| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
lala6669lala
Visitor
Joined: 08 May 2008
Posts: 14
Local time: 1:17 PM
|
 Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 3:04 pm Post subject: Purpose/Maker of God? |
  |
|
Here's a few questions I pose to theists who believe that life itself is evidence of God.
If we are incredibly complex and thus requre a designer, and God is unfathomably complex to us, does it not follow:
If we are evidence of a creator, isn't God an evidence of a God-creator?
If God is evidence of a God-creator, such creator must understand both God in his entirety and how to create him. He can then be classified as more complex then God. If there is a more complex being then God then would it not follow that God can't understand everything God-creator understands?
How can an omniscient being have things outside of his/her/its understanding?
On the other hand, if God-creator is not more complex/powerful then God, simply on an equal level doesn't it stand to reason that God can't be all powerful? Could he destroy his equal and if so could his equal destroy him? Could a being that can be destroyed be classified as omnipotent?
If God is not evidence of a God-creator and is rather just a force of nature, being far more complex then we are, could it not follow that we are not evidence of a creator but rather a force of nature? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
Hit_me_up024
Forum Master
Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 2240
Local time: 1:17 PM
Location: My parents basement.
|
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
god-creator has a nice little ring to it. i like
_________________
Im Like a flie to the NEON lights, a good BUZZ is the only thing i need
Props to Enemy_of_Reality |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pr126
resident misanthrope
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8187
Local time: 6:17 PM
|
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
God creators are us, humans. We created them by the thousands.
Many gods are now dead, no longer needed, some still around.
Maybe one day we won't need any gods at all.
_________________
"It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value." Arthur C Clarke
"The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see." -- Ayn Rand |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vyrian
Forum Leader
Joined: 03 Nov 2007
Posts: 1023
Local time: 1:17 PM
Location: K-PAX
|
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pr126 wrote: | God creators are us, humans. We created them by the thousands.
Many gods are now dead, no longer needed, some still around.
Maybe one day we won't need any gods at all. |
I'm hoping within the next 10-20 years.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Missionary
Guest
Local time: 4:17 AM
|
| Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 11:12 pm Post subject: Re: Purpose/Maker of God? |
|
|
| lala6669lala wrote: | Here's a few questions I pose to theists who believe that life itself is evidence of God.
If we are incredibly complex and thus requre a designer, and God is unfathomably complex to us, does it not follow:
If we are evidence of a creator, isn't God an evidence of a God-creator? |
Why would this necessarily follow?
| Quote: | | If God is evidence of a God-creator, such creator must understand both God in his entirety and how to create him. He can then be classified as more complex then God. If there is a more complex being then God then would it not follow that God can't understand everything God-creator understands? |
This postulates an assumptive house of cards.
| Quote: |
How can an omniscient being have things outside of his/her/its understanding? |
He cannot by the very definition of omniscience.
| Quote: | | On the other hand, if God-creator is not more complex/powerful then God, simply on an equal level doesn't it stand to reason that God can't be all powerful? Could he destroy his equal and if so could his equal destroy him? Could a being that can be destroyed be classified as omnipotent? |
Contrary to popular belief, there are things that God cannot do [maybe another time]. They are not limitations of God but rather the definitions of the words in relation to His nature and attributes. Omnipotence (which is not even a biblical word) refers to The Almighty and All Powerful nature and name of God. If He is indeed All Powerful, and He is, that does not necessarily mean that He can create a being that is All Powerful-er. The same would be true for His omnipotence. He is "all knowing" and thus knows all. Therefore there is no room for any possibility that there could be another being that knows "one thing more than all". As a result, God remains King of All Knowing and All Powerful.
| Quote: |
If God is not evidence of a God-creator and is rather just a force of nature, being far more complex then we are, could it not follow that we are not evidence of a creator but rather a force of nature? |
According to His word, He is not a "force of nature" but rather is in control of the forces of nature. God is The Supreme Being, the Creator of the universe, and has existed eternally without beginning or end.
Danny |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dobie
Intern
Joined: 10 May 2008
Posts: 61
Local time: 1:17 PM
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Missionary, I think scientifically the basis of our creation is an intellectual dead-house. Science posits an answer to the creation of humanity and where we come from. It's not a very good answer, but it meets the critera for being independently verified by evidence.
What's needed now is not anything remotely resembling god. It resembles, more accurately, an argument for living.
As much as I hate to admit it, Christianity does provide one of these, though I don't think it's a very good argument.
luckily, it's not the only one. There are other arguments for living. Many others, for a matter of fact. I don't believe that truth is needed for these arguments. just utility.
Isn't that why Communism gained so much credence?
_________________
Americanism -- n. e.g. Who gives a shit?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jutter
Quixotic Cloggy
Joined: 26 Jul 2003
Posts: 6528
Local time: 7:17 PM
Location: Den Helder, the Netherlands
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 5:02 am Post subject: Re: Purpose/Maker of God? |
|
|
| Missionary wrote: | | lala6669lala wrote: | Here's a few questions I pose to theists who believe that life itself is evidence of God.
If we are incredibly complex and thus requre a designer, and God is unfathomably complex to us, does it not follow:
If we are evidence of a creator, isn't God an evidence of a God-creator? |
Why would this necessarily follow? |
Because otherwise you'd be giving God special treatment, taking the "gee we'll just have to make an exception in this extraspecial case"-route like a chickenshit theologian. Either certain factors (like complexity) imply that a creator was involved, or they don't. You can't just say that in the case of the universe those factors DO imply such involvement, but in the case of a universe-creator they conveniently don't; that would be inconsistent.
| Quote: | | This postulates an assumptive house of cards. |
And this is what's dodgy about implementing a creator. Consistency demands an infinite regress of maker-makers, that one can only escape from through special pleading. "Oh no, God is a special case who doesn't need a maker, abracadabra poof!" A logical mistake to fix another logical mistake.
Let me take one more whack at making this land.
There's this bottom brick: the assumption that everything that puzzles and amazes us about the existence of something, implies that this something was created.
It's this bottom brick, that allows the God brick to be placed on top of it. But that second brick is even more amazing and puzzling than the universe it supposedly explains.
This would mean that an even more puzzling and amazing god-maker brick would have to be added, demanding an even more amazing and puzzling godmaker-creator brick, etc. etc.
The theoligian's alternative, is placing the bottom brick first to justify the placing of the god-brick, but then turn around to pretend that the bottom brick isn't there beneath the god-brick, as if that god-brick just levitates there in mid-air an in divine deviance.
_________________
~ Let us be reasonable ~
Congratulations: you are paracorrect about the supernatural.
*"If there were nobody listening to gods anymore, there would be nothing left for us to do,...
... then to finally start listening to each other."
*As any gamer will tell you: God-mode is a cheat-code. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Missionary
Guest
Local time: 4:17 AM
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dobie wrote: | Missionary, I think scientifically the basis of our creation is an intellectual dead-house. Science posits an answer to the creation of humanity and where we come from. It's not a very good answer, but it meets the critera for being independently verified by evidence.
What's needed now is not anything remotely resembling god. It resembles, more accurately, an argument for living.
As much as I hate to admit it, Christianity does provide one of these, though I don't think it's a very good argument.
luckily, it's not the only one. There are other arguments for living. Many others, for a matter of fact. I don't believe that truth is needed for these arguments. just utility.
Isn't that why Communism gained so much credence? |
The only argument for life outside of a Creator is to survive and replicate our genes. No different from bacteria. Or a virus.
Scientifically, from a darwinian atheist POV, that is your only possible conclusion.The whole concept of love, enjoyment, betterment are meaningless apart from their role in humans propagating the survivability of our species. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moloth
Coin Operated Boy
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 22585
Local time: 1:17 PM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Missionary wrote: | | dobie wrote: | Missionary, I think scientifically the basis of our creation is an intellectual dead-house. Science posits an answer to the creation of humanity and where we come from. It's not a very good answer, but it meets the critera for being independently verified by evidence.
What's needed now is not anything remotely resembling god. It resembles, more accurately, an argument for living.
As much as I hate to admit it, Christianity does provide one of these, though I don't think it's a very good argument.
luckily, it's not the only one. There are other arguments for living. Many others, for a matter of fact. I don't believe that truth is needed for these arguments. just utility.
Isn't that why Communism gained so much credence? |
The only argument for life outside of a Creator is to survive and replicate our genes. No different from bacteria. Or a virus.
Scientifically, from a darwinian atheist POV, that is your only possible conclusion.The whole concept of love, enjoyment, betterment are meaningless apart from their role in humans propagating the survivability of our species. |
or, you could be completely wrong in your asinine assumptions about what a group of people who don;t share your delusions believe or don;t believe.
Meaning is a concept created and applied by sentient minds. As sentient beings WE apply meaning to whatever we want. Meaning is not some objective label applied by some invisible force. its is created, like all concepts, in our minds. I DEEM the facets of my life to have meaning... and that is far greater than some Bronze Age sheep herders doing FOR me.
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
www.twitter.com/Moloth
www.MySpace.com/Moloth
www.last.fm/user/moloth
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Missionary
Guest
Local time: 4:17 AM
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 3:19 pm Post subject: Re: Purpose/Maker of God? |
|
|
| Jutter wrote: | | Missionary wrote: | | lala6669lala wrote: | Here's a few questions I pose to theists who believe that life itself is evidence of God.
If we are incredibly complex and thus requre a designer, and God is unfathomably complex to us, does it not follow:
If we are evidence of a creator, isn't God an evidence of a God-creator? |
Why would this necessarily follow? |
Because otherwise you'd be giving God special treatment, taking the "gee we'll just have to make an exception in this extraspecial case"-route like a chickenshit theologian. Either certain factors (like complexity) imply that a creator was involved, or they don't. You can't just say that in the case of the universe those factors DO imply such involvement, but in the case of a universe-creator they conveniently don't; that would be inconsistent.
| Quote: | | This postulates an assumptive house of cards. |
And this is what's dodgy about implementing a creator. Consistency demands an infinite regress of maker-makers, that one can only escape from through special pleading. "Oh no, God is a special case who doesn't need a maker, abracadabra poof!" A logical mistake to fix another logical mistake.
Let me take one more whack at making this land.
There's this bottom brick: the assumption that everything that puzzles and amazes us about the existence of something, implies that this something was created.
It's this bottom brick, that allows the God brick to be placed on top of it. But that second brick is even more amazing and puzzling than the universe it supposedly explains.
This would mean that an even more puzzling and amazing god-maker brick would have to be added, demanding an even more amazing and puzzling godmaker-creator brick, etc. etc.
The theoligian's alternative, is placing the bottom brick first to justify the placing of the god-brick, but then turn around to pretend that the bottom brick isn't there beneath the god-brick, as if that god-brick just levitates there in mid-air an in divine deviance. |
For one, the special pleading does not originate from the theist. God said "I AM" and 'there is no other' 3500 years before this concept we're discussing of a philosophical question could have been even entertained for debate much less resolved to conundrum by the thinking of people at that time. But let's set that aside.
As for your bricks. If I see the universe brick (or a stack of bricks each representing a different aspect of creation; ie. leaf, rock, bird, DNA) I would not stack a new brick on top, label it God, and call it an explanation. I would lift up the universe brick and see what supports it.
If God is there, then the maker-maker is possible up until the point when the God of the universe brick says, "I AM (look no further-there is no other)". That is the point where I look at the universe brick and say to myself, "If the maker of this says there is no other, then by the sheer complexity, intelligence, and power necesary to create this brick, i will trust Him."
If you feel I missed your analogy, try to reword it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kmisho
Stochastic
Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 4383
Local time: 4:17 AM
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, some person claimed that god said "I AM". Not very convincing.
_________________
K Michau
Now this religion happens to prevail/Until by that one it is overthrown/Because men dare not live with men alone/But always with another fairy tale.
al-Ma'arri, Syrian Poet, died 1057
You deny the existence of 999 alleged Gods. I merely deny one more - yours.
John MacKinnon Robertson, "Godism" 1896
"Never is a long time." Robert Fripp, 1998
Poetry, Art, Music |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BarkAtTheMoon
O Captain, my Captain
Joined: 20 Dec 2004
Posts: 4557
Local time: 2:17 PM
Location: Wilmington, DE
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just now said "I AM." Bow down, mother fuckers.
_________________
"The very existence of flame throwers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, 'You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done.' - George Carlin
"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moloth
Coin Operated Boy
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 22585
Local time: 1:17 PM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Missionary
Guest
Local time: 4:17 AM
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kmisho wrote: | | Actually, some person claimed that god said "I AM". Not very convincing. |
If that's what you think happened then you have not read the account. You're probably not aware that God appeared continuously and spoke audibly to the entire nation of Israel 24/7 for a period of 40 years. Moses recorded this fact in writing which Joshua carried across the Jordon along with the Ark of the Covenant.
So who, in your mind, is this some person? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moloth
Coin Operated Boy
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 22585
Local time: 1:17 PM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Missionary wrote: | | kmisho wrote: | | Actually, some person claimed that god said "I AM". Not very convincing. |
If that's what you think happened then you have not read the account. You're probably not aware that God appeared continuously and spoke audibly to the entire nation of Israel 24/7 for a period of 40 years. Moses recorded this fact in writing which Joshua carried across the Jordon along with the Ark of the Covenant.
So who, in your mind, is this some person? |
heh... "the account"... thats over 2,000 years old in a series of stories that have been cobbled together in a ever-changing, oft-translated, re-translated and purposefully edited book that is nothing more than re-hashed pagan mythologies...
oh.. but scientific, forensic, archaeological, astrophysical and radiometric evidence is just utterly bunk! 
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
www.twitter.com/Moloth
www.MySpace.com/Moloth
www.last.fm/user/moloth
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
