Where did God come from?

I could mention scripture, or some of my ideas about that subject, but I think a different approach would be more interesting.Since people can't (all-convincingly) use scripture to defend His existence, I'm curious if anybody can disprove this higher power without pointing out faults in the Bible or other spiritual documents.------------------
Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.

"Who would be so vain as to say they know that an originator existed at all?"And who would be so vain as to say they know for certain that an originator does not exist?You're not suggesting that everone in the world who believes in some sort of diety is full of vanity, are you?However, I'm not accusing anybody of anything with that question. "Believing", when used in spiritual terms, usually doesn't
mean "knowing". NOBODY really knows 100% for sure whether or not a higher power exists, because the proof of a creator is creation itself, however, as most athiests point out, the universe doesn't have anybody's name written on it.I really think both sides of this arguement should refrain from pointing fingers, because nobody argues well when they're pissed, and as such nobody learns anything.------------------
Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.

TO ADMIN(s)LEASE DELETEno prob hun, deleting double post - the Queen[This message has been edited by Born2Preach, 12-13-2003][This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 12-13-2003][This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 12-13-2003]

"The proof is up to the one making the existential claim...To turn it back to you, maybe you could disprove the existence of Thor, Bast, Astarte, The Titans, or Wakan Tanka."Well, for starters the Titans were so big that they would've left fossils even from that long ago, and they probably ate so much you'd think they would've made everything else extinct, but if they were there first all they could eat were Cyclops(my greek mind is not strong)and... um, anyway. On to making a point.As for the proof, you're right, that's pretty hard to do but here it goes. I'll eliminate the obvious first for everyone's sake:Creation itself is both proof and disproof of a master creator in itself, so it cancels itself out as practically irrelevant.But how about this? Morality is to an extent proof of some form of higher existence. That's hard to explain on the draw, so I'll paraphrase(as breifly as possible) something I read awhile back that's similar to what I'm trying to explain.Right and wrong not as variables, but as facts.Slight variations may apply, but all of us have similar idea. That's peculiar.Example: If I was to walk over and bitch slap somebody I didn't know, I'm pretty sure most of you would agree I was being a jerk.Why is that? Simple instinct drilled into us? Elephants care about eachother.But that's as a pack. The man in question who is currently rubbing his face(or hitting me back) is probably in no direct relation to you, so why should you care about him?There seems to be a universal standard of right and wrong of which we're expected to follow. We don't always. It's not like the law of gravity, where when a ball is thrown in the air it comes down. We SHOULD obey this law, but we usually don't.If right and wrong is in the eye of the beholder, then I guess Nazism is a better concept than Christianity or Buddism. And why not? Nazism was promoting keeping(what was thought to be)only the best humans to continue the species. Survival of the fittest. So why is it that we don't consider that right?There must be a standard that, though it's not written down, is universally existant. It's not exactly Natural Law, though. Because really, we think chopping down too many trees is wrong because it wiped out species of animals. Natural instinct is to insure survival of your own race over somebody elses, so why should we care about the, say, spotted african penguin?And if we're to agree there is a standard, somebody had to make it up besides nature.(I believe that was from Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, by the way.)I might edit this to be more elaborate later, but I've got some stuff to do. I'll be back probably tomorrow.------------------
Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.

Sidelined writes:
"You post {humans cannot comphrehend this stuff}Which 'stuff' are you talking about? "Just a side note that asking that question seems to prove his point.

I'll just answer this one for now, seeing as it'll probably take the longest."I am trying to establish the reason for the conviction of people to the existence of God seperate from the bible."I'll make a list of just a couple of reasons, with follow-up on all of them.1.There's a (physical) feelings that you get when you come out of a church service and you believe what it said, or when you just got done having a long prayer. This may sound stupid, but I object to anybody calling me an idiot before I'm finished(or after, but anyway)This is not just some scientifically explainable feeling that can be explained by the body releasing hormones or your brain sending electrical waves. It's not quite physical enough to be like exaustion. However, it's not quite enough of an emotional feeling to be like sadness or happiness. There have been events(baptism being the star of this one) where people have felt that feeling so greatly they've fainted. I've never heard of anybody passing out from being too happy or sad. Too tired, maybe, but that's not in the same category as this, seeing as how exaustion is a result of the body working. If anyone were to imply that there is some sort of "spirituality gene", as I have heard in the past, that is stimulated by spiritual feelings then it's quite clear that spiritual feelings can be detected as a biological category, in which case I plead intelligent design big time, because something like that has no practical cause in our body and evolution would've destroyed that and probably wouldn't have found an adaptive reason to create such a trait.2.Christianity and Islam were "founded"(well, 'founded' more or less) about 500 years apart in completely different places, and yet they both have Abraham as a universal father, believe in one supreme God, and believe in the existence of Jesus, even if their ideas of His identity were different.That paragraph pretty much sums it up. That sounds pretty far-fetched to be a coincidence. On top of that, almost all religions believe in some kind of Devil. A supreme evil, if you will. People might argue,
"Well that seems natural. If there's a "good" to be controlled by, you must instill fear of an "evil" which is the enemy".As much as I like the book 1984, Big Brother and religion are much less similar than one might think, but that's another arguement.The point is that they have a similar structure yet there's no LOGICAL explination of their similarities. Coincidence? Sure. They just so happened to have a father called Abraham and at least a mention of a 'Jesus', not to mention all the little things they have in common.Why are the ideas of these faiths so similar? My guess is they're seeing different sides of the elephant. If anybody doesn't know about that term, I'll fill you in later but for now onto the next point.3. We're the only species with a religion.Animals may show emotions and actions similar to human behavior, but I've never seen a monkey make religious offerings to a diety. All of animal behavior's cause and effects can be explained, unless they eat and take a dump to worship a God.If we're just another animal, why do we have religion and other mammals do not? On a side note, if they suddenly did show signs of faith well that'd just be more beings to argue with about this, since they're supposed to 'sense things that we don't.'4.We are designed intelligently.If you disagree with the idea that we are intelligently designed by Something and not just by fluke, you may argue your case in the forum designed for that.Even our evolutionary process was pretty fitting for the times. Sure, others evolved like that too, but not everybody.(the dinosaurs, for example.) That's pretty wild that a bunch of insignificant little monkeys could eventually dominate the earth by coincidence. Also, our surroundings themselves were quite perfect for the survival of these mishapen monkeys. Sure, the universe is so huge that there had to have been hot spot for life somewhere. But really, the odds are pretty slim, and since I'm not well versed in the area of evolution I'll let that lead into my next point.5.Big Bang theory completely agrees with theological belief. I'm gonna cheat and use a scipture reference, but here we go:God said "Let there be light". Big bang was probably pretty bright.
This was WAAAY before anybody knew enough to hypothesis anything like that when it was written first, regardless of when people think Genesis was written, it was for sure not in the last 2000 years at MINIMUN age. I've heard different versions of the theory saying that it was anything from pure energy to a giant comet collision that set it off.If it was energy, then it can't be created nor destroyed. I agree. But all the same, I don't see how pure energy would suddenly combust. And if it would, then it wouldn't do it suddenly, it would happen right when it was created(but it can't be created, so I'll stop now to avoid a circle.)If it were comets, asteroids, or anything else of the such, somebody please assert to me how they got there without telling me that comets cannot be created nor destroyed. Something had to create it. I'd have a hard time believing that pure energy suddenly turned into a giant rock and then exploded without intervention.6.The laws of the natural world kind of make you wonder. Take gravity. Throw a rock in the air, it drops back down. Physics are different on the moon, in space, etc. It's all so beautifully woven, from the perfect placements of atoms that make up EVERYTHING, from the laws of physics and chemistry that governs it. Chemical reactions are great examples. Things come together and atoms are activated. Why? "Because X stimulates Y". Obviously. but.. why? "because it does". Well, that's not a very scientific way to look at it.
The point is, it's all so picturesque and calculated I assert that creation itself and its governing laws are intelligently designed.I had another point but I forgot it. Oh well, I'll put it in later.
Gosh, that was long. Sorry. Edited to clarify a point in #1.------------------
Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.[This message has been edited by Born2Preach, 12-16-2003]

Ha! And now I will proceed to disprove the Titans!"Not at all. The Titans aren't dead. Most are in Tartarus."Well,you said most so where are the other ones, sippin' a bud maybe?
Furthurmore, where is this Tartarus and how do you get there? I never saw any maps for it. If we can't find a place on earth with a whole lotta trapped Titans, then you can't argue it's out of this world because at the dawn of time space travel was a little scarce.Oh, and if it's in the center of the earth, I'd like to appeal to the book Journey to the Center of the Earth by Jules Verne or the movie The Core. Just tell me how or even WHY anybody would go through all that trouble just to lock up a bunch of bad boys.I said:
"and they probably ate so much you'd think they would've made everything else extinct..."You replied:
"Why? Dinosaurs and whales are gigantic creatures and yet, there are still animals around."Well, while we're on that subject. If the Titans weren't so big why were they so high and mighty when there's a perfectly good T-rex that could eat them? If you are asserting this was at the dawn of time you must explain how they were created without endless years of evolution and what proof you have besides the religion's scripture that says this took place(everyone seems to ask for 'more proof' from Christian arguements on this forum, so I think it's only fair that I ask this of you.)"no, the Cyclops were locked in Tartarus, too, and Zeus freed them to help him overthrow Cronos. They gave Zeus the thunderbolt, Poseidon the trident, and Hades the helmet. Later, when Zeus killed Asclepius, Apollo (Asclepius' father) retaliated by killing the Cyclops that gave Zeus the thunderbolt (Arges, Brontes, and Steropes)."Sheesh, this Tartarus must be pretty dang big, and it has a friggin' lock! You're telling me they invented locks before they invented the wheel? That's not even counting the fact that they had tridents, helmets, and the technology to control a bolt of lightning and give it to somebody!And where did Apollo kill those Cyclops? We've gotta go there, we've got some fossils to find!...Unless they're in Tartarus. We still don't know where that is...

Wow. You just asserted the point I was trying to make twice as well in half as many words. Guess I can go argue about something else now.Thanks in Christ!------------------
Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.

Okay, here's some stuff you put in a reply and why I think they're kind of ... strange."quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We start with the nature of our existance (do we exist or do others exist?-I assume he presupposes that we exist and that others do as well(outside our mind)).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------No, I don't.Here's a hint: Rather than assume things about me, why don't you ask?"Whoa now, you're saying you don't assume that people around you exist? Maybe you could fill me in on this because if the inventor(s) of computers did not exist, you would be typing on NOTHING. Please explain."quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The universe is incoherent without reason and logic AND without them being universal and invariant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Incorrect. Mathematics and atheists, by their very existence, show you to be wrong."How so? You mention axioms as statements you can put forth without needing to prove them. Now if that's legit, then nobody needs to argue because we don't need to prove our points.And athiests? Shoot,athiests have reason and logic, that's why they question existence of a higher power(not saying that spiritualists do not as well. it's just their logic and reason has lead them to a different conclusion thusfar)"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atheism is an oversimplified philisophical system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Thus showing that you know nothing about atheism."Well, maybe that was their axiom. So much for them being okay."Pascal's wager. You didn't really think the god that truly exists was the Christian one, did you?"I think that's kind of a proverbial bitch-slap toward Christianity that isn't really on topic. Wait, maybe that's just another axiom.

"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that in fact all have had these things placed within themselves-by God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------But the mere existence of atheists proves you wrong.They have those things and god had nothing to do with it. Ergo, your claim is wrong."I think there's a serious misinterpretation on both parts which has lead to a really annoying parroting contest, I swear if the mere exisence of atheists proves anybody else wrong any more times....Er, anyway...What Grace2u is saying is NOT that the belief of God is required for us as humans to have morality, but the EXISTENCE of God whether or not people believe in Him.Let's just assume that God is real for a second.He gives us all the concept of morality. Sure, some may say he doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean they don't still get the morality.Here's an analogy:Before we 'believed' in primal human instinct, it was there. Given to us at birth. We know how to swallow, how to take a dump, etc. We don' t need to acknowledge its existence and effect on us, but it still takes place on everyone no matter what they believe.Again: The point of the morality arguement is not that belief in God is required, but that it's simply given to us at birth like instinct.The belief that something gave it to us is NOT relevant in the arguement, just that we have it.The existence of athiests is irrelevant.

---

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.[This message has been edited by Born2Preach, 01-02-2004]

I understand that the statements made were probably difficult to put into words, however the statements were also hard to understand so I'll do my best:The problem with the creation by definition idea you just mentioned is that things DO exist before we know about them.Example:We didn't know about other universes for some time, but they were there. We didn't have a concrete way of uttering 'psyche' or exploring it for the longest time, but there were things buzzing around in our minds since the dawn of time.So this sense of morality that you call a human invention can't really be called a human invention for the same reason. Before philosophy...(argueable this never was, but let's say there was for a second)Would it be perfectly fine to kill, rape, and plunder without good justification? Somehow I don't think so. Now it becomes this question:IS RIGHT AND WRONG JUST DECIDED BY SOCIETY? SOCIAL MAJORITY, THEN?If your answer is yes, then we can call Martin Luther King Jr.'s acts in the 60s absolutely unnacceptable and in every way against all that is right and just in the universe. Why? Because humans said so! And let's face it: The majority of people didn't agree with him at first.
It may have not seemed right back then, but looking back now we know it was.In the fray of things, an arguement with a friend for example, our sense of right and wrong and words we can't take back are dimmed. Looking back on the event we can have a better understanding of what should've, would've, and could've.But just by saying our sense of right and wrong is dulled means that we are supposed to sense right with, well, a sense. Kind of like we're supposed to use our eyes to see something in front of us.Also we agree that post incident we have a better understanding of what should've been done. The statement that understanding of should-haves can be gauged implies very strongly that there is a code of right and wrong.Speaking of human concepts of reality that sort of fall into 'creation by definition', how 'bout this:"What you don't know can't hurt you."After a LITTLE thought this easily wards off objections:
----------------------------------------
Person:What you don't know can't hurt you.Me:What if you don't know somebody's behind you, then he stabs you in the back?Person:You didn't know about him until he stabs you. Thus, it didn't hurt you until you knew about it.Me:What if you get shot in your sleep?Person: Then you will ascend to afterlife unharmed. In the absence of afterlife you will cease to know and feel. Since you don't know or feel, nothing can hurt you.Me: (Strangles him in frustration)-----------------------------------And really it continues to, but the fact remains that just because you don't know about it now doesn't mean you won't know about it in a minute. So really, it's more like:"What you don't know is about to hurt you."The reality of the proverbial scenario is that the man behind you is about to attack, regardless of your moment of bliss.The point of this lecture: Things exist regardless of our knowledge of their presence in reality.That's about all I've got to say. Anybody else want to chip in?

---

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.[This message has been edited by Born2Preach, 01-05-2004][This message has been edited by Born2Preach, 01-06-2004]

:ae: responds:"Your phrase "without good justification" disqualifies your question as legitimate. Essentially you're asking "Would it be good to do something that I'll now define as not-good?" Obviously the answer to the question is no, but it's hardly relevant to the notion of the existence of absolute morality. Sure, "good" is absolutely better than "bad" according to our definitions of them. The problem is that things can be simultaneously good in one sense and bad in another."Okay, first sentence: I put that there to discourage what-ifs. Somebody threw a really off-the-wall justification of killing/rape at somebody else, I think it might have been in the "Where did God come from?" board. It was around the lines of "What if a mad scientist gets a hold of something that will wipe out 90% of the earth and he will agree to not use it if you rape your daughter and then kill her?"Call me heartless, but I couldn't help but chuckle at the idea because that brings up a lot of other how/why questions regarding what chain of events lead up to that situation. But even so, I had
to acknowledge that.People seem to assume this Absolute Morality a lot of us are bringing up is like human laws; this means that Absolute morality doesn't do what-ifs. Really, it wouldn't seem like it would judging by the 'absolute' in the name. But really, if it didn't it would be like a human law and contradict.Killing, raping etc. are bad on their own without justification. Do you all agree? I hope so...Not trying to save the world by doing that horrible stuff to please some wierd mad scientist would be bad if you counsider how many people would suffer for that one good deed. While I doubt this situation is legit, we agree that NOT saving the world is bad. So, the Universal Law DOES weigh the consequences. That may sound like I'm stretching things just to defend my case, but this is not so.Let me give another example to defend my last sentence. Let's bring up murder. You've probably heard of the Salem Witch Trials brought up to make Christianity look like the KKK. Well, looking back we know this is wrong, and I'm sure we can agree that it was wrong. We now, for the most part, agree either that witches and witchcraft are all a bunch of hocus-pocus, or at least they're not hurting any of us, just doing their own thing. However, back then they were considered an active and constant threat, like terrorists. They thought what they did was right back then, which brings up another point.Someone I talked to, who may have gotten this from another source, once wrote it out quite plainly that morality can be put into three (argueably)ascending levels. I've given this visual aide as best I could for comminication's sake.Level 1-Individual Morality- what one personally identifies as right and wrongLevel 2-Social Morality- what society/government etc. considers right and wrongLevel 3- Absolute(or Divine) Morality- an absolute guideline of what is right and wrong, above both other levels.The Salem Witch trials were individual/socil morality. Obviously this can be disagreed with; witches or not those people didn't deserve to be burned at the stake for not thinking like everyone else.Social Morality isn't always right, either. Medival executions were considered almost a divine practice, which nowadays we look back and realize how horrible those were.We have probably, I'm making an educated guess here, agreed from the start that levels 1 and 2 are often not right. Just by saying that there is a hint of something beyond and above them both.Objection: One could argue that it's just his point of view from a hindsight, therefore more defined. Well, that's just common sense.
But, who's to say that hindsight is always right? When people debate over what's right and wrong, it goes kind of like this:-----------
That was not justified because X.But consider the fact that Y.Well, that's true, Y might justify X.
--------On a very rare occasion the other might responder that Y doesn't justify X, and then present a reason. However, the reasons keep adding up but the two always seem to agree that there can be a justification, and the justification(Y) justifies the action(X) unless there is another justification(Z) that overrules Y.That's as straightforward a respons as I could make it. Hope it comminicated the point I had in mind.

---

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.[This message has been edited by Born2Preach, 01-06-2004][This message has been edited by Born2Preach, 01-06-2004]

"But the mere existence of atheists proves her wrong."Look, we've tried to explain to you several times that the assertion is NOT that the BELIEF in God generates the morality, but the EXISTENCE does. You go on about how I assume God exists and then think God must've done it. You've been whining about people assuming things about you, and asked them to not do so. Please practice what you preach and don't assume that I assume.Just because I am a Christian does not mean I am a fundamentalist. I do not assume EVERYTHING is a sign from God. If I trip over a rock, it's because a rock was there and I didn't see it. There was very doubtfully Divine nor demonic intervention at all.The mere existence of atheists proves the mere existence of atheists. Just because people don't believe in something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You seem to think, and I said seem so I'm not jumping to conclusions, that if a few people don't believe in something it doesn't exist, without question. You may not believe in any supernatural presence. That's fine. However, when I said 'let's assume God is real for a second' I meant that for the sake of arguement that point would be a given for maybe a paragraph, to prove a point. But for the rest of it, I am trying to conclude, not assume."quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The belief that something gave it to us is NOT relevant in the arguement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------You're right. It isn't irrelevant...it's circular.The mere existence of atheists proves your assumption wrong."Okay, please explain how this is circular and this whole atheists proves everybody wrong thing.

---

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.