Who created God?
- Thread starter craptakular
- Start date
What if the priest explains that the conditions for life to evolve into that green frog, DNA and all, were due to God.
What would the biologist say?
The point being, We know so little that to dismiss anything through lack of knowledge is foolhardy.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 17,316
- Location
- Bristol
Incorrect. Man created him to provide easy answers to difficult questions.
Why does a deity have to be linked with man made religion? it simply does not.
Well, they would substantiate that by saying that God revealed it to one of their visions wouldn't they? Apparently God has communicated through visions for ever now. Either that would be the way they would explain it or by saying that a guy who claimed to be God's son told me so, so it's true.
Doesn't change the question I posed. I am questioning where their authority/knowledge stems from. One's from science, the other's from visions. Who would you believe?
I do, I had a vision last night and the son of god told me in my sleep that it was not an accident. What? you don't believe me?!??!?!?????
Because the groups who create gods need to patent their creation so as to ensure that all future royalties are paid to them.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
Saying 'who created god' is the same as saying 'who created the laws of physics'.
There was never a time when the laws of physics did not exist, they have always been there.
not religeous me .. just thats what some god nutjob told me once and it's quite a deep argument when you think about it!)
There was never a time when the laws of physics did not exist, they have always been there.
not religeous me .. just thats what some god nutjob told me once and it's quite a deep argument when you think about it!)
Neither, science is a predictive model, it doesn't care how the mechanism actually works. It is only interested in the simplest mechanism to match the results.
Science is amazing, but so often used out of it's mandate, especially when people try to use it for or against religion.
That doesn't even make sense.
Liverpool or Glasgow perhaps?
Totally biased I'd say.
I've always wondered why every civilisation on earth seems to have a God in one form or another and some kind of intermediary, priests, medicine men, shaman, witch doctors etc, the list goes on.
Did ancient travellers ever go to a place where all the inhabitants were atheists? (No I don't mean Liverpool or Glasgow in this instance).
The question you should have asked was 'what created creation'. Rather, you asked about a fictitious story fabricated by those who felt uneasy not knowing the creator of creation.
The answer to that question is we do not know. If we did know, so would you. Everything else is philosophy. It's probably best not to meet philosophy with assumptions regarding gods etc, it doesn't bode well for the topic.
The answer to that question is we do not know. If we did know, so would you. Everything else is philosophy. It's probably best not to meet philosophy with assumptions regarding gods etc, it doesn't bode well for the topic.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2005
- Posts
- 12,631
I'm sure this thread will result in a completely unbiased debate, and more importantly will result in all sides reaching agreement on the points.
Science, despite being predictive as you suggest - and apart from maths without real proof - can be robust enough to make statements that for all intents and purposes are as strong as facts. Hence it can be used for whatever purposes required.
I also don't understand how you say that science doesn't care how the mechanism works. It might be that our perception is limited but it certainly looks at the deeper inner workings of things. Quite the opposite from your statement on the simplest model that works. That would be religion who tries to appeal to the lowest common intelligence denominator, thus using models that are a simple as possible and accepting the least scientifically involved explanations.
Science is the foundation of our being, our understanding and progress, hell yeah it can be used to fight any nonsense, especially religion.
Apparently that is why Jesus came; to cut out all the middlemen and give us a hotline to God; though men try to corrupt everything.
Incorrect...god is a creation.
Geez we can go round in circles all day long with this
Associate
- Joined
- 11 May 2010
- Posts
- 123
- Location
- Suffolk
it's very large number of accidents.
so large that there are a very large number that result in systems with the ability to effect further accidents.
the measure of how positive the accident was is how well it can lead to more of the same or similar.
the best accidents therefore go forth and multiply and the worst ones never happen again.
it's as inevitable as the disappointment found within each kinder surprise.
It does make perfect sense. If you don't link deitys to man made religions then you can't cash on them. People need to be told where they have to direct their contributions - and that would be the man made religion which claims to have access to the one true god.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 15,788
- Location
- Outside in the bushes
it's robust enough to make predictions and to build things and observe things. That does not make it correct.
Yes it does look at inner workings, but Occams razor. Does mean the simplest method is right.
Science is an extremely powerful tool, but it is at the end of the day a man made tool, with boundaries.
No it can't, religion does not fall inside sciences mandate, it is like trying to fit a cube down a round pipe. it just does not work.
What bearing at all does that have on the possibilities of a deity existing? it is totally irrelevant to the questions asked and what you quoted.