Where did this complex character called god come from ?

expect answers in the form of "your knowledge is too finite to understand the nature of this God"

Our knowledge is finite but somehow they know God is a Male?

how come?

olabowale:

@Tudor:« #24 on: Today at 08:56:59 AM » Since no one knows the exact time when pregnancy begins, then the existence of God to His creatures (Tudor, Ogaga4Luv) because of teir rebelliousness is like that. They refuse to even consider it, as the woman may refuse to accept possibility of pregnancy at the first morning sickness.

And as to the ultrasound/sonogram/sonograph, consider it to the tremendous signs (the Universe; you men are part of it) of the presence of the Creator!



@Ogaga4Luv (m): « #25 on: Today at 10:58:32 AM » Tudor is the poster child of freethinkers; they dont make any sense, except that they are refusal of anything that their own doctrine have preached against! Freethink all you want. It will not dimish the status of the Creator. You may freethink into the perilous Hell if you are not mindful.

you are a wonderful soul

Mr. Atheists, i have a few questions for you.

   1. Does the number "1" exist?

   2. Who created the number "1?"

   3. Does "Space" exist?

   4. Who created "Space?"

   5. Does "Time" exist?

   6. Who created "Time".

Frankly i am tired of this intellectual laziness. Is it not obvious to you that the fact that you do not know the maker of something is not sufficient to conclude that that "something" does not exist. I have told you before that if you cannot point out Leonardo Da Vinci's parents to me, would that mean that Leonardo Da Vinci did not exist?

Come to think about it, you don't know me or my parents. Maybe i do not exist. This is sickening.

What you need to concern yourself with really is this:

Are there observable elements within the universe that suggest the possibility of a Creator being existent?

If there are, we need not trouble ourselves with your question as to who created that creator, because frankly, for you it might remain a permanent mystery, but for the esoterically initiated, its easy to see that he IS as a direct and permanent quatity based on the oneness of infinity.

Re: 'Who created the Creator'?

I find this question quite interesting as it is amusing at the same time. It's not new; but pardon me in saying that it is a hollow piece breezingly aired by the likes of Dawkins which neither himself nor anyone else parroting him has dared to answer with substance. However, in a number of ways it could be answered:

1. The questioner has asked a question he needs to answer for himself. This is because he made a postulation that 'God' needed a creator; but what is so sad is that he does not tell us how the Creator is by necessity in need of a creator.

2. If the questioner is able to show the basis to justify that questioner, the logical point is that he needs then to go and tell us who the creator of the Creator is, and then list the eternal regression of 'creatoral' creators. Would that be asking too much? I don't think so; because if he cannot do that simple thing, he does not need to throw it at others and hide behind the scenes chuckling to himself.

3. Theists have not claimed that there was/is a 'creator' that created the Creator - so the burden would fall upon the one who is convinced that the question of "who created the Creator" is a valid one. Since an atheist believes there could be a 'creator' who creator THE Creator, he needs to show others who that 'creator' could be - both by necessity and valdiation. Failing to do so only presents the enquirer as both mischievous and unintelligent.

4. Let's look at one more thing: was that question a 'scientific' one or just the pep-talk of the typical atheist? No, I'm not taking a jab at any atheist; but I'm looking to engage your deepest thinking. If you postulate that it is a 'scientifically' valid one, then we need to hold you accountable for one thing: how do you determine "a creator" (any creator) by scientific postulations? Just how?

5. The logical next step would be inescapable: if the Creator (or any creator for that matter) could be scientifically detected through any theories for that purpose, the inescable logical next step would be to abandon the atheistic commitment to naturalism. If indeed the atheist could provide a basis for his own question, then he would need to acknowledge indeed that things do not just appear on their own - such as the fallacy of biological life originating from inorganic rocks.

Recap: is there a 'creator' who created the Creator?

The atheist asks the question on an assumption - that there ought to have been one. That's no problem, because theists have not made that claim or proffered grounds to lead to that idea. Therefore, the one who makes that postulation on the grounds that ought to have been a 'creator' who brings the Creator into existence, it is the questioner who should present his own postulation as a matter of necessity and validity.

Where does this lead? It leads to this: if and only if (iff) there is any validity for a regression to such a postulation, it would be a cool idea - which necessitates that there IS indeed a CREATOR - the atheist is probably searching for him.

Deep Sight:

Mr. Atheists, i have just one question for you.

1. Does the number "1" exist?

2. Who created the number "1?"

3. Does Space exist?

4. Who created space?

5. Does "Time" exist?

6. Who created "Time".

Lol, you had "just one question" for him but slammed "just six questions" on the table. Just kidding.

Anyhow, this is classic:

Frankly i am tired of this intellectual laziness.

It's true; but it's not enough to just say that it is intellectual laziness; we shoulod go one step further to show why that is so - and you have done quite well, viz:

Is it not obvious to you that the fact that you do not know the maker of something is not sufficient to conclude that that "something" does not exist.

Human beings did.
It all started from their Deluded Mind.

viaro:



1. The questioner has asked a question he needs to answer for himself. This is because he made a postulation that 'God' needed a creator; but what is so sad is that he does not tell us how the Creator is by necessity in need of a creator.

ok. Why just one creator? Why not 3 or 4?

viaro:


2. If the questioner is able to show the basis to justify that questioner, the logical point is that he needs then to go and tell us who the creator of the Creator is, and then list the eternal regression of 'creatoral' creators. Would that be asking too much? I don't think so; because if he cannot do that simple thing, he does not need to throw it at others and hide behind the scenes chuckling to himself.

your argument that the Universe needs a creator has the exact same flaw.

viaro:

3. Theists have not claimed that there was/is a 'creator' that created the Creator - so the burden would fall upon the one who is convinced that the question of "who created the Creator" is a valid one. Since an atheist believes there could be a 'creator' who creator THE Creator, he needs to show others who that 'creator' could be - both by necessity and valdiation. Failing to do so only presents the enquirer as both mischievous and unintelligent.

Some theists claim the universe was created by one God and do not accept any other possibilities. They claim this God was not created but can't explain why. . . The "unintelligent" ones ask the hard questions, and the "intelligent" ones just hide behind dogma.

viaro:

4. Let's look at one more thing: was that question a 'scientific' one or just the pep-talk of the typical atheist? No, I'm not taking a jab at any atheist; but I'm looking to engage your deepest thinking. If you postulate that it is a 'scientifically' valid one, then we need to hold you accountable for one thing: how do you determine "a creator" (any creator) by scientific postulations? Just how?

Do u really think u are "deep"?

Who created the creator is a valid question, and u have no answer to it but to cling to your dogma of " he doesn't need one", or "we don't claim he needs one so u have to explain why u say he does".

An ocean is deep. . . . so is a prostitutes vagina. It's all about vantage point, and it seems u live in the red light district.

viaro:

5. The logical next step would be inescapable: if the Creator (or any creator for that matter) could be scientifically detected through any theories for that purpose, the inescable logical next step would be to abandon the atheistic commitment to naturalism. If indeed the atheist could provide a basis for his own question, then he would need to acknowledge indeed that things do not just appear on their own - such as the fallacy of biological life originating from inorganic rocks.

The basis for the question is that your claim is bogus.

viaro:

Recap: is there a 'creator' who created the Creator?

The atheist asks the question on an assumption - that there ought to have been one. That's no problem, because theists have not made that claim or proffered grounds to lead to that idea. Therefore, the one who makes that postulation on the grounds that ought to have been a 'creator' who brings the Creator into existence, it is the questioner who should present his own postulation as a matter of necessity and validity.

Theists have claimed that a God exists and that he created the universe. . . . because [size=15pt]nothing[/size] comes from [size=15pt]nothing[/size]. Except, of course, creator. How convenient.

viaro:

Where does this lead? It leads to this: if and only if (iff) there is any validity for a regression to such a postulation, it would be a cool idea - which necessitates that there IS indeed a CREATOR - the atheist is probably searching for him.

U juss dey blow grammar for nothin. not 1 sense dey ur post.

ok. Why just one creator? Why not 3 or 4?

this question remains unanswered.

Why do Christians assign Male/masculine characteristics to God too?

but what is so sad is that he does not tell us how the Creator is by necessity in need of a creator.

does the universe need a creator to exist? What nature does this creator need to have?

Krayola,

Thank you for taking up my observations.

Krayola:

ok. Why just one creator? Why not 3 or 4?

Honestly, I may have answers for why 1 and not more than one. Let me start from that one. Existence and origin of creation is traced back to a Creator. My premise is that the Creator is not postulated as a "creation" - but to suppose that there should be a creator for THE Creator is to make the Creator a creation of the said 'creator'. This is the way I see the "WHY" in your question.

Now, please tell me WHY not 3 or 4 (or any other indices above 1).

your argument that the Universe needs a creator has the exact same flaw.

That's okay, although I don't know if that second point was addressing the question of the Universe needs a creator. I zeroed in on just one issue: "Who created the Creator"; and not who created the Universe. So, it might help me address your worries about your perceived flaws if you can see what I commented on and not what I have not.

Some theists claim the universe was created by one God and do not accept any other possibilities. They claim this God was not created but can't explain why. . .

Well, I happen to be one of such theists who hold that conviction - and just above, I've given one possible reason as to why that is plausible for me. At the risk of repeating, I do not hold other "possibilities" such as a creator who created THE Creator since the question of the topic is "who created THE Creator". Indeed, Krayola. . as one of such theists, I cannot explain why; but I've also intimtaed that one of my reasons is that the Creator is not postulated as a 'creation' of another creator. If the hypothesis is adduced for a creator having created THE Creator, then it makes THE Creator a "creation" by necessity - which is not what theists hold. That is one concise answer to your second observation.

However, in the same vein, I also noted earlier that:
   'Since an atheist believes there could be a 'creator' who creator THE Creator,
    he needs to show others who that 'creator' could be - both by necessity and validation.'
It is not enough to quip about a creator for THE Creator - where's the indices for that postulation that makes it a necessary hypothesis; and as a cnsequence, upon what indices do we validate the hypothesis? If you can proffer it, that will be good: and then we can take it on to its logical deductions - which is that we have to admit THE Creator in the Equation. There's just no shying away from that logical consequence. The moment you try to validate the question of a creator for THE Creator, you would have to first validate by necessity that THE Creator exists before going on to any other 'creator'.

The "unintelligent" ones ask the hard questions, and the "intelligent" ones just hide behind dogma.

Well, that may be true in some arenas. In retrospect, it seems rather that in this case, the "unintelligent" one asked the question (not a hard one), but "intelligent" minds are examining its worth. Trace it back to Dawkins (as far as I can tell), he has not answered the question himself - because he knows the "unintelligent" ones who applaud him would only parrot the question while he himself does not even address it.

Do u really think u are "deep"?

I have not claimed to be "deep". Are you? The one thing I asked was this: "how do you determine "a creator" (any creator) by scientific postulations? Just how?" If that was deep, I can well bear with you - but that does not in itself sound quizzically "deep" for you, does it?

Who created the creator is a valid question, and u have no answer to it but to cling to your dogma of " he doesn't need one", or "we don't claim he needs one so u have to explain why u say he does".

You have not validated your question, you're only parroting the same thing and saying zilch. Your complaining is not an answer; at least, I offered reason enough (if you're honest) to think the question through. Here again in this reply, I gave another possible reason, in so much that no theist I know of has ever postulated that THE Creator was created by 'a creator'. To suppose the validity of that question would require you to first acknowedge the existence of THE Creator before going on to 'a creator' that must have created THE Creator. Since I haven't made any claims for the abstract craetor who must have created THE Creator, you could do us the favour of going past your dogma to validate your assumptions of 3 or 4 creators. If you cannot do so, perhaps you point back to your own highlight that some people ask question and other unintelligent minds just parrot them vacantly.

An ocean is deep. . . . so is a prostitutes vagina. It's all about vantage point, and it seems u live in the red light district.

How does that square with this topic?

The basis for the question is that your claim is bogus.

Lol, that's okay. Claiming someone else's question as bogus does not score anything to your credit in respect of validating your summizings of the possibilities of 3 or 4 creators.

Theists have claimed that a God exists and that he created the universe. . . . because [size=15pt]nothing[/size] comes from [size=15pt]nothing[/size]. Except, of course, creator. How convenient.

And what does the atheist claim? I won't suggest any conveniences for you (although your suggestion of 3 or 4 creators is still pending).

U juss dey blow grammar for nothin. not 1 sense dey your post.

Ah, I just imagined you prolly would've put on your thinking cap - but no.

I don't consider the universe to be a creation, but a creative entity. The size, scope, and nature of the universe humble me so much that I do not pretend to have a clue about how and why it came to be, possibly billions of years ago. Feel free to question my beliefs. . .but quit asking me to deal with the flaws in your claims. They're yours to defend,  and not mine. I was just pointing out that there could be other possibilities, that you are pretty deep in dogma, and u actually believe you are making sense.

You claim the universe is a creation, good for you. I can't disprove that.
You claim it has a creator, good for you. I can't disprove that.
You claim this creator does not need a creator, good for you. I can't disprove that.
But you then suggested that people who question your claims are most likely doing so out of mischief and a lack of intelligence, because they can't show why your imagined creator needs a creator. . .

viaro:

Since an atheist believes there could be a 'creator' who creator THE Creator, he needs to show others who that 'creator' could be - both by necessity and valdiation. Failing to do so only presents the enquirer as both mischievous and unintelligent.

That is why i responded to your post. And I think it is pretty clear from our posts which of us is up to mischief.

The creator you believe in can have whatever nature you feel he should. I can't explain what goes on in your head. But if u want to pass it off as the way thing are, then u are the one that has to explain to us. When a teacher is teaching a student a totally foreign concept, who asks the questions, and who does the explaining?

See linguistic gymnastics, you theists are something else.

When the Atheist say the universe came out of nothing, the theists would say "you are senseless, how can the universe as complex as it is with all the complex life forms comes out of nothing. It is evident that everything was created by a highly intelligent and infinitely complex creator".

Then the atheist asks please tell me how this creator came to be? who created this creator? and the theist answers, "you are very stupid for asking that question, how can an infinitely complex and and powerful creator be created. Can't you understand that he or it have always existed and not in need of any creator? How can a creator have a creator? In fact all atheists are stupid and foolish".

The atheist scratches his head  

1. Does the number "1" exist?

2. Who created the number "1?"

3. Does "Space" exist?

4. Who created "Space?"

5. Does "Time" exist?

6. Who created "Time".

Yes space and time exists. As to who created them l don't know but that doesn't mean that we should feel the gap with giving attribute to a deity.

Krayola:

I don't consider the universe to be a creation, but a creative entity. The size, scope, and nature of the universe humble me so much that I do not pretend to have a clue about how and why it came to be, possibly billions of years ago.

Okay, that's your view.

Feel free to question my beliefs. . .but quit asking me to deal with the flaws in your claims. They're yours to defend,  and not mine.

You may feel your beliefs are questioned; but I didn't ask you to deal with any perceived flaws in other people's beliefs either. What I hold have been put forward; after which I asked questions of my own. If you feel it's too much for others to ask questions, would that be any different from you asking me questions initially?

I was just pointing out that there could be other possibilities, that you are pretty deep in dogma, and u actually believe you are making sense.

Good for you if there are other possibilities - that's not my idea, and I stated why it is not mine, since you asked "why not 3 or 4". You hold your own dogma and whinge about what other people are saying - that's hardly sensible.

You claim the universe is a creation, good for you. I can't disprove that.

No worries.

You claim it has a creator, good for you. I can't disprove that.

No worries there.

You claim this creator does not need a creator, good for you. I can't disprove that.

I made no "claim" of a "need" as such, but discussed my view that it is not in the domain of the theist to fathom such an idea. It is not theists who postulate the "possibilities" of 3 or 4 creators; and since that is not their postulation, it could not be their claim either.

But you then suggested that people who question your claims are most likely doing so out of mischief and a lack of intelligence. . .

No, and thrice no. I did not quip as such that people who question my claim are mischievous - because as a theist I did not claim that "a creator created THE Creator" - that is not my claim, so please bear with yourself and no misread people.

It is not the questioning of one's views or beliefs that is an issue. I simple said this:
"Since an atheist believes there could be a 'creator' who creator THE Creator, he needs to show others who that 'creator' could be - both by necessity and validation. Failing to do so only presents the enquirer as both mischievous and unintelligent."
If someone asks a question, they are welcome to do. But asking questions and pretending it is a "valid" one without validating its necessity and yet not addressing the question himself is simply mischievous. Theists not did postulate the "creator created THE Creator" - that is not what you can push to the doorstep of a theist. Since an atheist assumes that is possible - he and he alone should tell others what he holds as a belief.

That is why i responded to your post. And I think it is pretty clear from our posts which of us is up to mischief.

Since you haven't made any sense, I won't take you up on that - mischief aside.

The creator you believe in can have whatever nature you feel he should.

I see - which is why you can then formulate a 3 or 4 creator hypothesis, yes? Please.

I can't explain what goes on in your head.

Lol, be my guest and hazard a guess - you might be surprised to peep into my head and see what I think of you in return.

But if u want to pass it off as the way thing are, then u are the one that has to explain to us.

I have explained why your "possibilities" of 3 or 4 creators are not my worries - I don't answer roll-calls for your problems. Now if you want to pass your own drama as the way things are, tough luck: I just wish you the genuis to calmly do so without grumbling about what other people think for not holding unto your own worries of a 3 or 4 creator hypothesis.

When a teacher is teaching a student a totally foreign concept, who asks the questions, and who does the explaining?

Let me make this one easy for you:

*the idea of a 3 or 4 creator is foreign to theists;

therefore, since it is not theists that are making that claim of yours, let's now ask:
(a) who asks questions?
(b) who answers to questions asked for that foreign concept?

Here again: since your postulations are not mine, I cannot answer roll-call for you. if as a "teacher" of your own postulations you have not been able to share with me, I don't have any worries thereto - that is not grounds for you to make assertions about what's going on in other people's heads. Your claim is NOT MINE - you can keep yours and we can applaud it.

wirinet:

See linguistic gymnastics, you theists are something else.

When the Atheist say the universe came out of nothing, the theists would say "you are senseless, how can the universe as complex as it is with all the complex life forms comes out of nothing. It is evident that everything was created by a highly intelligent and infinitely complex creator".

Then the atheist asks please tell me how this creator came to be? who created this creator? and the theist answers, "you are very stupid for asking that question, how can an infinitely complex and and powerful creator be created. Can't you understand that he or it have always existed and not in need of any creator? How can a creator have a creator? In fact all atheists are stupid and foolish".

The atheist scratches his head  

I don't make claims as highlighted in yours. But if the atheist believes that a creator must have created THE Creator, would it not be genial for the same atheist to tell us how that is so?

viaro:

I don't make claims as highlighted in yours. But if the atheist believes that a creator must have created THE Creator, would it not be genial for the same atheist to tell us how that is so?

You are being very dishonest, you try to tie in certain dogma to atheists and then base most of your arguments on your preconceived assertions. i am not even in the mood to respond, but i will all the same.

You said "Since an atheist believes there could be a 'creator' who creator THE Creator, he needs to show others who that 'creator' could be - both by necessity and validation. Failing to do so only presents the enquirer as both mischievous and unintelligent."

First Atheists do not believe there could be a creator for the creator, they do not even believe in a creator. Please check the meaning of Atheism. It is in response to arguments that the universe must have a creator that the atheists asks, who created the creator.

About there being three or four creators, you are also dishonest there. The Christian religion is still in confusion where there was one creator in the beginning or there were multiple (most Christians say there were three - The Father, the son and the holy spirit.) They say one God (Father) thought of the creation and used the word (son) and the holy spirit manifested the creations. So the 3 or 4 Gods hypothesis is a theist one and not postulated by atheists.

wirinet:

You are being very dishonest,

That's a nice way to start off a discussion, ain't it?
But let me assure you: I'm not being dishonest at all. What your problem is can be easily solved: you're simply too busy pointing fingers at others and looking elsewhere.

you try to tie in certain dogma to atheists and then base most of your arguments on your preconceived assertions.

Certain dogmas - as what? Me? Where? I do hope you have your wires in place? WHERE did I postulate that a creator must have created THE Creator? Did I tie that on the neck of any atheist? I have several times noted that such a proposition does not fall within the purview of theism - and I stood out for why that could not be. If you hold that the contraption is by necessity your worry, then deal with it. Since it is not mine, why should I answer your roll-call?

i am not even in the mood to respond, but i will all the same.

Another way os saying that is: you have nothing intelligent to put forward. All the same, I'll keep my fingers crossed.

First Atheists do not believe there could be a creator for the creator, they do not even believe in a creator. Please check the meaning of Atheism. It is in response to arguments that the universe must have a creator that the atheists asks, who created the creator.

I know what atheism is - don't start to even pretend you have a clue. Also, it is good to note the highlight in yours. By extension, THEISTS do not hold a claim of "a creator for THE Creator". That is why the question about "who created the creator" does not arise in the first place since THEISTS did not make that claim. For an atheist to adduce that a creator must have created the Creator is to assume what is not in the domain of theism (at least, I speak for myself). If a theist had postulated that a creator created THE Creator, then the atheist would be spot on to ask: "who created the Creator" - and then the theirst should address that question. Since it is not the claim of a theist, what is the grounds for the atheist profeering a question that he himself does not even know how to think through?

About there being three or four creators, you are also dishonest there.

Again, that is not my claim - so enjoy your hideous duplcity. What have I said about there being 3 or 4 ceators - did I say that is what exists? Was that my claim as a theist? You did not carefully weigh issues before venturing into your mud-slinging drama. Could you not have discussed issues more reasonably instead?

The Christian religion is still in confusion where there was one creator in the beginning or there were multiple (most Christians say there were three - The Father, the son and the holy spirit.) They say one God (Father) thought of the creation and used the word (son) and the holy spirit manifested the creations.  So the 3 or 4 Gods hypothesis is a theist one and not postulated by atheists.

I did not hold a "3 or 4"-creator having created THE Creator hypothesis. The Trinity does not superimpose your dramatic twist up there, because even as you described it, there's nothing to show that one creator had created the other, which then led to the third creator bbeing created by the other two. Rather, what you described is simply pointing to the creation - not the Creator. The 3 or 4 hypothesis that you desperately are trying to resolve for your drama does not even begin to scratch the surface for you.

ok. Why does the universe necessarily need a creator? And please describe the nature of this creator and how u arrived at such.

viaro:

That's a nice way to start off a discussion, ain't it?
But let me assure you: I'm not being dishonest at all. What your problem is can be easily solved: you're simply too busy pointing fingers at others and looking elsewhere.

Certain dogmas - as what? Me? Where? I do hope you have your wires in place? WHERE did I postulate that a creator must have created THE Creator? Did I tie that on the neck of any atheist? I have several times noted that such a proposition does not fall within the purview of theism - and I stood out for why that could not be. If you hold that the contraption is by necessity your worry, then deal with it. Since it is not mine, why should I answer your roll-call?

Another way os saying that is: you have nothing intelligent to put forward. All the same, I'll keep my fingers crossed.

I know what atheism is - don't start to even pretend you have a clue. Also, it is good to note the highlight in yours. By extension, THEISTS do not hold a claim of "a creator for THE Creator". That is why the question about "who created the creator" does not arise in the first place since THEISTS did not make that claim. For an atheist to adduce that a creator must have created the Creator is to assume what is not in the domain of theism (at least, I speak for myself). If a theist had postulated that a creator created THE Creator, then the atheist would be spot on to ask: "who created the Creator" - and then the theirst should address that question. Since it is not the claim of a theist, what is the grounds for the atheist profeering a question that he himself does not even know how to think through?

Again, that is not my claim - so enjoy your hideous duplcity. What have I said about there being 3 or 4 ceators - did I say that is what exists? Was that my claim as a theist? You did not carefully weigh issues before venturing into your mud-slinging drama. Could you not have discussed issues more reasonably instead?

I did not hold a "3 or 4"-creator having created THE Creator hypothesis. The Trinity does not superimpose your dramatic twist up there, because even as you described it, there's nothing to show that one creator had created the other, which then led to the third creator bbeing created by the other two. Rather, what you described is simply pointing to the creation - not the Creator. The 3 or 4 hypothesis that you desperately are trying to resolve for your drama does not even begin to scratch the surface for you.

Why i accuse you of being dishonest is because you keep shifting the goal post. You keep vacillating between arguments and subjects.

First the subject matter was not whether theists postulate that there must be a creator for the creator. The argument is Theist claims that everything in the universe must have been created by a creator, and the next logical question would be "how did the creator come into existence?" The theist want us to accept that an uncreated being created the universe while the Atheist believe that an uncreated universe is still in the process of formation and in the process creating new forms and objects.

Also the subject matter was never whether three or four Gods created the creator, no body brought up that argument. The subject matter was where there were 3 or 4 gods at the beginning creating the universe together or only one doing the creating while the others watched. Nobody said one God created the other Gods. (although that can me found in other mythologies). Because the Christian Bible clearly states the presence of other gods during creation.

wirinet:

Why i accuse you of being dishonest is because you keep shifting the goal post. You keep vacillating between arguments and subjects.

First the subject matter was not whether theists postulate that there must be a creator for the creator. The argument is Theist claims that everything in the universe must have been created by a creator, and the next logical question would be "how did the creator come into existence?" The theist want us to accept that an uncreated being created the universe while the Atheist believe that an uncreated universe is still in the process of formation and in the process creating new forms and objects.

At least i knew from two religious books, Quran and Bible, that the creator was not created.

Two questions, and I appreciate them.

Krayola:

ok. Why does the universe necessarily need a creator?

I assume the necessity of your question is what wirinet has highlighted already: "It is in response to arguments that the universe must have a creator that the atheists asks, who created the creator." Maybe not, but that is my assumption.

However, I have tried to seperate between two things:

(a) the creation of the Universe

(b) a supposition that a creator created THE Creator.

Earlier, you said that you "don't consider the universe to be a creation, but a creative entity." In the same vein, I don't consider the Creator to be a creation; and thus we are looking at two different things entirely.

Having said that, I also don't consider the universe originated by itself; hence my pointing back to creation as the work of THE Creator.

And please describe the nature of this creator and how u arrived at such.

I could do so in another thread for that purpose. Suffice to say that in consonance with the present discussion, I don't hold the Creator to be of such a nature as classes Him with creation. The reason I say so is because some who ask the question of a creator creating the Creator are basing their arguments on the presumption that blurs between the creation and the Creator.

wirinet:

Why i accuse you of being dishonest is because you keep shifting the goal post. You keep vacillating between arguments and subjects.

You may accuse me, but accusations are not saying anything for you. And no, not even your latest accusation about my goal shifting holds any substance - I have been consistent all through, regardless your accusations.

First the subject matter was not whether theists postulate that there must be a creator for the creator.

Well, I don't read any THEIST supposing a creator for THE Creator. That has been my consistent position. Did you read anywhere that a theist (at least in this thread) must have stated that a creator created the Creator?

The argument is Theist claims that everything in the universe must have been created by a creator, and the next logical question would be "how did the creator come into existence?"

As far back as post #35 I started discussing this question and have held the same consistent position. Indeed, if we are looking at the creation of the Universe, that would logically follow from the distinction between what is created and the One who created them. But even when I could grant your premise, you would not fail to recognize that I do not consider the Creator to be a creation - hence why your question of "how did the creator come into existence" does not arise. if it does arise, please proffer some answer - theists did not make that supposition, and therefore should not answer the roll-call for you.

The theist want us to accept that an uncreated being created the universe while the Atheist believe that an uncreated universe is still in the process of formation and in the process creating new forms and objects.

I could let you hold your own personal belief for yourself - I have no problem with that atheistic belief. I'm not going to stir your nest by asking you questions directly (lest I quicken your ire); but if the universe was "uncreated", I guess we would have to rewrite reference books that peg an age of the universe (anywhere between 4 billion to 6 billion YA). As far back as one can fathom for the age of the universe, it would not be sound for me to hold the view that the universe is "uncreated".

Also the subject matter was never whether three or four Gods created the creator, no body brought up that argument. The subject matter was where there were 3 or 4 gods at the beginning creating the universe together or only one doing the creating while the others watched.

You're such a bore I should cry for you. The subject matter where I began to address this subject was from post # 35, and I began purposely by repeating the question: Re: 'Who created the Creator'? I did that on purpose so that anyone who wanted to comment on my views were welcome to do so as freely as they wanted to, bearing in mind that I had a particular question I was seeking to address. Following that, in post #38 Krayola quip: "ok. Why just one creator? Why not 3 or 4?" Go back and take a look and understand I did not bring up the issue - and the question was not about anything in my post speaking of several creators standing by and watching as you surmised. It's a pity you can act this inconsistent and yet be so accusative against me shifting the posts.

Nobody said one God created the other Gods. (although that can me found in other mythologies). Because the Christian Bible clearly states the presence of other gods during creation.

I did not claim that what you're mis-firing at in that bold. I answered from post #35 directly to the question which I reposted: "Re: 'Who created the Creator'?" I had gone to the OP who had stated: "l would like to know who created the creator". If you missed all that and then launch an accusation from your zone, how does that help you come round your own mishaps?

viaro:

Earlier, you said that you "don't consider the universe to be a creation, but a creative entity." In the same vein, I don't consider the Creator to be a creation; and thus we are looking at two different things entirely.

I can, at least to some extent, observe the universe. I have some idea of what is in it. I can see and experience the creative nature of the universe. So when someone asks me why I think the universe is a creative entity, I can point and say "look, that is why. . .do u see?". From the birth and death of stars, galaxies . . . that we can have new ideas and invent new things, that dinosaurs have been wiped out and humans walk the earth. . . I can point and say "look, the universe is a creative entity. . . It is never fixed, it is always in motion, creating. The only universe I have ever known is one in motion.

When it comes to it's origin, I don't know. It could have always existed, It could have been Created by your God, It could have been created by several Gods, it could be spit from some super being that mixed with shit from another super being and had some bugged out reaction. It could be anything, I simply don't know. If u ask me why I don't know, I can explain that as well.

But you say the universe definitely had a creator because you don't think it originated by itself. I would like you to explain why the Universe must been created because you don't think it originated by itself.

viaro:

Having said that, I also don't consider the universe originated by itself; hence my pointing back to creation as the work of THE Creator.

O.K, lets agree to disagree on the topic, but i need to point out one correction to your statement below;

viaro:


I could let you hold your own personal belief for yourself - I have no problem with that atheistic belief. I'm not going to stir your nest by asking you questions directly (lest I quicken your ire); but if the universe was "uncreated", I guess we would have to rewrite reference books that peg an age of the universe (anywhere between 4 billion to 6 billion YA). As far back as one can fathom for the age of the universe, it would not be sound for me to hold the view that the universe is "uncreated".

The reference books you refer to did not exactly say that the universe was created at any particular instance of time, what it said was that the universe was already existing but was without space, meaning all the universe was concentrated in a zero dimensional space. And without space you cannot have time. It was from this universe that the present universe consisting of matter/energy, space and time was created at about 12 billion years ago, and some scientists estimate that the universe would stop expanding due to its gravity and contract back to the crunch it began with in another 38 billion years or so.

Now if Theists say that their God is the force that created the present universe and it had always existed, then we would be saying the same thing. But if they tell me that their creator god is one Yahweh, Allah, Pharaoh, Jesus, Zeus, Caesar, other ancient king like personalities with all human attributes. Then i will have to vehemently disagree.

Peace!

sirs and mas,
a programme can not ask its programmer what it isn't programmed to do; can it? For moe light on this, visit http://branham.org/

OLAKAD:

sirs and mas,
a programme can not ask its programmer what it isn't programmed to do; can it? For moe light on this, visit http://branham.org/

does man need a programmer?

My first question to the atheist will be: "What is the definition of God?" For a person to say there is no God, he should know what is the meaning of God. If I hold a book and say that ‘this is a pen’, for the opposite person to say, ‘it is not a pen’, he should know what is the definition of a pen, even if he does not know nor is able to recognise or identify the object I am holding in my hand. For him to say this is not a pen, he should at least know what a pen means. Similarly for an atheist to say ‘there is no God’, he should at least know the concept of God. His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in which he lives. The god that a large number of people worship has got human qualities - therefore he does not believe in such a god. Similarly a Muslim too does not and should not believe in such false gods.

If a non-Muslim believes that Islam is a merciless religion with something to do with terrorism; a religion which does not give rights to women; a religion which contradicts science; in his limited sense that non-Muslim is correct to reject such Islam. The problem is he has a wrong picture of Islam. Even I reject such a false picture of Islam, but at the same time, it becomes my duty as a Muslim to present the correct picture of Islam to that non-Muslim i.e. Islam is a merciful religion, it gives equal rights to the women, it is not incompatible with logic, reason and science; if I present the correct facts about Islam, that non-Muslim may Inshallah accept Islam.

Similarly the atheist rejects the false gods and the duty of every Muslim is to present the correct concept of God which he shall Insha Allah not refuse.
The methods of proving the existence of God with usage of the material provided in the ‘Concept of God in Islam’ to an atheist may satisfy some but not all.

Many atheists demand a scientific proof for the existence of God. I agree that today is the age of science and technology. Let us use scientific knowledge to kill two birds with one stone, i.e. to prove the existence of God and simultaneously prove that the Qur’an is a revelation of God.

If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a question is asked, " Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little bit of thinking, he will reply, ‘the creator of that object.’ Some may say ‘the producer’ while others may say ‘the manufacturer.’ What ever answer the person gives, keep it in your mind, the answer will always be either the creator, the producer, the manufacturer or some what of the same meaning, i.e. the person who has made it or created it. Don’t grapple with words, whatever answer he gives, the meaning will be same, therefore accept it.
http://www.islam101.com/tauheed/provingGodExists.htm

Gidado1565:

My first question to the atheist will be: "What is the definition of God?" For a person to say there is no God, he should know what is the meaning of God. If I hold a book and say that ‘this is a pen’, for the opposite person to say, ‘it is not a pen’, he should know what is the definition of a pen, even if he does not know nor is able to recognise or identify the object I am holding in my hand. For him to say this is not a pen, he should at least know what a pen means. Similarly for an atheist to say ‘there is no God’, he should at least know the concept of God. His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in which he lives. The god that a large number of people worship has got human qualities - therefore he does not believe in such a god. Similarly a Muslim too does not and should not believe in such false gods.

If a non-Muslim believes that Islam is a merciless religion with something to do with terrorism; a religion which does not give rights to women; a religion which contradicts science; in his limited sense that non-Muslim is correct to reject such Islam. The problem is he has a wrong picture of Islam. Even I reject such a false picture of Islam, but at the same time, it becomes my duty as a Muslim to present the correct picture of Islam to that non-Muslim i.e. Islam is a merciful religion, it gives equal rights to the women, it is not incompatible with logic, reason and science; if I present the correct facts about Islam, that non-Muslim may Inshallah accept Islam.

Similarly the atheist rejects the false gods and the duty of every Muslim is to present the correct concept of God which he shall Insha Allah not refuse.
The methods of proving the existence of God with usage of the material provided in the ‘Concept of God in Islam’ to an atheist may satisfy some but not all.

Many atheists demand a scientific proof for the existence of God. I agree that today is the age of science and technology. Let us use scientific knowledge to kill two birds with one stone, i.e. to prove the existence of God and simultaneously prove that the Qur’an is a revelation of God.

If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a question is asked, " Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little bit of thinking, he will reply, ‘the creator of that object.’ Some may say ‘the producer’ while others may say ‘the manufacturer.’ What ever answer the person gives, keep it in your mind, the answer will always be either the creator, the producer, the manufacturer or some what of the same meaning, i.e. the person who has made it or created it. Don’t grapple with words, whatever answer he gives, the meaning will be same, therefore accept it.
http://www.islam101.com/tauheed/provingGodExists.htm

Is this a question

Who Created The Creator

Is this a question :Undecided :Undecided :Undecided Huh

Yes it is a legitimate question. Theists claim something could not come from nothing thus the universe must have a creator. Well if we are to courageously pursue this line of though we have to ask where did the creator come from ? Where did his intelligence come from ? Where did his power come from ?

I don't know where he is from and im not bothered but i hope u know that there are some questions that can never be answered

I don't know where he is from and im not bothered but i hope u know that there are some questions that can never be answered

Are you a christian/muslim ? If you agnostic/atheist then fine !

begging the question:

"Who created the creator"