What created God?

[andy1984]

i created god!

[Resonance]

Originally Posted by Rossy

I think its a load of S*!t.

To be fair, in the entire thread this is still the most sensible thing any of us, including me, has bothered to say - and has as much chance of changing anyones mind as whatever grand logical or scientific proofs we atheists may provide.

[bwidger85]

A grapefruit created God. It cannot be proven and so it's true. I have faith that it's true; I feel it. I have always felt it to be true. The last time I was in the library at school I read from the Grapefruit Bible and it even said it was true; therefore, it must be true. One time a grapefruit spoke to me and came unto to me with a magnificent light. I thought I was going to be blinded by the light and so I sheilded my eyes but no shade came. I cried aloud, "Why!? Why are you not to be seen!?", and then suddenly I realized I just woke up and I was reaching for my grapefruit in a dark room with only the refrigerator light illumining. The grapefruit said, "eat me".... and it was done.

[JimmyDeansRetartedCousin]

The homo-sapiens inquisitive but scientifically inept methods of reasoning, or was it Steve Jobs? I can't remember..

[JAkDy]

Originally Posted by sprinter

He's talking about Plantinga's ontological argument. You can argue about whether it's sound or not but it's completely logically valid, the conclusion follows from the premises. Conversely if it's possible God doesn't exist in all possible worlds then it follows that God is impossible and doesn't exist. There's no reason your invisible monkey ghost would need to exist in all possible worlds, it's contingent not necessary that's what he means by a category error.

Ah, cheers for explaining what that was.
So couldn't I (as you wrote) use the reverse as an argument which is JUST as legitimate as the first one? Couldn't I make the same argument for a 'necessarily existent' invisible ghost monkey?

Isn't the fault with Platinga's ontological argument lie in the first premise?

1. There is a possible world W in which there exists a being with maximal greatness.

So if you change it to "property of no-maximally is demonstrated/exemplified" then the whole argument concludes with "maximal greatness is impossible"
And if i'm not wrong, i could use a platinga-style argument for anything that is possibly 'necessarily true'.
That's what makes it completely silly, cause it doesn't disprove alternatives, and the style of proof can be used to disprove the very thing it was originally intended to prove.
----------
I don't get why some people think that's a logical end of the line, full-stop finished, no other possibility, argument for the existence of god.

[MrSoloDolo123]

Which God? There are many different gods for different religions


I believe the christian god was the work of Jesus and his band of trolls trolololing the world with some exaggerated stories during a time where people would believe anything.

[scarpia]

Man created God in his own image.

[Unkn0wn Pleasures]

Originally Posted by Rossy

I think its a load of S*!t.

So direct.

He was just always there. But apparently the universe to have been created.

[sprinter]

Originally Posted by JAkDy

So if you change it to "property of no-maximally is demonstrated/exemplified" then the whole argument concludes with "maximal greatness is impossible"

The contra version Plantiga has in his book The Nature of Necessity (where he presents his version of the ontological argument)is...
Near-maximality is possibly exemplified
If near-maximality is possible, then maximal greatness is not therefore
Maximal greatness is impossible

Soon after which he admits regarding his argument...."a sane and rational man who thought it through and understood it might none the less reject it, remaining agnostic or even accepting instead the possibility of no-maximality.'' but concludes his response to this criticism with..."Hence our verdict on these reformulated versions of St.Anselm's argument must be as follows. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion. But since it is rational to accept their central premiss, they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion. And perhaps that is all that can be expected of any such argument."

As far as just assigning necessary existence to anything I don't think you can do that, you have to have some good reason IMO An interesting one is whether the universe can have necessary existence. A good page I found that discusses that is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy page on the cosmological argument http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/co...ical-argument/

[Feverish]

Good question...

I'm atheist, however I used to be Christian before I realized that it was a little stupid, impossible, and entirely man-based in my opinion.

I don't have an answer, and nobody else knows either. Even if it's written in the Bible, the Bible was also man-made. There is no evidence that the Bible was even the word of God. There is no proof the Bible was written "by God through another person," and lastly the Bible is no history text book.

Having said that, keep in mind that men created religion, not God! Nobody here is by any means "correct" because it's physically impossible to know, seeing as God hasn't "told us."

[JAkDy]

Originally Posted by sprinter

The contra version Plantiga has in his book The Nature of Necessity (where he presents his version of the ontological argument)is...
Near-maximality is possibly exemplified
If near-maximality is possible, then maximal greatness is not therefore
Maximal greatness is impossible

Soon after which he admits regarding his argument...."a sane and rational man who thought it through and understood it might none the less reject it, remaining agnostic or even accepting instead the possibility of no-maximality.'' but concludes his response to this criticism with..."Hence our verdict on these reformulated versions of St.Anselm's argument must be as follows. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion. But since it is rational to accept their central premiss, they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion. And perhaps that is all that can be expected of any such argument."

As far as just assigning necessary existence to anything I don't think you can do that, you have to have some good reason IMO An interesting one is whether the universe can have necessary existence. A good page I found that discusses that is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy page on the cosmological argument http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/co...ical-argument/

I suppose then that ontological argument is what's proven to be.......redundant really, if he admits it doesn't really prove his conclusion.
I like how the contra-argument by Platinga was similar to what i thought it might be.

[kanra]

Originally Posted by Rossy

I think its a load of S*!t.

But a brilliant way to control (gullible) people that has somehow lasted until today.

[Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Epic1

This. +1.

It's called "beyond our current comprehension". Maybe someday we'll figure it out, maybe we won't. But if we limit ourselves by saying "god created everything" we'll never know. Fortunately, there are people who don't limit themselves this way, which is why we have figured out that the earth revolves around the sun, that the sun is not a god or being pulled on a chariot by gods, etc.

"God" just always seems to be a lazy, self-serving answer to questions that are currently beyond comprehension. It's too bad people restrict their natural inclination of curiosity and answer-seeking abilities in such a way.

It also points out the irrationality of their thinking processes when they reject the unknown origins of a godless universe as ridiculous, yet offer up the very same (and in my opinion even more ridiculous) argument when invoking God into the equation. The inner tension between reality and feelings in these people must be maddening. It's no wonder so many of them do not practice what they preach.

I somewhat agree with his statement, and not so much with yours, I think we always tend to limit our perceptions of the universe, whether its a person claiming god did or somebody say for example describing it in the form of well time began back then and so the question of when the universe began is irrelevant, or to quote string theory claiming a eleven dimensional universe broke down to form ours, or a vacuum fluctuation did it, or cyclical system of infinite big bangs and crunches, etc.

Either way we tend to place a thus far and no farther argument on it, and beyond that boundary, well the universe must not exist, It is silly that they have problem with the other scientific theories regarding the beginning and creation, but to me their God is no more or less plausible then the other concepts we have come up with to explain the beginning, because frankly I doubt we could ever prove what began it all, its always filling in cracks with ideas of what the universe is that we really can't prove right now or might never in the case some of our theories.

But we always limit ourselves with one theory or another, with our assumptions which then provide foundations to make theories and test them, its not unnatural and perfectly in keeping with past.

But I think if the God concept is the right one, it is not a human God, it is a alien one incomprehensible by any human, the universe is so vast and huge God if it existed would never be the one depicted in the bible.


I mean do you know there is a concept that seems remarkably similar to what Hawking created in the form of his Big bang idea, only in this case God is supposed to be outside of time and so is not part and parcel of the chain of creation, interesting idea.

So its a hard question to answer, but so is the what began our own universe problem, its difficult to imagine if we will ever prove it one way or another.

[Milco]

Human inability to accept own unimportance and lack of greater meaning is what has created God(s).

Originally Posted by sprinter

He's talking about Plantinga's ontological argument. You can argue about whether it's sound or not but it's completely logically valid, the conclusion follows from the premises.

I do find it a little funny that you often hear that God defies logics and therefore logics cannot be used to dismiss him, yet there are attempts at finding logical proofs to show that God exists - indicating that logics can well be used to describe his nature.
But no, most of these arguments are neither sound nor valid.
It is trivial to make an argument that is logically valid, but not sound, however if your premise and conclusion are actually the same, as is often the case with these arguments, it is not logically valid.
And of course, an argument has to be both sound and valid to be considered actually true.

[nbtac41]

human DNA contains more organised information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. if the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. but when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random forces- george sim johnson

einstein said, "God does not play dice." he was right, God plays scrabble - philip gold

the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. i find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science - werner von braun, the father of space science

"only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith.if you really study science, it will bring you closer to God" -james tour,nanoscientist

God never performed a miracle to convince an atheist, because his ordinary works provide sufficient evidence" - ariel roth

'in grammar school they taught me that a frog turning into a prince was a fairy tale. in the university they taught me that a frog turning into a prince was a fact "- ron carlson

[nbtac41]

Originally Posted by Resonance

To be fair, in the entire thread this is still the most sensible thing any of us, including me, has bothered to say - and has as much chance of changing anyones mind as whatever grand logical or scientific proofs we atheists may provide.

what are those scientific proofs that you provide that God doesn't exists?
how do you know God never/doesn't exists? have you travelled the farthest and the 'beyondness' of the universe?

[Meta14]

Originally Posted by nbtac41

what are those scientific proofs that you provide that God doesn't exists?
how do you know God never/doesn't exists? have you travelled the farthest and the 'beyondness' of the universe?

If god is "everything" and "everywhere", in other words, omnipotent and omnipresent, going into the farthest outreaches of space wouldn't help.

[nbtac41]

Originally Posted by Feverish

Good question...

I'm atheist, however I used to be Christian before I realized that it was a little stupid, impossible, and entirely man-based in my opinion.

I don't have an answer, and nobody else knows either. Even if it's written in the Bible, the Bible was also man-made. There is no evidence that the Bible was even the word of God. There is no proof the Bible was written "by God through another person," and lastly the Bible is no history text book.

Having said that, keep in mind that men created religion, not God! Nobody here is by any means "correct" because it's physically impossible to know, seeing as God hasn't "told us."

seemed so ignorant about the bible's origin.. even archeologists depend upon the bible's accuracy of telling the exact locations of unknown cities of the ancient world,that most archeologists were stunned and dumbfounded.

Not only is the Bible filled with the fundamentals of science, but it is as much as 3,000 years ahead of its time. The Bible’s statements in most cases directly contradicted the science of the day in which they were made. When modern scientific knowledge approaches reality, the divine accuracy of the scriptures is substantiated. For example:
Biblical Statement Science Then Science Now
Earth is a sphere (Is. 40:22). Earth’s a flat disk. Earth is a sphere
Number of stars exceeds a billion (Jer. 33:22). Number of stars totals 1,100 Number of stars exceeds a billion
Every star is different (1 Cor 15:41). All stars are the same. Every star is different.
Light is in motion (Job 38:19-20). Light is fixed in place. Light is in motion.
Air has weight (Job 28:25). Air is weightless. Air has weight.
Winds blow in cyclones (Eccl. 1:6). Winds blow straight. Winds blow in cyclones.
Blood is a source of life and healing (Lev. 17:11). Sick people must bled. Blood is a source of life and healing.
For centuries the conjectures of science also were at odds with Genesis 1 concerning the origin and development of Earth and of life on Earth. However, science has progressed beyond these conjectures and now agrees with Genesis 1 in the initial conditions of Earth, the description of subsequent events, and in the order of these events. The probability that Moses, writing more than 3,400 years ago, would have guessed all these details is less than one in trillions. Below is a partial list of other fundamentals of science explained in the Bible:
conservation of mass and energy (Eccl. 1:9; Eccl. 3:14-15).
water cycle (Eccl. 1:7; Is. 55:10).
gravity (Job 26:7; Job 38:31-33).
Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups (Job 38:31). NOTE: All other star groups visible to the naked eye are unbound, with the possible exception of the Hyades.
effect of emotions on physical health (Prov. 16:24; Prov. 17:22).
control of contagious diseases (Lev. 13:4546).
importance of sanitation to health (Lev.; Num. 19: Deut. 23:12-13). control of cancer and heart disease (Lev. 7-19).
In the crucible of scientific investigation, the Bible has proven invariably to be correct. No other book, ancient or modem, can make this claim; but then, no other book has been written (through men) by God.

www.reasons.org founded by Dr. Hugh Ross
Founder of Reasons to Believe- (once a former atheist scientist)

[nbtac41]

Originally Posted by Meta14

If god is "everything" and "everywhere", in other words, omnipotent and omnipresent, going into the farthest outreaches of space wouldn't help.

will you just define for me what is omnipresent and omnipotent? it only shows that human knowledge and thoughts are with limitations and finite.

[nbtac41]

Originally Posted by Milco

Human inability to accept own unimportance and lack of greater meaning is what has created God(s).


I do find it a little funny that you often hear that God defies logics and therefore logics cannot be used to dismiss him, yet there are attempts at finding logical proofs to show that God exists - indicating that logics can well be used to describe his nature.
But no, most of these arguments are neither sound nor valid.
It is trivial to make an argument that is logically valid, but not sound, however if your premise and conclusion are actually the same, as is often the case with these arguments, it is not logically valid.
And of course, an argument has to be both sound and valid to be considered actually true.

making some excuse again that God doesn't exists.. haha..fyi, most atheists used 'logic' in order to attempt to dismiss the existence of God. christians,too uses 'logic' coupled with sound arguments and reasonings.