Who Made God?

See above. It is not arrogance Phat but simply honesty.

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

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.

---

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.

Infantile and absurd are closer than just silly. 100% of the evidence shows that humans created God. There is no evidence of God inventing anything. And that is as meaningless as anything ICANT posts.

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.

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.

Again, utter nonsense.Why would some cause need to have existed eternally or created by some external thing with a lot of power.

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.

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. 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.

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

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.

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.

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. 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? 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

RC Sproul loves to hear himself talk but it all boils down to Word Salad.