Who Made God?

I am in the process of reading a question and answer book by a group of well known Christian apologists. The book, named Who Made God? and answers to over 100 other tough questions of Faith is compiled by two well known apologists: Ravi Zacharias and Dr. Norman Geisler . The questions, over 100 of them, can be found here. Just browse the contents of the book.

I have not finished the book yet, and am also already debating and discussing it with some of my EvC buddies. (Faith, you would like it!)

Sidelined has already countered some of the arguments---and it just goes to show why I like EvC so much---we never quite agree! :)

This message has been edited by Phat, 03-14-2006 01:59 AM

I wanted to start a thread with the title of "Who Made God" and after using the EvC search feature, I found that I myself had previously made a thread in 2006 with the same title. It had never received any answers back then, and so I simply moved it here.

My question has changed in 7 years, however. Back then I looked to books and opinions/beliefs of others to attempt to answer my questions about God. (and yes, I know this would probably fit better in faith/belief, but I felt I would overstep my authority by moving it there without administrative approval...any other admins feel free to move it if you so wish.)

Anyway...my assertion and focus on this topic is simple. God was never made. God always was, is, and forever shall be...as long as there is time.

NIV writes: Gen 1:1(NIV) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

HEAD
re'shit OT:7225, Re'shit connotes the "beginning" of a fixed period of time: "...(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright (c)1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

...in other words, before time began, God was. Jesus, as the living word, defines the entire concept of words, thoughts and ideas as created. Humans never create words in a strict sense...we merely define things.

NIV writes: Ps 33:6-- By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth. Luke 21:33--Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. (from New International Version) Rev 1:17-18-- When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades. John 1:1---In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

WORD---1. logos NT:3056 denotes (I) "the expression of thought"-- not the mere name of an object-- (a) as embodying a conception or idea, e. g., Luke 7:7; 1 Cor 14:9,19; (b) a saying or statement, (1) by God, e. g., John 15:25; Rom 9:9,28, RV, "word" (KJV, "work"); Gal 5:14; Heb 4:12; (2) by Christ, e. g., Matt 24:35 (plur.); John 2:22; 4:41; 14:23 (plur.); 15:20. In connection with (1) and (2) the phrase "the word of the Lord," i. e., the revealed will of God (very frequent in the OT), is used of a direct revelation given by Christ, 1 Thess 4:15; of the gospel, Acts 8:25; 13:49; 15:35,36; 16:32; 19:10; 1 Thess 1:8; 2 Thess 3:1; in this respect it is the message from the Lord, delivered with His authority and made effective by His power (cf. Acts 10:36); for other instances relating to the gospel see Acts 13:26; 14:3; 15:7; 1 Cor 1:18, RV; 2 Cor 2:17; 4:2; 5:19; 6:7; Gal 6:6; Eph 1:13; Phil 2:16; Col 1:5; Heb 5:13; sometimes it is used as the sum of God's utterances, e. g., Mark 7:13; John 10:35; Rev 1:2,9; (c) discourse, speech, of instruction, etc., e. g., Acts 2:40; 1 Cor 2:13; 12:8; 2 Cor 1:18; 1 Thess 1:5; 2 Thess 2:15; Heb 6:1, RV, marg.; doctrine, e. g., Matt 13:20; Col 3:16; 1 Tim 4:6; 2 Tim 1:13; Titus 1:9; 1 John 2:7;

(II) "The Personal Word," a title of the Son of God; this identification is substantiated by the statements of doctrine in John 1:1-18, declaring in verses 1 and 2 (1) His distinct and superfinite Personality, (2) His relation in the Godhead (pros, "with," not mere company, but the most intimate communion), (3) His deity; in v. 3 His creative power; in v. 14 His incarnation ("became flesh," expressing His voluntary act; not as KJV, "was made"), the reality and totality of His human nature, and His glory "as of the only begotten from the Father," RV (marg., "an only begotten from a father"), the absence of the article in each place lending stress to the nature and character of the relationship; His was the shekinah glory in open manifestation; v. 18 consummates the identification: "the only-begotten Son (RV marg., many ancient authorities read "God only begotten,"), which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him," thus fulfilling the significance of the title "Logos," the "Word," the personal manifestation, not of a part of the divine nature, but of the whole deity
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright (c)1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

Any thoughts on this topic as we start our days and drink our coffee?

Well, might I add a further premise. God made us long before we were even evolved enough to talk and think much beyond grabbing a banana off of a tree. Jesus Himself knew language to the point of being able to speak every known word that humans of all languages could speak.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Stile writes: Are you sure you mean to assume your own conclusion?

I suppose that I should have labeled it a premise rather than a conclusion, though in the context of my belief it is my current conclusion as well.

Stile writes: you understand that your conclusion is an assertion with no evidence? In that case, I agree with Taq and ringo... we made God. God just seems so anthropomorphic that considering him not to be made by us... seems like a pretty big stretch.

The light shines in the darkness but the darkness has not understood it.

I suppose its human nature to reject something that we cannot explain. Some critics say that we reject anything that challenges our own reasoning and that deep down its in our nature to reject an authority higher than our own human wisdom. Of course, I know you well enough to know that you have a good heart and are just asking honest questions and providing your own conclusions to this philosophical question.

Ringo writes: Asking, "Who made God?" is like asking, "Who made all of those cars?" Just like the cars, those gods were made by a lot of different manufacturers, often with different goals in mind.

Granted I will give you the idea that human understanding of God is limited and is entirely made up by us.

I will say, however, that Some of us believe from time to time that God (and His Word) are alive and speak to us...and we start topics like this one and post our ideas and beliefs for others to agree with or challenge and disagree with. Hence...here we are.

Is it illogical to accept the belief that God existed before we did and that He has a definite character that we didn't ascribe to Him?

AZPaul3 writes: If the opening axiom is "it exists" then I'm in the wrong thread and will try to gracefully bow out without further stepping on my dick.

It all has to do with a deception.

NIV writes: 2 Thess 2:10-12 They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

Now, I don't mean to suggest that everyone is willingly and knowingly wicked. What I do mean to suggest is that a relationship with Jesus Christ...now possible through the Spirit of God..is something that people become drawn to and love. Without loving this truth, people merely become in love with human intellectualism and demand signs and proof. This passage suggests that God Himself will thus send a delusion and people will believe the lie. The question is what this lie is?

Personally, I think that when people prefer that Jesus not exist in essence believe the lie that humanity on a dust speck will figure out the mystery of the universe and of meaning in life without wanting any need of relationship with God...made possible through His Son.
Quite honestly, I think that humans were meant to have communion with God through the Holy Spirit and awareness of Jesus Christ...messenger to humanity.

Granted I'm not being scientifically logical, but my premise is that this relationship is indeed a mystery and yet is real.

Ringo writes: Sure, there could be one real god and a whole passle of made-up ones - but how do you know yours is the real one?

All that I can claim is that He is the real One in my belief. I could tell you with confidence that He also desires to love and commune with you and has the power to give you eternal life. Would it do any good, knowing your beliefs and family history as I do? Would it be necessary and expected for me to push my belief?

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

I have a question. IF God is no respector of persons, why is it that He only opens SOME eyes to "the truth"?

Taking my argument that God is more than simply a character in a book back to this topic.

Faith,to Stile writes: You've been given fair and trustworthy witnesses, it is nothing but stubborn insistence that you be given something personal that keeps you from the very evidence you say you want.

Stile writes: I have met some "God-witnesses" that are fair and trustworthy. They all seem to have one thing in common, though. None of them try to actively convince other people that God is in fact real. None of them tell other people "you just aren't looking at the evidence!" When someone says this to an honest person, and doesn't show what the evidence is, they are actually not being fair. When they say this, and don't describe how the evidence is convincing, they are not being trustworthy.(...)Those who are fair and trustworthy seem to understand that they cannot convince others, and leave this to God. They are okay with, and sometimes even promote other people not believing in God because it is between "those others and God."

Faith writes: The rule is simple: Believe. That's exactly what you all refuse to do.

I have been a believer since 1993. Stile does have a point, though. Describe how the evidence is convincing to you. jar seems to think that we all "market" God, so let's assume for a moment he has a point. Describe to me why the God whom you know is worthy of all honor, glory, praise, and respect.

Phat writes: Cant a guy get to actually believe in a Creator of all seen and unseen Who has time to listen?

jar writes: Of course they can and have. In fact most of the stories about God regardless of which religion involves a God that interacts with humans. Heracles is a great example of not just a God who had time to listen but for some pillow talk as well. Ganesha is the remover of obstacles. Hermes and Mercury were messengers constantly carrying message between humans and gods. The God of Genesis 2&3 had time to listen and even make clothes. It's likely the authors of those stories believed very strongly that there were gods who had time to listen.

Explain one more time the difference between GOD, God, and god. Also, do you believe that God, as marketed by Christians, is an improvement on the earlier ideas?

There was at one time an unlimited nothingness of absolutely nothing.

Think.

If ever there was a time when there was absolutely nothing, it would be impossible for there to have ever been something after that point.

nwr writes: It is my understanding that uncaused quantum events are happening all the time. So who needs an uncaused cause, when such uncaused things are all around us?

Which brings up another question. Do We Need God? Thus we basically have two questions.

Philosophically, the debates at EvC Forum center around the usefulness, purpose, and methodology of science as well as the philosophy of belief and of how and what it says. Ours is a forum of atheists, agnostics, and believers and there shouldn't really be a conflict with science. The fact that there is is one of the main issues that make up the debate.

jar has successfully argued that there is GOD, Who (if existing) is complete. Well beyond human description. Humans worship Gods that they understand...thus in the sense of linguistic and verbal description, We Made God. Hardcore believers vehemently disagree, claiming that the Bible was inspired by God Himself as it was transcribed. Much energy has been invested by organized religion to propagate this teaching.

Taq writes: The first answer that comes to my mind is that we made God in the same way that we made Zeus, Thor, and the thousands and thousands of other gods that humans have believed in.

Or we became aware of God. How would we tell the difference?

ringo writes: Asking, "Who made God?" is like asking, "Who made all of those cars?" Just like the cars, those gods were made by a lot of different manufacturers, often with different goals in mind.

Imagine that you one day became aware of a certain car. By definition, it eased your anxiety, confirmed your desire, and was capable of getting you to where you wanted to go. Without seeing a picture of it and without another description of it, could you say you made it up (imagined it) or could it be possible that you simply became aware of it?

stile writes: Or do you mean to say that this is merely your conclusion and that you understand that your conclusion is an assertion with no evidence? In that case, I agree with Taq and Ringo... we made God. God just seems so anthropomorphic that considering him not to be made by us... seems like a pretty big stretch.

Perhaps it is natural to anthropomorphize a character, just as one would think of a car when they thought of a transport vehicle. The question remains unanswered whether one becomes aware of a concept already existing or whether one literally makes it up.

When believers become born again, they quite naturally feel as if they are suddenly aware of Gods presence, through Jesus Christ. The point remains, however, that the story was fed to them before they experienced the awareness.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Taq writes: Imagine if your neighbor got a car, and he invites you over to take a look. Upon looking in the garage you don't see a car. Your neighbor tells you that the car is invisible. You then ask if you can throw some flour on top of the car to show that it exists. Your neighbor explains that all matter passes through the car. You come up with test after test after test to possibly show that the car exists, but each time you neighbor tells you that the results of that test will be indistinguishable from that car not existing.

I would ask several questions.

Why did you want to tell me about this car that I cannot perceive?

Can I watch you drive the car?

How often do you use this car?

How did you come to acquire this car?

At what point do you just stop and conclude that your neighbor is making it up?

It depends howq well I know my neighbor and whether or not he has been illogical previously.
I also dont need proof of the car as long as such a car would also be proven useful to me and whether I too could acquire such a car.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

allow me to resurrect the analogy.

My neighbor Fred, whom I've had a casual relationship with for several years, informs me that whenever he is despondent, or whenever he knows of friends or family who is struggling, he retreats to his garage. In his garage, he says, is something(SomeOne) who is greater and more powerful than any human or any invention of humanity.The presence will take him wherever he needs to go.

Skeptical yet mildly intrigued, you follow him around back to his garage. It contains the usual bells and smells, but aside from that it appears empty. There are some cushions to kneel on, and some chairs to sit quietly in and escape from the noise of the city around you. He at least soundproofed his garage, and it admittedly is an oasis of silence and meditation. Apart from that, however, there is nothing there that you can detect.

Being the eminently logical chap that you are, you bring this fact to his attention. How he responds to you at this point is arguably the only evidence that you will have that his oasis may or may not be worth using. He has, of course, told you that you and your family are free to use it at any time.

Quite naturally, you have other ideas and methods of dealing with your stress and of helping others. At that time, you are quite sure you would never use his garage for any solution for any of your problems nor would you allow your family to go in there. He had insisted to you that there was a presence of peace and serenity in his garage, and though it did seem comfortable and quiet, you had experienced the same bells and smells in your childhood in buildings much fancier than his garage. Now the questions:

Would you ever find yourself needing a place of solitude and meditation?
Many would prefer a quiet walk in the woods or at least outdoors.

Would you believe that a psychiatrist and his cabinet of drugs would provide a better solution for your stresses and agonies than a quiet contemplative garage that had a comfortable place of solitude?

Would you trust your neighbors judgement? Why or why not?

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

tangle writes: ...When I have problems to deal with I try to tackle them head on. Maybe I'm just lucky.

Define lucky. You know that I have issues with luck and chance.