Who Made God?

Sounds a bit too pantheistic, don't you think?

See you got me there. From everything that I have studied, there has never been evidence of either pantheism as defined by Websters nor of dualism. Granted the Genesis scripture is problematic. After all, who is us? Everything that I have read from what you call Christian Fundamentalism emphasizes a literal Bible...so we do have an interesting rabbit trail to explore. (I like googling almost as much as you do! )Thre is an interesting website called Closer to Truth which is the first thing I found. It has lots of interesting videos but I don't really have time to explore them at the moment. I need to focus on finding an answer to the question of who us is in genesis. Winging it, I have often found it easy to believe that God is by definition the uncaused first cause...and by that I mean that nothing ever came before Him...not to say that once upon a time there was nothing and later on there was God, mind you. That before time was, He is. Before space was, He was. Before matter, he was. Revelations has an interesting take on it that I often use.Note, by the way, that time and space are believed to be created things...thus we are only discussing ideas. The idea of an eternal uncreated god is a belief. Perhaps I like it because it explains God in a way that I can appreciate His vastness and infinite omnipotence. I'm not sure that the ancient Greeks were any worse at contemplating these things than I am, but let me give two of my favorite Bible scriptures that I came to agree with...at least so far.1) Revelation says that God was, is, and essentially will always be. It also implies that the Beast(which some see as satan) Once was, is not and yet is for those whose name is not written in the Book of Life.Granted I am simply parroting my beliefs to you, and I respect the articles which you google as well. In fact, the 2004 version of me would have tried to essentially win this discussion and stereotype you as a seeker of knowledge rather than truth, which at the time i would have declared that I in fact had.(By virtue of having been saved. Now, in 2018, (Happy New Year by the way) I try and present discussions and arguments without necessarily trying to win.Question for you, LNA. If you were given the choice between monotheist, polytheist, pantheist, agnostic, atheist and/or dualist...which would you consider to be the most logical belief?Paul talked of an unknown god and then proceeded to explain that the god he worshipped was known. Perhaps one could argue that this concept did not rule out pantheism, but rather supported it...but I have always been taught that Monotheism (and at worst Trinitarianism) was the essential doctrine of fundamentalist Christianity.jar has also brought up the idea that Paul was out to start a distinct belief or religion apart from traditional Judaism.To be honest with you, I have considered myself a monotheistic Christian, but would welcome criticism as long as it is constructive.

You have a point, much as it makes me uncomfortable. I'm not sure yet if I can totally throw away the concept of Biblical Inerrancy, but I'll consider it for the sake of debate.
The challenge for me is that if i throw God away, I find myself plagued with a lot of uncertainty. It is most definitely not comfortable.Besides...do you see where Lamark New Age is coming from when he states: My immediate reaction to that was to attempt to explain that the God whom I understand transcends not only this universe but any and every other possible universe (or multiverse) and like Paul states, was and is not made by human hands nor minds nor brains nor imaginations. It's the Capital letter God. The GOD whom you claim is complete but whom I count as "good". I don't feel that I can limit my definition of who GOD is from the Logos of the Bible stories.
The God whom I believe in is reality, if it exists. Granted I have been taught that Jesus factors in there as a necessary relational road to understanding GOD, but I can appreciate and understand how both you and LNA are unafraid to use other stories to explain other possibilities.But my question to you both is this:
Why pantheism? Why not monotheism?

This idea tweaks my brain. I wonder what Son Goku thinks? Granted one definition of pantheism is this:

quote:

---

1 : a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe
2 : the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently; also : toleration of worship of all gods (as at certain periods of the Roman empire)

---

Thus if i claim to be a monotheist, I cannot equate God with any forces or laws
(such as the informal law of karma, or what fundies state as the law of sowing and reaping) nor can I claim that God is definable since even that is a law of human wisdom.Though some claim that modern humanity is idolatrous at its core---we at times value money, football, and SI swimsuit models with more passion than we do God---I would agree that some could argue that Trinitarianism can be perceived as polytheistic and that in a strict sense, attributing power to Satan and the entire concept of idolatry multiplies worship into a virtual pantheistic panopoly.

OK, so what about Paul? You have argued before that there is no evidence that Paul saw Jesus as God. Paul describes God in a way that makes sense. Fundies would, of course, argue that when Saul got smitten and blinded, he not only switched sides but had a revelation of who God is. He certainly sounds reasonable to me. Of course, you likely will reiterate that GOD, if GOD exists, is unknowable and undefinable. My point is that from what I can gather, Paul likely wouldn't agree with you. As a side note, I wonder if Paul would see God more as good or, like you, as complete?

Hello, Pastor. First let me address LNA: Some of us believe(though do not know nor can prove) that Christianity is a revealed religion. Granted, my ideas on Spiritual impartation,special knowledge, and wisdom that is not understood by the learned minds of today borders on a fusion with gnostic thought,but in regards to I CANT, keep in mind that he is probably more traditional evangelical...similar to Faith, though I commend and applaud Pastor I CANT for even taking the time to comment and participate here at our forum...to the limited degree that he does.He likely spends most of his time preaching and discussing Christianity in a far more Biblical Inerrant sense than what we do here...which of course jar laughs at.(jar is unimpressed with Biblical Christianity) Larmark, what you will find around here at EvC is that it is not easy to get a conversation going with many members. We too are creatures of the flesh and of matter as opposed to the spiritual plane of ideas which you seek to google and conceptualize. We often like to talk and teach rather than discuss and listen. I consider God to be Spirit rather than matter...hence no material need even be used in defining Him. Thus logically, the only conclusive element that could conceivably be of His eternal preexistent makeup would have to be Spirit rather than matter, whether dark matter or regular matter.I don't quite understand (nor likely believe) in what Plato describes as an eternal archetype.
Perhaps what Plato meant is that the father of all things is the God of our imaginations and the eternal archetype is GOD Himself. I agree with this belief and it touches on what the argument is about over at our thread The Science Of Miracles. Some believe that human wisdom is the origin of all philosophy and premise on all topics. Others believe that the universe itself is created by God and thus qualifies itself as a miracle...the original miracle, of course, being creation itself. Humans can only form a scientific theory out of a time in space that they understand. The entire definition of the word origin is among other things "cradle' and genesis.Im guessing that you also arrived at this conclusion in your Biblical Studies.

Our search for knowledge and truth continues! (Read my last post to I CANT by the way. I addressed you also.) One would guess that the very first thing would be an idea. The question is whose idea?

Often, in debates, one must respond to silly statements in order to resolve the inconsistencies in the discussion.I get the idea that you don't really respect Pastor I CANT. It seems that the very fact that he posts here in an unlikely den of wolves indicates more humility than arrogance on his part. If he is, in fact, ignorant, responding to his statements is not a waste of time.BTW have you ever heard this quote?
Immanuel Kant but Ghengis Khan.While searching unsuccessfully for the original author, I also found a funny joke for you, jar.
A bee is flying alongside another bee. He notices that his fellow apian is wearing a yarmulke. What’s with the headgear? he asks. You want I should be taken for a WASP? comes the reply.We need to ask I CANT why he chose that name. I suspect that he would reply "I CANT But HE CAN." You might change it to SHE CAN, knowing you.

oh okay, i get it. You were merely commenting on I CANTs response to NoNukes.Sorry I overlooked that.I hope that this morning finds you in good health, however. It is hell getting old, and I am only 58. I struggle with Type 2 diabetes, sleep apnea, neuropathy and loss of feeling in my legs and feet, and other maladies common to some older humans. In regards to this topic of Who Made God, it is important to me that the God of my imagination and desire exists. If I discovered that GOD was truly unknowable and unapproachable, my last fantasy and hope in life would be extinguished and i would be slapped yet again by reality.Doctors cant do everything, after all.

why are you accusing him of saying stupid things? That's a bit disingenuous. Perhaps you had better explain why his statements make no sense rather than seeing so arrogant. And didn't they tell you in school that there was no such thing as a stupid question?

I still don't understand how anyone can accept such a concept as a nothingness phase.
Is it not obvious that if at any given point there was nothing...then at any future point there simply must be nothing? Otherwise what you are implying is that something was created.Of course, if an unbeliever conceives of nothing (in the form of No God) and then later becomes a believer, the belief itself becomes the creation. Nothing becomes something. I reject this theory, however, because God is more than a subset of the human mind.

Humans are strange creatures. It would be as if i made a robot and gave it a brain and speech and it looked at me and said that I had to come from somewhere...even though for all intents and purposes I pre-existed the bleepin robot! What mechanical hubris! Our brains mimic creation. we attempt to frame an explanation for anything and everything and put it in our mental box. Why is it so difficult to simply say that God was not created therefore needs no cause? Too big for your mental box?Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Although one could argue that logically our knowledge is not infinite nor can it be...thus there will inevitably be gaps along an endless path.

In my mind, God is useful not so much for scientific questions as for philosophical ones. Granted I seem stubborn, but that's because I hold on to belief. One cannot simply discard belief easily and search for newer questions unless one does not value belief, to begin with.

It seems to me that you simply think that any unevidenced belief is nonsense.I think I have figured out the Science Of Miracles thread discussion.Percy claims no belief, but allows that some do believe and have every right to claim whatever they want as miraculous. Perhaps he is trying to understand why believers think the way they do.You, on the other hand, wave away any belief as nonsense precisely because it is unevidenced and you wont allow the term miracle to be part of your vocabulary. You would wait your whole life for evidence without believing in anything.