the responsibilty of consequences. It just mean one has to be more informed, emphathetic, rational, controlled and sure before acting. Once acted, the consequences are inevitable.

As for the topic "who created God?", it boils down to the definition/s of God and the belief of the questionee. Else, it just a pretentious effort to take a shot at the religulous.

The first man did not make a mistake, calling sin a mistake is a mistake! It trivialises the enormity of rebellion against a holy God. In the natural world the consequences of one's actions is always felt by others. There are natural consequences and there are logical consequences. Our opposition and distaste that the effects of one's action should extend to others and his surroundings does not make it false. I believe the same applies to the spiritual realm. Sin affects and distorts everything. The whole creation groans until the time of restoration.

Is it inevitable that Adam and Eve would sin? My answer is NO. We could speculate all day about what might have been but the fact is that they did sin. The forbidden tree was there as a test of obedience which only makes sense if there is free will. If there is no free will it makes no sense to issue any commands to eat or not to eat. And it has absolutely NOTHING to do with humans evolving from apes. Being naked is not wrong per se, but sin distorted nakedness, which is why women are told to dress modestly.

So long as you are capable of making choices (regardless of whether made with or without knowledge) you are exercising free will. You should not confuse the amount of information with the ability to choose. Sometimes people have the information that smuggling drugs is wrong but they still choose to smuggle drugs. So you see, it is nothing to do with information or education at all. People act based on what they know, true, but they also can act in spite of what they know. And sometimes we also act when we have no information on hand. So I think this argues against determinism as well. And while free will can be suppressed, as in someone overriding your choice by force or other means, that does not negate the existence of free will. It may hinder your exercise of free will, but not the existence of free will. Moreover, it is meaningless to hold one responsible for actions if determinism is true. But it makes perfect sense under a free will view.

The definition of God can be taken from the dictionary, how come you don't use it? Here's one for you http://www.1828-dictionary.com/d/search/word,god

despondent SG

ok guys, back to the topic...i started this thread wif the intention to address the issue of whether God can be created and if he could, who created Him? ppl who do not even believe he exists can actually steer clear cos its not relevant to them...

i proposed thru a later post that perhaps we shld add the words ''finite'' or ''infinite'' before the word ''God''...that will make the qn clearer...

BroInChrist SG

would you believe in evidence based on observations, experiments, scientific instruments/apparatus, calculations/deductions than a book written by ancient primitive men? same with medicine isnt it. you want medications that is based on evidence than hearsay or hypothesis isnt it.

Failure to make distinction between OPERATIONAL science and historical science.

despondent SG

put it this way...When Lehmann Brothers collapse, did it collapse cos every member of the organisation became bankrupt? no...it collapse cos the founders themselves ran into huge debt and ended up in bankruptcy...u see, the leaders of the organisation made the wrong choices out of the freewill they had and it cost the whole organisation...likewise, Adam was the 1st human ever lived and he was the leader of mankind...so i am kinda amused why we can accept an entire Lehmann Brothers collapse to be due to its founders but yet cun accept the entire mankind collapse due to Adam's sin???

BroInChrist SG

Fallacy of false dilemma. Why should I have to choose between OPERATIONAL science or the Bible? Cannot choose both meh?

Yes, I want medicine based on evidence, not hearsay. What has that got to do with the Bible anyway?

BroInChrist SG

imagine the world, where we are all christians, believing in god. whatever we dun understand, we will say, it is god's work. there will never be improvement in society and critical thinking. when one dies from a new diseases, that must be god's will.

to believe in god is impediment to knowledge and curiosity.

Again the FACTS of history refutes your hackneyed views.

The founders of modern science were mostly believers in God. There you go.

despondent SG

so u shld also want thebible based on evidence...tats wad he means...

anyway, how many of us will make sure the medicine given by the doctor will work on us before consuming it? assuming if the doctor gave us a medicine we have nvr taken before...do we get someone else to be our guinea pig 1st n see if the medicine given by the doctor is indeed ok for our consumption?

despondent SG

he will say the founders lived in an era where technology and medicine wasnt tat advanced...so due to the lack of knoweldge tat we have in modern times, they were more inclined to attributing everything to God...

BroInChrist SG

Good analogy!

But I suspect that had everyone got a share of some rich guy's great wealth there would be no opposition at all.

BroInChrist SG

so u shld also want thebible based on evidence...tats wad he means...

Evidence for the Bible is not lacking at all. The fact is that many lines of evidence have been put forth but there are people who would deny them, not refute, but refuse to accept.

Your medicine analogy also good one. It shows that faith is being exercised even in everyday life.

BroInChrist SG

Ah..God of the gaps argument again.

But even in the 21st century, after we know so much (or so we think), the more we discover that we don't know as much as we think we know. The complexity of the universe points all the more to an intelligent designer, God. Thus the Bible is true that God upholds creation.

despondent SG

well, u noe me...i dun quote from the bible or refer to the bible unless its essential to the non-believers...we are discussing wif ppl who dun believe in the bible so when u are in Rome, do wad the Romans do...

« Previous Page Next Page »