Thread: Who created God?

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Your confusing the potential of ultimate power and it's possibility, with his question of using our own brain and discovering how it would actually work.

Is that in reply to me?

yeah instead of worrying about god and how endless power can manifest any possibility you can dream up. Why not try to figure out how it can actually happen in reality with your own mind. That would have much more value than saying endless power can do anything. That is a simple equation anyone can do.

Consciousness is singular. Call it what you want.

Originally Posted by psychology student

But lets take a step back and look at the question posed in this thread.

"Who created God"?

Such a question makes a hypothetical assumption that God exists. I'm going to assume that this is the God depicted by religion. Therefore, this hypothetical God is omnipotent (the God depicted by religion is described as being omnipotent: "having unlimited power").

Doesn't this imply that that he doesn't need to be created?

Come up with an explanation on how he just appeared, or how he has always been.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

No, why would you think that?

It's evidence for the evolution described in "Darwinism".

Okay you sound a bit confused. You say no you're not trying to pass it off as evidence of molecules-to-man but then you turn right around and say it's evidence for Darwinians's evolution which is the same thing- Fish to MAN

So which is it?

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

So no. Not what you thought, huh?

So no, what? Are you agreeing with me stating that biochemistry doesn't back up prebiotic RNA?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

So you accept that Darwin's theory of speciation through natural selection and its offshoots are the most elegant and productive framework we have for uniting and expanding the disparate data sets of zoology, paleontology, virology and ecology, to name a few? That this body of theory reveals more about the realms it addresses than any other explanatory mechanism addressing those realms? And that abiogenesis may well follow suit in years to come?

Is that what you've gotten from just that one little reply? I don't recall accepting anything from saying "very well put, thanks" If you want my personal opinion on it, I think it's a stretch. The effort's nice but the idea doesn't hold much weight.

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Um, its kinda proof of evolution.

Proof of Darwinian's evolutionary model? Because I believe if we had proof and that much evidence it would no longer hold the title as just a "Theory" now would it?

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

You completely disregard a article which contradicts all you are saying. If you believe you are right, enlighten me. If you post illogical material, post away. At least make it look leet.

So what exactly is the contridiction? Because I don't see a contridiction.

[QUOTE=Ne-yo;818667]Okay you sound a bit confused. You say no you're not trying to pass it off as evidence of molecules-to-man but then you turn right around and say it's evidence for Darwinians's evolution which is the same thing- Fish to MAN

So which is it?



So no, what? Are you agreeing with me stating that biochemistry doesn't back up prebiotic RNA?

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Um, its kinda proof of evolution.

Proof of Darwinian's evolutionary model? Because I believe if we had proof and that much evidence it would no longer hold the title as just a "Theory" now would it?

1. No you dumbfuck!!!

http://www.tolweb.org

You should be ashamed of yourself for being so ignorant!

2. Yes, but not what you thought. Prebiotic RNA wasn't trhe primary source.

3. There is nothing above theory! A theory explains something and is complete and coherent!!!

This is why Evolution is a theory, and Abiogenesis is a hypothesis.

Ignorant fools such as yourself always seem to cling to the laymen terms, don't they?

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Come up with an explanation on how he just appeared, or how he has always been.

Why would something as eternal require an explanation?

Had to edit: That same question could require what's the explanation for Atheism? You guys don't believe that anything of a higher power had divine intervention over life chemistry and that there is no reason for us even existing. So the question begs the explanation for the reason of Atheism.

Originally Posted by psychology student

But lets take a step back and look at the question posed in this thread.

"Who created God"?

Such a question makes a hypothetical assumption that God exists. I'm going to assume that this is the God depicted by religion. Therefore, this hypothetical God is omnipotent (the God depicted by religion is described as being omnipotent: "having unlimited power").

Doesn't this imply that that he doesn't need to be created?

No. He would not have been able to use his infinite power if he did not exist.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Why would something as eternal require an explanation?

The same reason you obviously think we need something external to explain us.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

1. No you dumbfuck!!!

http://www.tolweb.org

You should be ashamed of yourself for being so ignorant!

2. Yes, but not what you thought. Prebiotic RNA wasn't trhe primary source.

3. There is nothing above theory! A theory explains something and is complete and coherent!!!

This is why Evolution is a theory, and Abiogenesis is a hypothesis.

Ignorant fools such as yourself always seem to cling to the laymen terms, don't they?

So explain to this layman what was the primary source?

So you agree that abiogensis is just pretty much an Assumption right?

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

The same reason you obviously think we need something external to explain us.

That doesn't answer my question.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Proof of Darwinian's evolutionary model? Because I believe if we had proof and that much evidence it would no longer hold the title as just a "Theory" now would it?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Had to edit: That same question could require what's the explanation for Atheism? You guys don't believe that anything of a higher power had divine intervention over life chemistry and that there is no reason for us even existing. So the question begs the explanation for the reason of Atheism.

You can't explain atheism in the sense that you can find a certain fact which forever shows it to be true. To know "atheism" to be broadly and completely true with any kind of certainty is impossible without knowing absolutely everything. However, we can be atheistic towards specific religious claims and justify that by showing those claims to be false. That is the grounds on which atheism is justified. Obviously you can't apply this to unknown, vague or unknowable claims, in which case any reasonable person would simply reserve conclusive judgment. Remember, these atheists you're talking about only reject one more god than you do (as per that often quoted saying who I can't remember came up with it).

Originally Posted by Mark75

You can't explain atheism in the sense that you can find a certain fact which forever shows it to be true. To know "atheism" to be broadly and completely true with any kind of certainty is impossible without knowing absolutely everything. However, we can be atheistic towards specific religious claims and justify that by showing those claims to be false. That is the grounds on which atheism is justified. Obviously you can't apply this to unknown, vague or unknowable claims, in which case any reasonable person would simply reserve conclusive judgment. Remember, these atheists you're talking about only reject one more god than you do (as per that often quoted saying who I can't remember came up with it).

Interesting indeed. So give me an example of one of these false claims?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Is that what you've gotten from just that one little reply? I don't recall accepting anything from saying "very well put, thanks" If you want my personal opinion on it, I think it's a stretch. The effort's nice but the idea doesn't hold much weight.

No, I didn't think it likely you'd considered the import of what I was saying simply because you were unable to reply. I wagered you would let the pretty words slough off your preconceived notions without realistically reexamining the efforts of the entire scientific establishment for over a century to unseat Darwin's theory, the results being, "well, maybe survival of the fittest is an oversimplification, and this family split off here rather than there." My guess was you would continue to ignore the whole fields of inquiry unheard of in Darwin's time which flawlessly integrate with a theory he devised from surface appearances alone.

The idea holds the weight of six-plus generations of investigation catalogued in detail, should you ever feel your ego can withstand their perusal.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Okay you sound a bit confused. You say no you're not trying to pass it off as evidence of molecules-to-man but then you turn right around and say it's evidence for Darwinians's evolution which is the same thing- Fish to MAN

So which is it?

Divine-Epic-Facepalm

"Molecules-to-man" includes Abiogenesis. This has been pointed out 10^99 times, so I'll just quote Wikipedia:

The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens, does not depend on understanding exactly how life began.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Why would something as eternal require an explanation?

Had to edit: That same question could require what's the explanation for Atheism? You guys don't believe that anything of a higher power had divine intervention over life chemistry and that there is no reason for us even existing. So the question begs the explanation for the reason of Atheism.

Oh Jesus.. They don't know, because there isn't proof.

And this article shows how a lizard evolved and adapted to its surroundings in just a few years. Since you don't believe in evolution, how is it that it "changed".

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Oh Jesus.. They don't know, because there isn't proof.

And this article shows how a lizard evolved and adapted to its surroundings in just a few years. Since you don't believe in evolution, how is it that it "changed".

God did it, duh!

Originally Posted by Taosaur

No, I didn't think it likely you'd considered the import of what I was saying simply because you were unable to reply. I wagered you would let the pretty words slough off your preconceived notions without realistically reexamining the efforts of the entire scientific establishment for over a century to unseat Darwin's theory, the results being, "well, maybe survival of the fittest is an oversimplification, and this family split off here rather than there." My guess was you would continue to ignore the whole fields of inquiry unheard of in Darwin's time which flawlessly integrate with a theory he devised from surface appearances alone.

The idea holds the weight of six-plus generations of investigation catalogued in detail, should you ever feel your ego can withstand their perusal.

Okay this is what get’s me. Now correct me if I’m wrong, Evolution promotes the belief that mutations and natural selection result in one kind of creature changing into a totally different kind over long periods of time. Am I pretty much on the right track here?
So what exactly is the purpose for pointing out speciation if it doesn’t show an any example of completely new additional information from a naturally occurring mutation or selection?

And as far as weight, let me just put it to you this way. You can go to any secular anthropologist and ask him to provide you with the most ancient evidence for spirit expression. They will confess that the most ancient evidence dates back to only 8,000 to 24,000 years ago. In the form of a moral code or religious relics, the most ancient finds have been primitive Venus Idol figurines from 10,000 years ago.

My 10,000 PLUS years compared to your 6 plus generations, you do the math.

Like I said "not much weight".

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Divine-Epic-Facepalm

"Molecules-to-man" includes Abiogenesis. This has been pointed out 10^99 times, so I'll just quote Wikipedia:

Look above, that reply to Taosaur is also yours.

I find it silly that you people argue about the gods...

They are based on faith, and faith needs no science and no creator to exist: God and indeed the gods are all a matter of faith, so let them be.

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Oh Jesus.. They don't know, because there isn't proof.

And this article shows how a lizard evolved and adapted to its surroundings in just a few years. Since you don't believe in evolution, how is it that it "changed".

Dreamworld first- point out where I said I don't believe in evolution.

Second- It's evolved yes but where is the new genetic information?

Thrid- You failed to answer my question.

Ne-yo would you be more comfortable if I said evolution is God's ways of making us, without busting his ass so damn much?

"God the almighty", the "clock maker", "supreme creator" and the "unknowable", if he was perfect, why would he have "feelings" for us? Why wouldn't he create a natural process for us to live by, a plan so magnificent he doesn't have too peek in once in a while.

There is a difference between our theory of creation, and you theory of creation.
Ours is based on logic alone, while yours is based on the bible, and revised by logic.

We were born without nothing in our hands, nothing at all.. not even a bible. We were born with logic alone, and we should live by logic.


Eh, if you believe in evolution why are we arguing?

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Ne-yo would you be more confortable if I said evolution is God's ways of making us, without busting his ass so damn much?

"God the almighty", the "clock maker", "supreme creator" and the "unknowable", if he was perfect, why would he have "feelings" for us? Why wouldn't he create a natural process for us to live by, a plan so magnificant he doesn't have too peek in once in a while.

There is a difference between our theory of creation, and you theory of creation.
Ours is based on logic alone, while yours is based on the bible, and revised by logic.

We were born without nothing in our hands, nothing at all.. not even a bible. We were born with logic alone, and I will live by logic.

How hard is that Dreamworld? Seriously? How hard is it to answer a question? I hate when people dodge my questions. Hit me up when you ready to answer the questions I've presented to you. I'll be around

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

How hard is that Dreamworld? Seriously? How hard is it to answer a question? I hate when people dodge my questions. Hit me up when you ready to answer the questions I've presented to you. I'll be around

You haven't asked me one question..

And what is your argument? Do you believe in evolution or not?

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

You haven't asked me one question..

And what is your argument? Do you believe in evolution or not?

Are you kidding me??????

Forget about man.