Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who Made God?
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 224 of 868 (826652)
01-06-2018 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Phat
01-06-2018 1:36 AM


Re: The Soma ("body" of Christ in the Greek) a soul of God (and the matter of universe?)
See above. It is not arrogance Phat but simply honesty.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Phat, posted 01-06-2018 1:36 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 226 of 868 (826655)
01-06-2018 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Phat
01-06-2018 7:05 AM


Not obvious and also irrelevant
Phat writes:
Is it not obvious that if at any given point there was nothing...then at any future point there simply must be nothing?
No, it is not obvious.
AbE: It is also irrelevant. The issue is related to two things in this thread, "Who made God" and the offtrack rabbit hole of "What did the Universe come from?"
There is lots of evidence that humans made God but not much evidence yet on the latter question but pretty overwhelming evidence that this universe did have a beginning and that it has changed and evolved over time.
But while the first question is relevant to this topic the latter question is simply irrelevant.
Edited by jar, : fix sub-title and add AbE:
Edited by jar, : fix sub-title No ---> Not

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Phat, posted 01-06-2018 7:05 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-06-2018 9:20 PM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 241 of 868 (826695)
01-07-2018 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by dwise1
01-07-2018 1:07 PM


Bishop Sims take on the dichotomy:
Bishop Sims of Atlanta circulated a Pastoral letter back in 1981 when there was an extremely strong push to insert "Creation Science" into the public school curriculum and in addition to clearly opposing and absolutely condemning "Creation Science" he touched on the relationship of Religion and Science.
quote:
Religion and science are therefore distinguishable, but in some sense inseparable, because each is an enterprise, more or less, of every human being who asks why and how in dealing with existence. Religion and science interrelate as land and water, which are clearly not the same but need each other, since the land is the basin for all the waters of the earth and yet without the waters the land would be barren of the life inherent to its soil.
In the Bible the intermingling of why and how is evident, especially in the opening chapters of Genesis. There the majestic statements of God's action, its value and the place of humanity in it, use an orderly and sequential statement of method. The why of the divine work is carried in a primitive description of how the work was done.
But even here the distinction between religion and science is clear. In Genesis there is not one creation statement but two. They agree as to why and who, but are quite different as to how and when. The statements are set forth in tandem, chapter one of Genesis using one description of method and chapter two another. According to the first, humanity was created, male and female, after the creation of plants and animals. According to the second, man was created first, then the trees, the animals and finally the woman and not from the earth as in the first account, but from the rib of the man. Textual research shows that these two accounts are from two distinct eras, the first later in history, the second earlier.
From this evidence, internal to the very text of the Bible, we draw two conclusions.
First, God's revelation of purpose is the overarching constant. The creation is not accidental, aimless, devoid of feeling. Creation is the work of an orderly, purposeful Goodness. Beneath and around the cosmos are the everlasting arms. Touching the cosmos at every point of its advance, in depth and height, is a sovereign beauty and tenderness. Humanity is brooded over by an invincible Love that values the whole of the world as very good; that is the first deduction: God is constant.
Second, creation itself and the human factors are inconstant. Creation moves and changes. Human understanding moves and changes. Evolution as a contemporary description of the how of creation is anticipated in its newness by the very fluidity of the biblical text by the Bible's use of two distinct statements of human comprehension at the time of writing. As a theoretical deduction from the most careful and massive observation of the creation, the layers and deposits and undulations of this everchanging old earth, evolution is itself a fluid perception. It raises as many questions as it answers. Evolution represents the best formulation of the knowledge that creation has disclosed to us, but it is the latest word from science, not the last.
If the world is not God's, the most eloquent or belligerent arguments will not make it so. If it is God's world, and this is the first declaration of our creed, then faith has no fear of anything the world itself reveals to the searching eye of science.
Insistence upon dated and partially contradictory statements of how as conditions for true belief in the why of creation cannot qualify either as faithful religion or as intelligent science. Neither evolution over an immensity of time nor the work done in a sixday week are articles of the creeds. It is a symptom of fearful and unsound religion to contend with one another as if they were. Historic creedal Christianity joyfully insists on God as sovereign and frees the human spirit to trust and seek that sovereignty in a world full of surprises.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by dwise1, posted 01-07-2018 1:07 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 246 of 868 (826710)
01-08-2018 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Phat
01-08-2018 1:11 AM


Re: Jonathan Sarfati, of AIG, accepts General Relitivity (and AIG itself).
Phat writes:
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.
I can't speak for Ringo but that is not how I see what he says. The "Uncaused first cause" explanation is nonsense. So is the Trinity. Even if someone believes such things they remain nonsensical and pretty much meaningless.
Trying to describe or define or explain GOD just doesn't work.
A very good friend of mine who died on Christmas Eve was a Native American. He told about gatherings where different tribes would get together to trade resources, exchange knowledge and of course, swap genes.
One of the common traditions was that the elders of each tribe would instruct the youth of the other tribe in their traditions and myths; their tales of Gods and Creation and the Heavens and Morality and Customs. It was a sharing. It was not "Here is what YOU should do or believe" but rather "Here is what WE do and believe".
The modern counterpart might be the Ecumenical Movement where Protestant and Roman Catholic and Orthodox and Jew and Muslim and Buddhist and Hindu and Taoist and Confucian even those who practice Shinto gather together, not to proselytize but only share and educate.
There is no issue with someone holding nonsensical beliefs or even explaining why you believe such things. But there is an issue with expecting others to agree or adopt your beliefs.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Phat, posted 01-08-2018 1:11 AM Phat has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 265 of 868 (826782)
01-09-2018 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Phat
01-09-2018 11:41 AM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
Phat writes:
Give the Pastor a break! He is learning right along with everyone else. He happens to believe that God created the universe and that it took a lot of energy! Whats so silly about that?
Infantile and absurd are closer than just silly.
Phat writes:
The topic is Who Made God? So who did? Is God a human invention or are we His invention?
100% of the evidence shows that humans created God. There is no evidence of God inventing anything.
Phat writes:
In one respect, invoking the name of God is simply giving a personality to the energy involved in what came before the Big Bang. That is hardly a simple discussion.
And that is as meaningless as anything ICANT posts.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Phat, posted 01-09-2018 11:41 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 274 of 868 (826796)
01-09-2018 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Stile
01-09-2018 3:11 PM


Re: God, Cosmology, & EvC
I often sit right next to enough energy to destroy a city yet do not find it impressive. In fact I just drank all that energy and will now pour another glass of water.
ICANT's fantasy of reality is almost as silly as his fantasy of Christianity or of the Bible.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Stile, posted 01-09-2018 3:11 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Phat, posted 01-10-2018 12:32 PM jar has replied
 Message 280 by Phat, posted 01-10-2018 1:54 PM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 281 of 868 (826814)
01-10-2018 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Phat
01-10-2018 12:32 PM


Re: God, Cosmology, & EvC
Phat writes:
I CANT has a point in that we have been unable to observe the origins of the universe, thus why not invoke GOD rather than simply ENERGY? One is as likely as the other.
But no one speaking on the science and reality side has invoked simply energy. BUT, and it is a big BUT, there is evidence that energy exists, can be tested, quantified, identified and detected.
There is no evidence of GOD.
One is far more likely than the other since one can be tested, quantified, identified and detected with the other cannot be tested, quantified, identified or detected.
I do not make fun of peoples beliefs but I do reserve the right to point out when their descriptions claim to be describing reality and are simply misrepresentations.
The origin of the universe is also irrelevant to the question of Who Made God and changing the topic is a classic tactic to avoid addressing tough questions.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Phat, posted 01-10-2018 12:32 PM Phat has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 293 of 868 (826833)
01-11-2018 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by ICANT
01-11-2018 3:00 AM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
ICANT writes:
It had to be eternal in existence of it had to be created by an eternal existence with a lot of power.
Again, utter nonsense.
Why would some cause need to have existed eternally or created by some external thing with a lot of power.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2018 3:00 AM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 302 of 868 (826854)
01-11-2018 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Phat
01-11-2018 3:11 AM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
Of course there are more than three choices as anyone who is not willfully ignorant would know. In fact the evidence shows that in many cases the cause of something is actually pretty small and weak as well as transient and that the cause seldom survives the event.
Lightning strikes generally last only 0.000050 seconds.
The match that starts a wildfire that burns whole counties gets consumed by the fire itself.
The fires themselves create the very conditions needed to sustain the conflagration.
We've been over this with ICANT in the past and even this very thread. But ICANT is driven by fiction not reality, by ignorance not knowledge, by denial instead of searching.
There is no reason to expect the cause of an event to be anything like the magnitude of the even itself, or of being eternal, or of surviving the initiation of the event and lots of evidence that shows the cause is usually not eternal, not powerful, not very significant in and of itself.
But most of all, the evidence is overwhelming that man made God.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Phat, posted 01-11-2018 3:11 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Phat, posted 01-12-2018 11:03 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 308 of 868 (826862)
01-12-2018 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by Phat
01-12-2018 11:03 AM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
Phat writes:
Though we can assert that man did not make GOD, if GOD exists. (Though you did coin the term)
Anyone can assert anything, but note even in what you assert there is the qualifier "if GOD exists".
Above, you even posted "...I personally believe that GOD if GOD exists would not be offended in any way. "
That is also irrelevant. Whether or not GOD would be offended is immaterial, even GOD has no right to not be offended.
Phat writes:
Sometimes I dont know why it is so important for believers to attempt to prove their belief. In ways, sometimes I think we are projecting our inner insecurities. In essence we are arguing with ourselves because we have doubts.
Very likely and certainly the best case explanation, although the evidence seems to show that it is far more common that those in the business of selling religion do it out of fear of losing their job and power.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Phat, posted 01-12-2018 11:03 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 435 of 868 (855356)
06-18-2019 7:51 PM


All God(s) and god(s) are created by humans.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

Replies to this message:
 Message 436 by Faith, posted 06-18-2019 7:54 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 437 of 868 (855363)
06-18-2019 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 436 by Faith
06-18-2019 7:54 PM


Because I am at least honest.
I understand there is no such thing as "the God of the Bible" and that there is no consistent characterization of any God or god in the Bible. I understand that the God in Genesis 1 is an entirely different creation than the much older God found in Genesis 2&3.
Humans created the God of Genesis 2&3 and much later humans created the God of Genesis 1. Even earlier humans created Ganesha and Ra and Nut and Horus and Saturn and Hypnos and Eros. Later humans created Allah. They are all the product of the human mind.
At least the Buddha and Confucius and Lao-Tzu have a basis in reality and actually existed.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by Faith, posted 06-18-2019 7:54 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 438 by Faith, posted 06-18-2019 8:40 PM jar has replied
 Message 448 by Dredge, posted 06-19-2019 9:16 PM jar has replied
 Message 863 by Phat, posted 05-03-2021 2:36 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 439 of 868 (855367)
06-18-2019 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 438 by Faith
06-18-2019 8:40 PM


But you are not me and I am a Christian. And the fact remains that all of the Gods and gods that we can and have ever described are simply human creations.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 438 by Faith, posted 06-18-2019 8:40 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 440 by Phat, posted 06-19-2019 8:14 AM jar has replied
 Message 453 by Dredge, posted 06-19-2019 10:48 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 442 of 868 (855422)
06-19-2019 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 440 by Phat
06-19-2019 8:14 AM


Re: Not A Chance
It's been obvious for almost two decades that you do not understand what I have written or even most of what you have posted.
Phat writes:
If what you say is true, you do not really believe in a God who exists outside of your imagination.
I do not believe in a God or god that anyone can or has imagined. How many Gods are described in the Bible stories themselves? When two entirely different and mutually exclusive gods are described as God in the very first book of the Bible can there be any other reasonable conclusion than that both descriptions are simply the creation of the authors and editors and redactors?
Phat writes:
If I understand what you have written previously, you would say that you believe yet do not know, which is honest but which limits the commitment of your belief.
Too funny and yet another proof that you simply do not understand what you post.
How can not knowing limit anyone's commitment to what they believe?
If something is known is there any reason or need for belief?
Edited by jar, : fix quote box

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by Phat, posted 06-19-2019 8:14 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 443 by Phat, posted 06-19-2019 6:00 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 446 of 868 (855442)
06-19-2019 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 443 by Phat
06-19-2019 6:00 PM


Re: Not A Chance
RC Sproul loves to hear himself talk but it all boils down to Word Salad.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 443 by Phat, posted 06-19-2019 6:00 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024