My mind's in a knot... (Re: Who/what created God?)

Hi Buz and Phat. I would like to add that information is not part of matter, and information only MATTERS to someone rather than some thing.I think DNA is proof of an information within a matter.Ultimately, asking who/what created God would already make God NOT God, as it becomes a contradiction. This is where atheists suffer from a lack of understanding of Jehovah/Yahweh, perhaps, in that they will not spend time considering a sovereign God as a genuine answer to the problem.From a neutral standpoint, God makes a lot of sense, which begs the question; then why question God? Which allows us to conclude = because the person dislikes God being an answer to the problem. So ultimately it comes down to the person's disbelief being a problem, rather than the creation, which declares the glory of God.If I don't get back to you, it was good to talk. Keep fighting the good fight.

I apologise if my personal opinions and thoughts offend you. It's not my intention. I merely believe that having experienced all sides of the debate, I conclude that a rational answer is an intelligent creator, especially if we look at information. It would be a double standard if and only if I had no prior knowledge of the bible, which tells me about an eternal creator.I can't be accused of a DS if I am not able to apply any other standard. Well, no - that's a genuine non sequitur. Logically this can put my deity right up there with [insert anything], as a lack of evidence doesn't = absurd falsity.Perhaps you're not as logical as you thought you were. And this is what ultimately dissapoints me about many atheists, their wild jump to conclusions. But you see, I never said they were! You're speaking not rationally, but belidgerently, by assuming I am out to get you. This is what I genuinely believe, whether you object or not. I can't change genuine conviction.

I haven't even mentioned complexity whatsoever, so how can you know this about me?I am stating a FACT, that my belief in the bible preceded my knowledge of the argument of causes. This means, through deductive logic, a rational person can conclude that I could not propose God's eternal nature posteriori, as that knowledge came through reading the bible texts, which are recorded information, and count as evidence and was recorded in my brain apriori.As for my apology, I present this as an opportunity for you to calm down as I am not here to increase your blood pressure. I personally do not mind if you are hostile, because as you can see, my posts number in the thousands so I am well used to hostile behaviour. Though I do find that coherency is unfortunately lost if it is prevailent.Also, it is my preference to debate in a completely rational manner. I enjoy Modulous's posts, and Parasomnium's because they have 0% epithets. I suggest you read some posts from those clever chaps, if you want me to apreciate your posts as coherent. Right now they're coming off as highly argumentative and irrational bordering on hysterical. You have it backwards. I read the bible which told me of an eternal creator, I then come across a silly argument that insists he must have a cause. My answer is simple - he doesn't have to have a cause.Incase you forget steady state, it was quite acceptable for the universe to have been infinite. Now the Big Bang is more prominent, that theory is not regarded as credible.Your problem is that I can't ask the question; 'who caused my God?' AND remain a biblical Christian. So it is ludicrous to state that I have a double standard. I merely have someone requiring that I become an atheist, and suffer the same illness of self-righteousness, by proclaiming that my God must be caused.Why on earth would I do that?I suggest we abandon this debate as it is heading nowhere.

How is that an absolutely solid axiom anyway?The observable needs an origin. The natural world, and it's components, by observation, it can be determined that they require a cause.It takes a fallacious LEAP to then apply this to the transcendent supernatural.The bible, which existed before these arguments, tells us that the invisible created the visible, the eternal the none-eternal.So before it's special pleading, you have to PROVE that God MUST need a cause BECAUSE he is an observable natural component BECAUSE the reasoning, "all things need a cause", is only based on observation.Checkmate.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

It's not raising the bar. I am QUESTIONING the claim, "all things must have a cause".That is just a claim like any other. What is it actually based on? Science? Well, science has not detected anything other than the natural world, therefore the claim "all things" must infact include all things or it is not sound.This claim is only based on observation, it is not an absolute, forged-in-the-fire-fact you know. All claims must have merit, and be based on something.The opposition proposes that all things must have a cause, AFTER the bible was made.The pink unicorn bible either doesn't exist, or was made a few years ago for the sole purpose of atheists.I think I'll leave it here. I invite you to go over what I have said, and research more on why a double standard is a double standard.2 clues;1. Equality.
2. Fairness.Now two differing words; "supernatural" and "natural".I am positive you can work out the rest, and therefore see that I am not talking rubbish.That's all I can say, I feel explaining it would make people just ignore me. God bless.