Who Made God?

I understand your skepticism, especially given Faith's years of spouting bat-shit crazy fullshirt false and baseless proclamations. When it comes to the mindless spoutings of Faith and others like her, the best policy is always: when in doubt, doubt.Well, as Rick Perry once said: "Even a broken clock is right once a day." (Rick Perry succeeded G. Dubya Bush as Governor of Texas, to which Texans started calling Dubya "the smart one").There was a rather active and vibrant eugenics program operating in the USA in the early 20th Century. What it's ties to Darwinism were supposed to be, I don't know, but basically it was based on a conceit that if selective breeding is good enough for our livestock, then it's good enough for us.A lot of National Socialist thought centered around maintaining the purity of genetic lines. Nazis were creationists who believed that the proper humans (AKA "Aryans") were a separate creation from the rest of humanity, the "sub-humans" -- curiously, I've seen the exact same story being used by USA racists.A lot of film, both American and German, based in the Hitlerzeit ("Hitler Time") delves into the prevalence of eugenics in Nazi fixations.First, there's the rhetoric of the mixing of separate creations, Aryans with "sub-humans", which is also a concern in American racism (refer to a nearly classic Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers strip on the subject -- see footnote).First there was a cinema classic, Judgment at Nuremberg (the town's name is actually Nürnberg). In one scene, the neutering of an "inferior individual" in order to protect the germline was justified by the German attorney (Maximillian Schell) by the USA's own eugenics movement and some state eugenics laws, showing that the Americans judging the Germans had done the exact same things themselves.Then there was a TV movie with Lee Remick, Of Pure Blood (1986), in which a German raised from childhood in the USA returns to Germany to learn that she was a product of a Nazi breeding program, the Lebensborn ("Fount of Life").There was another TV movie or limited series depicting life in the Hitlerzeit. I forget whether it was in English or German, but I suspect that it was a USA production since it was so long ago as to preclude Netflix or the like. A couple's child had been born. The very first thing that the nurse did was to show the new parents that their child had ten fingers and ten toes. Id est, that it was normal.Netflix has carried two series about the famous charity hospital in Berlin, Charité, meaning Barmherzlichkeit. The first series was set around 1890 with pioneering medical research including vaccines for devastating life-threatening diseases that we no longer even notice, thanks to their work back then. The second series is Charite at War, which takes place in the Hitlerzeit.In the latter series, Charit at War, set in the Hitlerzeit, a couple (him a physician already and her just about ready to graduate as an physician) have a daughter. When she's born, they go through the same "ten fingers, ten toes" rigamarole to demonstrate she's normal. But then she develops hydrocephalus, which is not a Nazi approved genetic condition, and the parents have to deal with that. 

---

 
FOOTNOTE:
 
The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers appeared in several strips in the Los Angeles Free Press back in the day (ie, pre-1970) along with a shorter strip about one of the brother's cat, "Fad Freddy's Cat", arguably some of the more creative material).In one strip, two of the brothers wanted to take a cross-country trip, but one car didn't have any steering and the other didn't have any functioning engine or transmission. So they strapped the two cars together (not unlike two turtles humping, visually speaking) with the one in back providing the drive and the one in front providing the steering. Months later they reappear on the scene without the cars. When asked what had happened, they said that everything was fine until they reached the south where the cars were impounded for mixed-race intercourse (did I forget to mention that the car in back with the drive was black and the car in front with the steering was white?) -- a black car humping a white car? Oh hells no!

There was (and most likely still is, since they never make any progress) a proselytizing script based on a catch-phrase (by C.S. Lewis, I seem to recall): "So based on the claims he made about himself, what was Jesus? Lunatic, Liar, or Lord?" -- c. 1970 (my time among the Jesus Freaks) there was even a Chick Pubs tract with 3-L as its title and main argument.That leaves out the fourth and far more important "L": Legend. What the New Testament and associated works (eg, church fathers, theologians, preachers, street proselytizers) described is a legend, not an actual person or demi-god.The entire question of whether an actual person, Jesus, actually lived is completely meaningless. The Legend is the important thing and the Legend exists whether the actual person existed or not. And whether such a person did anything that's attributed to the Legend.It doesn't take long for a legend to arise, even when based on an actual person. If Jesus actually lived, his conversion to legend took maybe a couple/few generations. George Washington and Abraham Lincoln actually lived, but they became legends very quickly, within decades. Every schoolchild learns their legends (eg, Father's cherry tree, Honest Abe), but rarely who and what they actually were.The process of turning a person into a legend takes even less time. In less than three years, Trump became a legend who is a God recast in the image of the legendary Rambo complete with a shirtless muscular body, star-spangled head band, and an AR-15 in either hand -- actually, that shirtless look is probably taken from Trump's own god, Vladimir Putin. Of course the real Trump is nothing at all like the legend, but then that's how the process usually works.In Jesus' case, he was either recast or created out of whole cloth in the image of Mithra. The person, Jesus, is unimportant. It is the Legend, Jesus, that is important.

I sincerely hope that you take to heart my advice to you in Message 983 and format your messages so that they are readable instead of the jumbled mess that they are now. False equivalence in which you assume every reference to a deity refers specifically to your own god. Indeed, the first question that comes to me when someone starts talking about "God" is "Which one?" (out of an estimated 288,000 gods that have we have created) to which that person most often would say, "The Christian God, of course", which raises the next question of which one out of the estimated 45,000 different versions (about 200 different versions in the USA alone, though not counting the multitude of personal versions each individual believer has created). Indeed, if you stood before a crowd of thousands and said "God", then it would mean thousands of different things to that crowd, each member of which would falsely assume you were talking about his own individual god.In this case, a deistic narrative about Providence, etc, was common at the time as well as natural theology , both of which included ideas of a Creator who had set the universe in motion and then stood back to let it run on its own -- that view in lieu of a personal god such as yours. The two may not be conflated.For example, Thomas Paine is considered to have influenced the Declaration of Independence, so his discussion of "Nature's God" should be pertinent; from The Age of Reason:

Thomas Paine:

---

As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me as a species of Atheism- a sort of religious denial of God. It professes to believe in a man rather than in God. It is a compound made up chiefly of Manism with but little Deism, and is as near to Atheism as twilight is to darkness. It introduces between man and his Maker an opaque body, which it calls a Redeemer, as the moon introduces her opaque self between the earth and the sun, and it produces by this means a religious, or an irreligious, eclipse of light. It has put the whole orbit of reason into shade.

​

The effect of this obscurity has been that of turning everything upside down, and representing it in reverse, and among the revolutions it has thus magically produced, it has made a revolution in theology.

​

That which is now called natural philosophy, embracing the whole circle of science, of which astronomy occupies the chief place, is the study of the works of God, and of the power and wisdom of God in his works, and is the true theology.

​

As to the theology that is now studied in its place, it is the study of human opinions and of human fancies concerning God. It is not the study of God himself in the works that he has made, but in the works or writings that man has made; and it is not among the least of the mischiefs that the Christian system has done to the world, that it has abandoned the original and beautiful system of theology, like a beautiful innocent, to distress and reproach, to make room for the hag of superstition.

---

So it is foolish to conflate "Nature's God" as the same as your "worship of a man".
And before you dismiss Paine as an "atheist":

Age of Reason, Part One:

---

I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.

---

I kind of see that as a dig against Trinitarianism; Thomas Jefferson was himself influenced by a Unitarian teacher and was no friend of Trinitarianism. Whatever are you talking about? What does any of that have to do with anything?Seriously! This is nothing more than the standard brain-dead stupid creationist probability argument based entirely on false assumptions, INCLUDING USING THE WRONG PROBABILITY MODELS. Indeed, the cherry on the top of this shit sundae is that your math model not only does not even remotely describe evolution or abiogenesis, but rather it describes your own creation ex nihilo model. You're doing nothing but project the problems with your own position. And while wasting your time with such nonsense, you are also diverting attention from the real issues; eg:

• What do you think evolution is? Nothing creationists say about "evolution" makes any sense since it has nothing to do with evolution. This indicates that you have no clue what evolution is and that your "evolution" is something completely different.
  ​
• How do you think evolution works? How do you think that anything works? Again, nothing you say makes any sense, which exposes you as being clueless.
  ​
• Why are you so single-mindedly opposed to "evolution"? You seem to think that there's some kind of conflict between evolution and Creation when there is no conflict -- well, that is a conflict between reality and your silly contrary-to-reality creationist claims which makes your creationism anti-Creation (since your creationist god depends on the Creation not being as it actually is).
  ​
• Even if you could disprove "evolution", what would that accomplish? Creationists seem to believe that disproving "evolution" (whatever they mean by that word) would "prove God". Not even close! Why would you believe such an extremely stupid thing?
  ​
• What the hell are you talking about? This question terrifies creationists.

I hope that you are up to discussing your creationism. Unfortunately, you appear to be a typical creationist who has no clue what he's talking about, especially about his own creationist claims and creationism. A typical creationist who can do no more than regurgitate the bullshit lies he's been feeding on and is incapable of thinking, let alone discussing.