Creator of God

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 04:47 am
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.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 05:00 am
@no1author,
no1author;130664 wrote:
A question to the theists:
Who or what was the creator of god?


We are the creator of god.
 
no1author
 
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 06:06 am
@no1author,
So god exists only in our imagination?
Or did we create him with our imagination and now he actually exists?
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 06:32 am
@no1author,
no1author;130681 wrote:
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.
 
jgweed
 
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 08:41 am
@no1author,
And what if the problem originally mentioned is really a problem with our conception of God when defined in a particular way?
 
Tony phil
 
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 09:05 am
@no1author,
Take someone at birth, they're raised and exposed to all sorts of religions, morals, and super-mundane deities abroad, but what's to say that if separated at birth you would ever come to the same conclusions, or would you just live in ignorance to the idea of God? Of course they wouldn't, humans have had this self-imposed notion of an all powerful deity to explain where things came and come from when left with no answers.

So now what's to say the answer to your question isn't so much as who created God, rather who thought of him first? :]
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 09:10 pm
@no1author,
Who created God? Yes, that's a good question.

I think Kant tackled this.

Can we imagine a beginning of time? Can we imagine time as beginning-less?

I use "time" because it doesn't matter if you call God eternal or the universe eternal. Or if either had a beginning. Neither is imaginable.
I don't think we can visualize/imagine either. Yes, we can sometimes make words for what we cannot visualize/imagine. This is interesting in itself. I wonder if the human brain is equipped to tackle this question or if we are only staring at the inside of our hardware.

The advantage of the theistic conception is that it provides an intelligent transcendence. Is it nicer to think of the universe as created by being like man but transcending him? Or is it nicer to imagine ourselves as the most intelligent beings we are aware of? I don't think the existence of a transcendent God is proven or dis proven. Nor do I see how it could. I suspect we will choose according to taste (our network of other beliefs.)

If the universe doesn't need a creator, then neither does God. It cuts both ways.
 
Amperage
 
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 10:05 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;130683 wrote:
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.
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.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 12:27 am
@no1author,
I suspect that "imagination" is a figment of our imagination.
 
Deckard
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 12:30 am
@Reconstructo,
If God always was God wouldn't need to be created.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 12:40 am
@no1author,
no1author;130664 wrote:
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 is a necessary being, then God requires no creator. But, since the world is not a necessary, but a contingent being, the world requires a creator.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 01:14 am
@Deckard,
Deckard;130900 wrote:
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?
 
Deckard
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 03:28 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;130915 wrote:
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.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 03:48 am
@Deckard,
Deckard;130958 wrote:
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.



That's a good point. I never noticed that, though I bumped into those facts individually. Spengler loved to write about a culture's sense of space, time, and number. I agree, a synthesis of both sounds best. I think it's an example of something words can suggest but that the visual imagination cannot follow. What power lurks in that negative prefix!
 
Krumple
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 06:09 am
@Amperage,
Amperage;130891 wrote:
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?
 
Amperage
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 12:09 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;130982 wrote:
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?
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:
Quote:
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.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 12:57 pm
@Amperage,
Amperage;131068 wrote:
I've never been on ignore. . .


Alright good the microphone is on.

Amperage;131068 wrote:

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


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

Amperage;131068 wrote:

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


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?

Amperage;131068 wrote:

"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.


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.

Amperage;131068 wrote:

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:


"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."

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?

I also wouldn't call eating a desire, it is born of necessity. Maybe the type of food can be desired but that doesn't happen until after the food is first experienced. You don't desire Chinese food if you have never had it, yet Chinese food would first need to exist.

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.
 
Amperage
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 01:37 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;131082 wrote:
Exactly, which implies it can not be an objective reality.
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.

Krumple;131082 wrote:
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?
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?

Krumple;131082 wrote:
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 "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

Krumple;131082 wrote:
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?
Because it is not an innate desire in humans. Whereas for a duck it is in his nature to desire such a thing. There are innate desires and then there are externally conditioned ones.

Krumple;131082 wrote:
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.
I'm not talking about heaven.
Here is a guy's commentary about C.S. Lewis' statement: Argument From Desire by Peter Kreeft

He claims that
Quote:
" 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.
"
And I tend to agree. People have this innate desire for something more, something beyond what this world can offer. Something transcendent. I know I do. I can't think of a time when I didn't recognize this. Even before I was a Christian. Before I was a christian(which I became in about the 8th grade), I honestly never talked about such things nor did I know anything about any particular religion, it just wasn't something that I had ever really thought about, however, I still thought there was such a thing as God.
I think historically we can see this same trend with humanity in general. Mankind has an innate sense of a transcendent being and desire to seek that being. I consider the fact that essentially every human being at one time of their life contemplates if there is or is not a God as evidence of such. I doubt anyone(including Helen Keller before she could communicate), has existed without wondering this.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 04:02 pm
@Amperage,
Amperage;131096 wrote:
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.


Changing the word doesn't do anything. I guess you are hoping I don't know what relativism is. God is completely subjective. Sure your idea of god is relative to your idea of what god is, but it's not my definition. Therefore god can not be an objective reality. Like a piece of art, it has no objective reality that is one particular thing. 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.

Amperage;131096 wrote:

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?


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.

Amperage;131096 wrote:

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


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.

Amperage;131096 wrote:

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


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?

Amperage;131096 wrote:

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


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."
 
Amperage
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 04:24 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;131171 wrote:
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.
I may say God is good, and you may say God is not, very true, but God, like the art in question, is there nonetheless

Krumple;131171 wrote:
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.
Why should one expect the definition of God to be as clear-cut as the colors of paint? Oh, Ok, now I see what your saying. I agree that there is no agreed upon definition of God. (lol I agree we haven't agreed.) However agreeing upon a definition is quite different from discounting the idea altogether.

Krumple;131171 wrote:
For the most part?
Well I just said for the most part because I can't account for everyone everywhere.
Krumple;131171 wrote:
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.
Why doesn't the entire scientific community agree about the origin of the universe? These questions are difficult to tackle.

Krumple;131171 wrote:
Yeah science progresses. Are you saying your definition of god is a progressive theory?
Is science really progressive? Has the nature of the universe changed with our progression? I should think not. What has changed is our own understanding. In the same way God has not changed but our understanding of Him has. As we learn more the picture becomes more clear. Or as sometimes is the case with science, one step forward can mean two steps back. But each arena is attempting to better understand something.

Krumple;131171 wrote:
So all those people in the past were under the wrong impression of god?
Not exactly. Just as the Ptolemaic system of planet movements wasn't wrong, they just didn't have the whole picture. People have always served God, they just didn't always have the correct/whole pictures. It's doubtful we have the whole picture now.

Krumple;131171 wrote:
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?
About as well as science is sure of its latest discovery. I could be wrong I grant this, however, in matters of God, IMO, it is about what's in our hearts. And in my heart I believe I am serving God. If God turns out to be different than my conception then so be it. I served Him as well as could be expected.

Krumple;131171 wrote:
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."
In the words of Fr. Frederick C. Copleston, "To say that one has not found it is one thing; to say that one should not look for it seems to me rather dogmatic." Be it your friend that you were playing hide-and-go-seek with or be it God
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/22/2024 at 01:14:47