Who created God?

[Inquisitor]

This thread has been on my mind once or twice the last couple of days. I just thought to add, that God, in all cultures and religions is a loving Father who wants interaction and who has plans for us to live.

Except in religions that are not monotheistic, of course.

 

[Inquisitor]

Religion doesnt give any more of an answer for that which we do not understand than science. Wheras science freely admits they are not sure, religion takes its chance to make something utterly implausible to fill the gap.

If history has taught us anything, it is that as time progresses we learn and understand more. Eventually religion will die out as science understands all the mysteries of today.

It is ignorance to think that religion has a place for answering any question that science cannot. People thought that the sun was magical for quite a long time, that the seas were ruled by poseidon. We dont believe these things anymore. Why is that.

I'm afraid you're wrong. Science answers "how" questions, while religion answers "why" questions. Science is a pragmatic enterprise, while religion is ontological. It is perfectly possible for the two to coexist as ideologies.

Science tries to define what is and why, Religion gives up on anything hard and puts up a "God says so" default on anything that is slightly tricky to understand.

The standard recourse of those who cannot argue their case against religion in an intelligent, considered manner.

For the record, science can only provide "why" answers in terms of the smaller elements of a system of reducible complexity. As soon as the system is reduced to its most fundamental elements, science cannot tell us "why" it is so. Can you tell me the reason behind Newton's second law of motion? Why does it have the form that it does?

Religion to me is a support for those in society who can not understand that we (humans) are not significant, our existence is random and serves no other purpose than the propagation of itself.

Or, alternatively, religion is the ideology of those who do not agree that man kind is not significant. Notice your profound arrogance in presuming your own correctness.

 

[Inquisitor]

Merely by believing this you're saying science is wrong, maybe not as directly as people have said about religion but it's the same thing.

No he's not. Have you considered the possibility that the universe is as it is by design? That the laws and initial conditions (i.e. everything that science has discovered) were arranged deliberately to produce what you see now?

but even science doesn't have hard evidence Big Bang Theory

Science most certainly does have hard evidence; indeed it is the very foundation of the scientific enterprise. What it does not have is irrefutable proof.

The domain of science is all that can be discerned from observational evidence. Anything that cannot (God, for example) is outside this domain, and science can tell us nothing about it.

 

[jmc007]

Except in religions that are not monotheistic, of course.

Not always the exception, in non monotheistic religions; though I accept your statement as partial truth and my sweeping statement to be false.

 

[Inquisitor]

Not always the exception, in non monotheistic religions; though I accept your statement as partial truth and my sweeping statement to be false.

There are many religions that don't conform to the usual idea that the universe was created by and is watched over by a god or gods.

A good example of a religion that does not place emphasis on any particular deity or group of deities is Buddhism (and to some extent Hinduism). Others are Shinto, Janism and Confucianism. I think the anti-religion brigade would have a hard time arguing that these have caused harm to society at large.

When arguing against religion, people always seem to present restricted arguments that apply only to the three Abrahamic religions and rely on the specifics of these religions.

 

[titaniumx3]

Surely if god was created, he is not a god?

BTW, God simultaneously exists and does not exist, so any arguements for or against his existance are ultimately futile. You either believe in his existence or you do not.

 

[craptakular]

Surely if god was created, he is not a god?

BTW, God simultaneously exists and does not exist, so any arguements for or against his existance are ultimately futile. You either believe in his existence or you do not.

How can he exist and not exist at the same time?

Say I didn't believe in a God, he could still be real? Therefore if I don't believe in God, he could still exist.

 

[j.col]

"religion is the opiate of the people" marx

 

[AJK]

Science answers "how" questions, while religion answers "why" questions. [...] For the record, science can only provide "why" answers in terms of the smaller elements of a system of reducible complexity. As soon as the system is reduced to its most fundamental elements, science cannot tell us "why" it is so. Can you tell me the reason behind Newton's second law of motion? Why does it have the form that it does?

Can religion?

 

[Inquisitor]

Can religion?

Can it? That's up to the individual and his beliefs.

Does it? In general, no. What's your point? People don't hold religious beliefs in the hope of understanding why an object responds to forces as we observe it to.

 

[Felix Da Housecat]

If God is real, who created Him?

My Daddies seed in my Mummy's tummy created me, but who created God?

His mum and dad did silly

 

[AJK]

Can it? That's up to the individual and his beliefs.

Does it? In general, no. What's your point? People don't hold religious beliefs in the hope of understanding why an object responds to forces as we observe it to.

No point, particularly. You observed that generally speaking science explains "how" and religion explains "why". In my experience that's not the case, particularly with regards to the Newton example. Science doesn't try to answer the "why" question, and religion seems to skirt the issue with answers about creation.

But that's purely my very limited experience; nothing I can back up with well researched fact I freely admit.

 

[Inquisitor]

No point, particularly. You observed that generally speaking science explains "how" and religion explains "why". In my experience that's not the case, particularly with regards to the Newton example. Science doesn't try to answer the "why" question, and religion seems to skirt the issue with answers about creation.

But that's purely my very limited experience; nothing I can back up with well researched fact I freely admit.

I think a distinction needs to be made between personal religion and organized religion.

In my opinion, religion is a wholly personal affair, and I dislike the idea of answers being "provided" – or even imposed – by a larger organization. Answers to "why" questions should be down to the individual's own religious beliefs. If a particular mainstream religion resonates for someone, and they choose to accept that religion's ideas on their own terms, then that's fine.

Organized religions really only account for part of the idea of religion itself.

 

[Castiel]

I met God once, I have seen him perform miracles on a weekly basis, I see his face everywhere I look currently.....I even know his real name.

There is documented proof he exists.....

 

[Royality]

Always liked this video for the intelligent watchmaker quote (if it's been posted before in this thread I apologise):

And arguments like this always make me confused, the truth is none one could possibly know whether or whether not there is a god and any supposedly correct answer for or against really highlights not just ignorance and arrogance but also a criminal amount of stupidity in the person saying it.

 

[JohnnyG]

God's dad did.


Edit: With his dead dog.

 

[Inquisitor]

And arguments like this always make me confused, the truth is none one could possibly know whether or whether not there is a god and any supposedly correct answer for or against really highlights not just ignorance and arrogance but also a criminal amount of stupidity in the person saying it.

A belief one way or another regarding the existence of God isn't necessarily stupid; it's just a position of faith. As long as you don't try to pass it off as anything more than faith, there's no problem.

The issue is that some theists, and probably most atheists think they're above such a frivolous notion as faith.

 

[rexehuk]

Maybe God created himself... or perhaps god didn't need to create himself due to him existing in time and space before time and space and before the possibility of him being created he was already created.

My brain hurts.

 

[Sinny]

A core tenet of science is that these kinds of calculations and theories are disproved and found to be incorrect over time - either that or they are expanded and worked on. A millennia ago, people just like you were claiming indisputable proof that God made it so that the Earth was literally in the centre of the universe. Now we've just moved on to trying to twist it around what we know and grasp today. It is still humongously more likely that either the particular individual in your quote got his calculation wrong or that we simply haven't really found out just exactly how large or how old the universe really is, than it is likely there is a deity.




That would be agnosticism, something I'm signed up for myself. (There are several bands of agnosticism, from the 'I sort of believe in Jesus' to the other extreme end of 'I don't think Jesus or God exists at all, but SOMETHING had to start this whole existence... somehow')

It depends with me, I'm agnostic but I change depending on how deep I think. sometimes I'm Agnostic-atheist and sometimes I'm Agnostic-Christian. but thats the whole point of agnosticism I think, I'm always thinking about it.