A question to the theists:
Who or what was the creator of god?

So god exists only in our imagination?
Or did we create him with our imagination and now he actually exists?

Well if beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then beauty only exists if you behold it. Imagination does not make things exist, they are just imaginings. God does not exist, but our imagination does.

By the way, I don't actually believe that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think beauty is independent of the observer.

A question to the theists:
Who or what was the creator of god?

If you tell me god just existed since ever, ill just say the universe etc. Existed since ever. So please dont use that argument, thanks.

If God always was God wouldn't need to be created.

I agree. Always and eternity are sublime concepts, right on the limit of our capacities?

If I remember correctly, Aristotle, and by extension the Greeks in general, believed that the world always was and ever will be, while the Hebrews believed it to be created and someday to end (the apocalypse). There almost seems to have been a trade off between infinities of time and infinities of space. An unlimited universe (unlimited being) for the Greeks (e.g. Parmenidies) was considered imperfect and thus impossible, whereas I don't think that infinite space (and this I am not sure of) for the Hebrews was such an anathema. An infinity of both seems a good compromise or synthesis to me.

so on the one hand you believe beauty is not imagined but exists independent of the observer while on the same hand denying this very same notion to be plausible of God? Interesting.

Yeah but you miss something in my statement, you have missed it this time and all the other times I have mentioned it. You don't want to hear it because it will break your god notion.

I never said that beauty can not be subjective. I never said that you can't decide what is beautiful. I never said that beauty is objective reality. I never said that beauty is permanent. All I said was it is not dependent upon the observer.

God is completely subjective. No one can agree on the properties of god because god is only what they want god to be. In the old days, they cherished a wrathful, vengeance that would smite and destroy but these days we not longer value this kind of behavior, so we turn to things like love and justice. We re-fabricate god to suit what we want god to be. God is not a subjective being, god is only our imagination.

The concept of god will exist even without the observer. Hows that for you? Can you understand it now? Or are you on ignore still?

Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.

I've never been on ignore. . .

"God is completely subjective" - you state that like it's a fact, when it would seem to me to be your subjective conclusion.

"No one can agree on the properties of god...." - So it's consensus we're after?

"We re-fabricate god to suit what we want god to be." - Do we re-fabricate scientific discovery to suit what we want it to be or do we simply come to a better understanding? I happen to think it's the latter.

Roll this around for a minute and see what you think. This is a quote from C.S. Lewis from the same book Mere Christianity that I quoted in the other thread:

Exactly, which implies it can not be an objective reality.

Well if I say, look out there is a bunny on your arm! Are you going to understand what I am talking about, if you believe bunnies to be spiders?

Yeah it is good to reform your understanding, when the evidence permits. However; science doesn't just make stuff up. Like I see here with the god concept, it just seems like stuff is being made up without any way to verify accuracy. In fact ALL the text conflicts with what was stated, so scripture doesn't even back up your claims.

The only problem is, desire is not based on something's existence. There is water so why don't I have the same desire for swimming as ducklings do?

What desire is there that the world can't satisfy? What immortality? What endless ice cream? Seventy two virgins? What? If you are saying heaven is the "other world" that this world can not satisfy, well you are wrong in my opinion. I do not find the concept of heaven desirable at all, not even in the least bit. How could I enjoy heaven, when I know someone else is suffering in the opposite of heaven? I couldn't and therefore heaven would become a hell for me. So what would you say I am desiring? This world? Funny.

" The argument points down an infinite corridor in a definite direction. Its conclusion is not "God" as already conceived or defined, but a moving and mysterious X which pulls us to itself and pulls all our images and concepts out of themselves. In other words, the only concept of God in this argument is the concept of that which transcends concepts, something "no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the human heart conceived" (1 Cor 2:9). In other words, this is the real God.
"

First of all statements from relativism like this are self defeating. If relativism is true then the assertion that relativism is false, is true which is contradictory.

I guess I need you to expound on this one because I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying a consensus must be reached about a truth?

The "God concept" is a complex and very personal thing. For the most part, people do not must make things up.

Now, there are new revelations but just like with science new theories must be able to conform/explain all previous conditions.

ALL the text does not conflict, however, our interpretations/understanding of scripture can indeed conflict.

If I say the art is good, that is only relative to my impression of it. But you could say that the same piece of art work is bad. That is your relative impression. Objectively it is only what it is, but the definition of it is completely subjective. God is just like that piece of art, you are calling it good, and I am calling it rubbish.

Seriously? No. I am saying something has a definition so it can be related to. If we were both painting pictures together and sharing the same paints and I asked you to please hand me the red bottle of paint. How would you know which bottle to hand me? We have an agreed upon definition of what the red paint is suppose to be. Now we can communicate. But as soon as I move this onto the god concept, you pretend as if we have agreed upon what god is. I haven't. You are requesting me to hand you the love god and I am saying, that god does not exist. I can't respond to your request because it doesn't exist.

For the most part?

Why does no one agree to what the traits are if no one is making stuff up? Why don't even the same denominations have the same definitions? Probably because the idea of god is completely and utterly abstract and subjective.

Yeah science progresses. Are you saying your definition of god is a progressive theory?

So all those people in the past were under the wrong impression of god?

Well how do you know you have the correct impression of god? Maybe you are completely wrong. Perhaps god is more like what my impression is?

Interpretation. Yeah exactly. Everyone has a different interpretation because it is so abstract. You want to know what this is like? It is like you playing hide-and-go-seek with a friend. It is your turn to count while your friend goes and hides. Then you go looking for him but you can't find him. You search everywhere you can, finally you get tired and decide to start asking people if they have seen your friend. One person tells you, they saw your friend run behind a tree and point it out. You go there to find him only to find out that he is not there. You see another person and ask them if they have seen your friend. They tell you they saw him walking down the street in a certain direction. You go running down the street but your friend is no where to be found. Finally you give up and a few weeks later two men dressed in white shirts and black ties come to your door. They say your friend has written you a letter and they have come to bring it to you. You excitedly open up the booklet, err, I mean letter and come to discover that it is not written by your friend at all. Then finally one day while you are on the internet, checking out a forum, you see a post from a really arrogant guy who says, "Your friend isn't real, you were just playing hide-and-go-seek with yourself."