Creator of God, Big Bang

I have a question:One thing I have noticed is that creationists like to attack the big bang. Which of course we have minimal knowledge and proof of. They attack with statements like, which apply not only to the big bang and the universe, but also about life etc. "How can you get something out of nothing?" and "where did matter come from?" .. "there has to be something out there..."My question is who created God, or how did God come about?Now I know the answer is he wasn't created, he has always been there..However doesn't this throw the whole argument that machines require an engineer out the window? Humans cannot arise by chance, but a God with infinite power can?Creationists can only say that is what we are told and believe.Evolutionists can only say upon studying it, we think that this is what happened.But logically I think that a cloud of hydrogen gas coming from no where is more believeable than a super God coming out of no where.We will almost certainly never know how the universe came to be, so it is unfair that creationist scientists say that living things can't come about on their own and require active thought to make because this falls apart at the very start with the "God that just was there"I hope I have succeded in getting my point across and would like to be educated if I am wrong.many thanks in advance

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Hello. Really?See, to me, an eternally existing Creator makes more sense than eternally existing matter.I suppose, however, that eternally existing anythingis impossible for us to quantify and thus, fathom...however.

Replace the word "creator" with the words "immaterial pink unicorn" and you get...

quote:

---

See, to me, an eternally existing immaterial pink unicorn makes more sense than eternally existing matter.

---

Or, you can insert just about any supernatural fantasy in there to replace the word god.

I don't believe it for a minute. People always use that argument to gloat about the fact that humans can create the Deity of their choice.This has nothing to do with the Deity that IMB actually exists. But if you want to go around laughing at the whole God concept, be my guest.Try explaining the purpose of an eternally existing universe with no intelligence beyond evolved intelligence. And while you are at it, try postulating how far intelligence will eventually evolve.The only thing you probably will end up concluding is that making babies is our highest calling in life.

It's a valid argument - if you go around adding extraneous undefined entities, you can replace the word god with anything you like. It's not meant to mock the concept of god - it's meant to point out the violation of parsimony and special pleading on behalf of those who believe in a god. "Purpose" is not required for existence. Human beings like to try to find purpose, but that doesn't mean it's there, or required. The Universe can simply exist, without any purpose whatsoever."Purpose" is a human concept, not a property of nature. This has nothing to do with anything. Or helping other people. Or progressing human knowledge. Or whatever else a person wants to define their own purpose as. We determine our own "higher callings," Phat. We always have.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

So can God. Its all about belief, since we admittedly have no way of knowing--at least in a way we can explain to others. Some would also assert that God is a human concept. Its possible that He isn't, however. Thats why this thread is in Faith/Belief.If you believe in strict evolution, you will believe that intelligence and logic have either evolved along with humans...or you will believe that logic existed even before people could define it with words and theorems.Why not extend the same courtesy to the possibility that God exists?

Certainly true. But again, you're using special pleading. The argument you're using, "I can't prove it exists, but you can't prove it doesn't," applies equally well to "invisible pink unicorn," "purple fairy," or "Flying Spaghetti Monster" as to any deity. Right, but without any evidence whatsoever to suggest the existence of a deity, there's no reason to believe in one except for the emotional desires of the human mind. You literally pick a deity that you "like" or were brought up to believe in, and insist in the possibility of its existence, while agreeing that the existence of the invisible pink unicorn is highly unlikely despite being able to use the exact same argument for both. Logic is a human creation used to test the validity of arguments. That's all. I accept the possibility of any given deity's existence. I simply also realize that the existence of any one particular deity is exactly as likely as the existence of any other supernatural creature from myth, or any other unfalsifiable extraneous entity.As an Atheist, my position is not "no deity can possibly exist." My position is "I see no reason to believe in one, any more than I see a reason to believe in fairies."

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

ok, well the only difference here from you and believers in God , is that you believe it more logical that this "hydrogen gas" or energy has no intelligence. the creation side is, yes it was there, was there as itself only, and form it all things came, and it had intelligence.thats the difference between your logic, and believers in God.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

this is a fine position to be an atheist and see things this way, as long as your open to the possibility that proof does exist. see, i also had to have proof before i could fully accept in my heart the reality of God.but i plead with you, in your atheism, to consider the things i do say, and apply them to logic and truth and science. because what i bring to you is what i needed, and it is proof of God.you do not doubt (hopefully) that you are, that what you have studied is real, and what you read here was brought to you by people that are real. by this observation, i hope to further discuss the possibilities of the truth of God by observation ona topic that is yet waiting to be advanced in the proposed topics, relating to "reality".

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Exactly. Believers in god violate parsimony by adding an extraneous entity to the equation.If(the Universe as we observe it) = (Matter) + (Energy) + (the observed behaviors we describe with the Laws of Physics)And(The Universe as we observe it) = (Matter) + (Energy) + (the observed behaviors we describe with the Laws of Physics) + (God)ThenGod = 0, and is irrelevant.It's exactly like saying:If4 = 2 + 2And4 = 2 + 2 + xThenx = 0, and is irrelevant.Does it mean "x" or "God" can't possibly exist? No. It just means there's no reason to believe they do, because at best they are irrelevant.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

i believe you mean "apparently" irrelevant.see, if God is real, then the consciousness of God is real, and all things are a part of the body of God. if God being deduced the way i have, and existing only on its own faith, all being existing only by that faith, then it is very relevant as a whole, because then it adds credence to a "greater purpose" than this apparently useless life.we make money, spend it on things we quickly bore with, destroy the natural balance of the earth, and look for new things to exploit to our will by the science and technology we study and grow.purposeless.but, if God IS, then there has to be a purpose we have overlooked, because all the other things that exist beside man, have a purpose. grass to feed the cow, cow to feed the lions, lions to challenge man, but man to rule. and for what, we just exploit and destroy to our will? funny. that a God can both exist, and then decide that it will create something that will destroy or warp the very balances of everything else he created.that's the point. is that there is a point. that is, if God IS.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Navel grazing nonsense. It's all irrelevant.If the universe with god appears tot he observer exactly the same as the universe without god, then god is irrelevant to the observer, and the observer has no reason to believe god even exists.Your silliness regarding "the existence of existence" is not relevant to this thread.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

but it doesn't. that's the point. you don't look at the universe with God in it, your an atheist. so how do you know what it looks like from the view of God in it?when you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change. im not hashing that out here. im staying within topic on the relevance of God, and the differences in the beliefs of those who see a world without God, and those who view it with God.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

There's a very, very large difference between starting with the assumption that god exists, and inferring the existence of god due to evidence.The former is a violation of parsimony, adding an extraneous entity for no objective reason. The latter would be a valid way to show the existence of god, if only he would provide some evidence he even exists.As I said to Phat, you're engaging in special pleading for the deity of your choice. Could have fooled me, with this:

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.