If God had no creator then why do men have a creator?

by foolsparadise 23 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Perry

  Hilarious. Perry accepts "known evidence and existing physical laws" to defend his beliefs.

  Yes, Rational people have a habit of doing that.

  Even in a realm where there was no god, there had to be mass or energy at the beginning of the universe.

  As an unbeliever, it appears that you are falling behind, not keeping up with new atheist light:

  Haven't you heard? Richard Dawkins, the unofficial leader of atheist thought, holding the Science Chair at Oxford (maybe Cambridge) claims that the universe appeared out of nothing.

  Dawkins, in his 2004 book "The Ancestor's Tale" wrote, "The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."

  
  Physicist Robert A.J. Matthews of Ashton University in England, who wrote, "It is now becoming clear that everything can – and probably did – come from nothing."

  
  This is a total embarrassment to the atheist community as well as to anyone interested in science ...wouldn't you agree?
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  This is a total embarrassment to the atheist community as well as to anyone interested in science ...wouldn't you agree?

  Read my second post also. It is not so embarassing. The fact is that we cannot build a time machine and go back and see what happened. Even if that was possible, we would have to be outside of the universe to watch it being born. I freely admit that we don't know and you try to tie me in with one of the theories. They are all theories. We really just don't know.

  But to say that there must have been this omnipotent, omniscient God for all eternity is embarassing just as much (more in my opinion). I can more readily understand that time, matter, and energy did not exist and all of it came into existence at the beginning out of nowhere (in our understanding) than I could understand that the Almighty was in existence for eternity in the past. What was He doing before He created stuff? Maybe there was "practice creation" until He got it right. Maybe He didn't get it right and this is practice.

  I dismiss the God of the Bible for my own reasons. If you want to give the name GOD to the mass/energy that came out of nonexistence (or was always there in one form or another) then that is fine with me. But keep in mind that there is no known evidence to verify that. But I readily admit that Science is better at saying "how" things happened that far back but leaves us in the dark on "why."
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Not that I accept all this, but I will argue for the other side for a moment. "God existed for all eternity" can mean the same thing as it means for science that God existed for all time, but time didn't always exist. Time came into being when it was created by God (if you want to follow along the Big Bang theory with a God). So God existed as long as time existed, or for all eternity.

  That doesn't solve the idea of how God came to be anymore than it solves the problem of how the singularity came to be.

  It's our minds that have trouble thinking in these dimensions and in these levels of theory. It's kind of like accepting that anything is possible in THE MATRIX because it isn't real. "Outside of THE MATRIX" doesn't exist for us anymore than "outside of the universal laws" does.

  About the best our minds can do with time concepts is think about paradox- "If I go back in time and kill my father long before I was born, could I ever have been born in order to do that?" That's just an exercise in engaging the brain without acheiving anything.
• 

  Gregor

  Wow. I am learning so much!

  Quit hogging that bong, Dude!
• 

  mindmelda

  Yeah, we only can theorize what happened a few nanoseconds after the big bang and thereafter.

  Before that, there wasn't anything we could recognize, measure or authenticate because we're part of this universe, so we're kind of stuck with "nothing" as a convenient word for whatever was around during the big bang or before. Not being part of this universe, it might as well have been nothing, because we can't define it, we don't have the means.

  You kind of have to watch scientists, they use words in unorthodox ways sometimes. Nothing to a physicist isn't the same "nothing" you use for ordinary purposes. They don't use the word "reality" like you and I do either.

  The universe is full of nothing, actually and the further we go out from the original "bang", the more nothing there is. Oh, there's something there, but it's pretty much nothing. LOL

  I know, I know, I used to talk to a physicist friend all the time. They'll hurt your brain if you're not careful. It's really hard to conceive of "nothing" since our everyday world is composed of a lot of stuff, but in terms of quantum mechanics, the universe is full of nothing, honestly. Foamy bubbly nothing much.
• 

  Perry

  Even in a realm where there was no god, there had to be mass or energy at the beginning of the universe.

  I can more readily understand that time, matter, and energy did not exist and all of it came into existence at the beginning out of nowhere (in our understanding) than I could understand that the Almighty was in existence for eternity in the past.

  With all due respect, your two conflicting statements would lead a person to perceive that you really don't have any idea what you believe.

  But rest assured, there are geniuses out there trying to figure it out:

  Like the geniuses behind the fraudulent Climategate hoax?

  It is a mistake to put your trust in man. Remember what happened the last time you tried that with the Watchtower?

  God is knowable you know.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Perry, why do you persist in trying to insult me by saying what I freely admit?

  I don't know, yet I am free to speculate. Just because I comment on "geniuses out there" doesn't mean that I will start accepting their theories without personal investigation.

  All I know is that the mass or energy existed "at the beginning." I don't know where it came from and all the physicists' theories are making my G.E.D.-educated brain spin.

  And that "trust in men" mudslinging is worthy of a little boy insult of "You're a homo." "What's a homo?" "I dunno, but you are one."
  I am secure in my sexuality and I am secure in where my trust goes, so such mud slides right off like I am Teflon Man.
• 

  mindmelda

  Insulting people's intelligence to make them believe in God, now there's an interesting tactic. Does it work?

  All it makes me believe is that you're insulting someone's intelligence. LOL

  Boy we're getting knee deep in the ad hominem tonight folks. Going to go get my ad hominem waders on now.
• 

  Perry

  So how can you be so cock sure that God didn't create it?

  Why mock others?

  Hilarious. Perry accepts "known evidence and existing physical laws" to defend his beliefs

  Why mock God?

  I dismiss the God of the Bible for my own reasons.

  Your reasons are very public and have been successfully refuted many times on this board. Yet, for instance you still insist on calling God things like an enabler of rapists.

  Isn't it simply true that you would accept any far fetched idea about the creation of the universe rather than accept a moral God who judges sin?
• 

  Nathan Natas

  Q.: If God had no creator then why do men have a creator?

  A.: Because that's the way the story has been told since Lucy lived in a tree, and you can't dare change the narrative this late in the game.