Active Now

Danilo_G
Honey Dew
Malizz
Zack
Discussion » Questions » Religion and Spirituality » How can God exist if it takes God to create God?
Kittigate

How can God exist if it takes God to create God?

Posted - October 14, 2017
Tags : None

Responses


  • 5391
    Gods have been a companion of man since he first looked toward the sky and wondered how it got there. It is easy in retrospect to see how those people got the wrong answer(s)

    Over thousands of years, the number of man’s gods has shrunk in lockstep with the ever-receding pocket of man’s ignorance, as we creep closer to the correct number. This ignorance is no more pronounced (nor more presumptuous) than when it comes to explanations of how a particular God came to be.

    In the current incarnation of monotheism, we are presented with perhaps the greatest intellectual cop-out in literary history: He always was.
    Basing one unsupported grand presumption on another: that a God exists. 

    That such presumptions are what constitute the very basis of God belief, what else can we presume... 

    The answer lies in this retrospect, Kittigate. 


    This post was edited by Don Barzini at October 23, 2017 7:13 PM MDT
      October 14, 2017 8:41 AM MDT
    2

  • 13395
    Many theist people claim they would continue to believe in God even if he were proven non-existent; fine when it can serve a useful purpose for them.
    But what purpose does it serve to teach creation/intelligent design in schools...?
      October 14, 2017 8:52 AM MDT
    1

  • 5391
    As far as I can tell, Kittigate, the effort to have Creationist nonsense taught in schools is just a desperate attempt on the part of theists to keep their faith relevant. Creationism has no place in school curriculum outside of the study of legends and myths. It is not science, nor does it merit being presented as an alternate to science. 

    Some people will cling onto a failing idea because they fear what they can’t conceive of more than admitting they may have been wrong. Their innate need to believe overshadows any consideration to question what is told to them or to examine evidence. 


    This post was edited by Don Barzini at October 14, 2017 12:50 PM MDT
      October 14, 2017 12:39 PM MDT
    1

  • 591
    Don, it looks like someone left the back door open and the lunatics have gained entry.

    HB 542 (passed over Gov. veto) allowing a parent to object to course material

    posted Nov 15, 2011, 2:54 PM by Bill Duncan   [ updated Aug 2, 2012, 12:35 PM ]
    Docket Passed House, later amended to allow parents to opt-out of any “objectionable” course material. Gov. veto sustained in 2011.  On January 4, 2012, the first day of the 2012 session, both houses of the Legislature overrode the Governor's veto.

    SPONSOR: Rep. Hoell, Merr 13
     
    (Although Rep. Hoell was originally listed as the prime sponsor, the bill was rewritten by Senator Forsythe and Rep. Flanagan)
     
    Official Analysis: This bill requires school districts to adopt a policy allowing an exception to specific course material based on a parent’s or legal guardian’s determination that the material is objectionable. 

    And this one from Missouri with a scary last sentence. 

    "What my bill would do is it would allow parents to opt out of natural selection teaching," Brattin explained. "It would not prohibit the child from going through biology from learning about cell structure, DNA and the building blocks of life."

    Brattin contends public schools teach Darwinian theory as fact and says kids who question it are ridiculed.

    "Our schools basically mandate that we teach one side," said Brattin. "It is an indoctrination because it is not objective approach."

    But two teens from the Cass County town of Adrian said they don't learn anything about evolution at their high school. When asked what they thought about teaching evolution, the one 16-year-old answered, "What's that?" The other explained to the other, "It's whether God is real or not."

    They said they think it would be good for students to learn about it. 

    The mothers of those two girls supported the bill, along with a number of others in the lawmaker's home area.

    "I definitely think parents should be notified if evolution is taught because I believe in creation," said Drexel resident Tina Decavale.

    Brandon Eastwood, of Harrisonville, echoed that support, and went a step further.

    "Evolution is not taught in the Bible so it shouldn't be taught in the class," he said. "Even if I had to spend some time in jail I wouldn't subject my kids to that nonsense."

    Eastwood's kids are already grown, but he said he never had to make that choice because it wasn't an issue when his children were young.

    "They didn't teach evolution in the early 90s...that I know of," he said. "Otherwise they wouldn't have been in school."

    The two teens from Adrian didn't have an opinion on the bill itself, but said they wished the choice went both ways.

    "I think we should learn about it," said the one girl.

    "So do I," said her friend. "I think it would be good for all of us to know."

    Not all school districts in Missouri teach evolution. The state Department of Secondary and Elementary Education does not require it. That is up to each locally elected school board.

    Four states already have anti-evolution laws on their books. 

      October 23, 2017 7:34 PM MDT
    0

  • 1393
    I'm not intending to engage you here as we were discussing the same subject elsewhere earlier when, seeing things were not exactly going your way, you suddenly made some rather condescending remarks and stormed out in self righteous indignation. No, I was just intrigued by your "This ignorance is no more pronounced.." and thought I'd show up and ask whether you meant no less pronounced.
      October 15, 2017 7:15 PM MDT
    0

  • 5391
    Nope, I said what I meant. 

     As an aside, Clurt, I left our previous discussion because it had reached a terminus of cyclical responses. How you view the manner of my departure is your concern.
     As to that discussion, you kept missing (or avoiding) key points. There was much too much ground to cover, especially given the tediousness of this forum, and you were wrestling with trifles. Moreover, you had contributed very little of your own thinking beyond parsing my words, which incidentally, appears to be your intent here as well.
    No worries though, there was still value in that exchange.

    I wished you well then, and do so now. Good evening. 


    This post was edited by Don Barzini at October 15, 2017 8:29 PM MDT
      October 15, 2017 8:11 PM MDT
    0

  • 1393
    1. "I said what I meant." ------ in that case quite an unexpected use of the terminology

    2. "parsing my words, which incidentally, appears to be your intent here as well" --------- editorial issues [spelling, grammar terminology] are predefined, quite clear cut and easy to agree on. What is the best philosophy for life is clearly far more contentious with pros and cons that can be interesting to examine in depth and argue over.

    3. Anyone visiting https://answermug.com/forums/topic/40574/is-god-so-full-of-himself-that-he-decided-to-create-mankind-and/view/post_id/370741 can check the veracity of your claims and accusations that "our previous discussion .... had reached a terminus of cyclical responses." and  "you kept missing (or avoiding) key points.......and you were wrestling with trifles" and "you had contributed very little of your own thinking"

    4. I'm glad you found that "there was still value in that exchange." I did respond to what you posted before abruptly storming out.
      October 16, 2017 8:12 AM MDT
    0

  • 7795
    From what I've been told, God has always been here. There was nothing before him.
      October 14, 2017 9:07 AM MDT
    1

  • 13395
    The scientific Law of the Conservation of Energy/matter proves that energymatter cannot be created or destroyed during the infinity of time. 
    What purpose would a creator serve -if there was one?
      October 14, 2017 9:24 AM MDT
    0

  • 7795
    We all know that the scientific Law of the Conservation of Energy/Matter is based on facts and not faith which the concept of God is based upon. Don't try to explain the concept of God with straight-up facts or visa versa. The two aren't mutually exclusive. This post was edited by Zack at October 26, 2017 5:42 PM MDT
      October 14, 2017 9:30 AM MDT
    1

  • 13395
    Ok. I just don't perceive any purpose that a supernatural force needs exist when natural forces will suffice.

    Natural forces co-exist with scientific laws. This post was edited by Kittigate at October 23, 2017 7:36 PM MDT
      October 14, 2017 9:39 AM MDT
    2

  • 5391
    The supernatural is a concoction of primitive minds who lacked the tools to explain the natural. As our tools improve, our reliance on the supernatural decreases by equal measure.  This post was edited by Don Barzini at October 14, 2017 12:46 PM MDT
      October 14, 2017 12:44 PM MDT
    1

  • 591
    Zack, do you actually consider 'faith' to be a reliable means to get to the truth about anything?
      October 26, 2017 5:44 PM MDT
    0

  • 5808
    The answer to this, 
    the understanding of this,
    is actually very simple,
    once one steps away, outside of the mind.
    outside of the Ego, outside of time and space.
         At that time the direct experience
    of the oneness within all life fills the intuition
    with understanding because of the direct perception
    of being one with God.
        As long as we are formulating our understanding
    our beliefs within the mind, we are lost in the illusion 
    within the separation of the oneness of life.
         WE will never understand through our thoughts,
    because we are within a separate identity
    of the ego and not the oneness beyond the ego.
         WE will never understand through what we think.
    Realization comes when we step outside of thought.
    When there is no thought to create the separation,
    we can have a direct perception of reality.
         Everyone will respond with 
    I think this or I think that and therein lies the illusion, the confusion of the truth.
    Or people will respond with,  well...Prove it.
         The proof lies within each person
    to unveil the covering of the truth.
    The veil of the illusion can only be pierced
    by the dissolving of the ego within
    oneself. 
         When the mind is still, without any thoughts,
    without any ego to create a separation between
    ones Self and God,
    then there is a direct perception, a direct intuitional
    understanding of that which is beyond what we think....
         Our problem is that we are attached to what we think
    and believe it to be true. A direct experience beyond thought
    will prove it to ones Self, that which cannot be understood through thought.
       It is really just that simple.
    Everyone will respond with, "I don't believe that, all BS is what you say"
    therein is the problem...our understanding reached through thought
    will not give one the understanding of the truth within each of us.
    Our thoughts automatically create the veil which covers up the 
    undifferentiated truth within each of us...





      October 14, 2017 4:19 PM MDT
    1

  • 1393
    Q  "How can God exist if it takes God to create God?"



    1. That may be one way of trapping yourself in a conundrum of your own creation.

    2. For God to be created He would have to have a beginning and a timeline on which that beginning would occur. However, if time and space started with the Big Bang then there was no time and no timeline before. If God caused the Big Bang then He existed in a domain without our time and space and the laws that govern our universe. We can therefore not apply any beginning or ending concepts to Him as without a timeline those concepts are meaningless.
      October 15, 2017 7:43 PM MDT
    2

  • 591
    How very convenient for your god, another free pass.
      October 23, 2017 7:46 PM MDT
    0

  • 1393
    One has to acknowledge that it makes sense - if one is fair minded, that is.
      October 24, 2017 6:18 PM MDT
    0

  • 591
    It has no chance of making sense until you can demonstrate that there even is such a thing as a 'god', till that time it remains pie in the sky.
      October 24, 2017 9:40 PM MDT
    0

  • 1393
    Paragraph 2 in my answer has 4 sentences. Which one doesn't make sense?
      October 25, 2017 12:36 AM MDT
    0

  • 591
    It would appear that you are having difficulties understanding my one sentence so I will try it from a different angle,  all four of your sentences rely on there being a god and until you can show that such a thing exists, your whole statement is totally irrelevant. 
      October 25, 2017 1:23 AM MDT
    0

  • 1393

    You say, "all four of your sentences rely on there being a god" >>> How so? Maybe we are having a language problem or a hasty conclusions problem. Let's see:

    The first sentence [a] says, "FOR God to be created ......" How does that "rely on there being a god"?

    The second sentence says, "However, if time and space started with the Big Bang then there was no time and no timeline before." That is not related to God at all. So how does that "rely on there being a god"?

    If it's the third and fourth sentences [c and d] which tripped you then I have no problem rewording them slightly. The slightly modified third sentence [c] would say, "IF God existed and caused the ......" Now how does that "rely on there being a god"?

    The fourth sentence [d] reworded slightly would say, "We can therefore see that IF God exists then we ......" So again, how would that "rely on there being a god"?

     
    This post was edited by CLURT at October 25, 2017 2:31 AM MDT
      October 25, 2017 2:27 AM MDT
    0

  • 591
    1st sentence, well if a god was 'created' then there is/was a god and some other god to do the creating, regardless of which fairyland they lived in. I totally fail to see why you have a fixation on knowing gods birthday, our time and space started with the big bang, that is not to say that there is/was not time and space in the fairyland you mentioned where god exists/existed. Many time references are based on events, like BC/AD, BCE/CE, pre 9/11 etc. so no reason that BBB (before big bang) cannot be used as a time reference, this would allow you to say  "many years ago, long before you were born, even before our universe was born, in the time before time (BBB) there lived in La La Land a mighty god who (add miracles to suit your particular imagined god)'......... ie another free pass for god.  If no god was created or exists then the other 3 sentences are simply decoration on a non existing cake. 
      October 25, 2017 3:26 PM MDT
    0

  • 1393
    1. Even in our own solar system we have many different lengths of days and years. We ignore them all and measure in terms of earthly days, years, centuries and millennia.

    2. Measuring time in earthly terms to mark the "passage of earthly time" BBB can be meaningless as there is no known time nor any known event to mar the "time" against.

    3. Anyway, all that is just by the by. None of my four statements depends on the existence of god. That's why I say "IF God exists..."

    4. Your cake is non existent. YOU have the authority to say so, and you did.

    5. WHO has the authority to say that God is non existent?
      October 25, 2017 4:13 PM MDT
    0

  • 591
    1. I agree with.
    2. I am assuming that your 'mar' is a typo and it should read mark. I would consider the 'big bang' to be a datum point against which time can be marked even if it is in terms of earthly days, years, centuries and millennia.
    3. If god does not exist then there is no need for any of your hypothesis and if a god or gods do exist then you have even more things to prove before your hypothesis can be taken seriously, for example your fairyland where said gods exist.
    4. Speaks for itself. 
    5. Who has the proof to say he does or even evidence to suggest he does, you? Until this evidence/proof is forthcoming then every sane person on this planet has the authority to say that there is no such thing as a god and by that I mean any god that YOU or anyone else can dream up.
      October 25, 2017 5:23 PM MDT
    0