Who made God?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Yeah, I know that.

Now, if only you embrace Jesus as your Lord and Saviour, you'd be perfect.

It's hard to wrap your arms around a ghost.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Something tells me you can't ask a straight question.

So is killing 6 million people, 'evil' or 'good'?

What is not straight about the question above? 😉

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
It's hard to wrap your arms around a ghost.

True. What about eating his body and drinking his blood down at the local Catholic Church?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
True. What about eating his body and drinking his blood down at the local Catholic Church?

Eugh.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Take it easy. I wasn't insulting you.

The world is a very confusing place. I try to understand it, but fail. However, I am just smart enough to understand that the world is confusing, and that my understanding of it is fallible. I pay a price: recognition that reality is not reaching out to explain itself to be, and that the truth is mostly uncertain ...[text shortened]... es me as ever so convenient that the nature of reality should be revealed to "mere children".

Alright. I'll get off your case about the insult.

But I when the Bible says "Whosever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life" don't mistake universality for simplemindedness.

You might consider instead that the God of Truth and Reality is opening the door to the greatest possible number of people.

Faith humbles. Faith leaves nothing for you and I to boast in.

Faith leaves nothing for you to point to self and say "Look what I did". Faith is a great equalizer.

If I were you rather than dismiss the New Testament as simple minded I would be a little suspicious that maybe the largeness of God's heart is revealed in His way.

Originally posted by jaywill
Scotty,

Yea yea, I full of myself.

Now the logical fallacies, how about pointing them out.

It takes more faith to believe that space, time, matter, and energy exploded into existence from no cause, then it does to believe that an eternal Creator outside of nature commanded them into existence.

Since my faith in the universe c ...[text shortened]... r job is to build it up. Use your bag of logical fallacies about a creating Creator to do that.

Okay, I promised I'd get back to this.

It takes more faith to believe that space, time, matter, and energy exploded into existence from no cause, then it does to believe that an eternal Creator outside of nature commanded them into existence.

No, it doesn't. It takes exactly the same amount. Once you have a better understanding of the Big Bang (and I do reccommend you (and indeed everyone) read up on the subject) you'll see that the entire concept of the requirement for a cause is unfounded, and flawed. Cause and effect are useful logical constucts for things that happen within the universe. Of course, the creation of the universe happened to, not within, the universe. It happened outside of what we understand as time. You cannot imagine it, because our brains simply don't have the capacity. It's, unfortunately, one of those points which is not intuitively understandable, but requires a great deal of thinking on the subject - so do not post your immediate thoughts - please think about it for some time first.

Since my faith in the universe coming into existence by no cause and by nothing is so weak, your job is to build it up. Use your bag of logical fallacies about a creating Creator to do that.

Many people can show you logical problems with a creator. For example, where did he come from? You'll say he had no beginning, well, that could equally be applied to the universe. It's simply an "I don't know" statement. We can set omnipotence against itself. 'Could God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?' Logically this is inconsistant. Or, as I did earlier, set omniscience against omnipotence. 'Can God will himself to forget?' If he can, he's not omniscient. If he can't, he's not omnipotent.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
It's hard to wrap your arms around a ghost.

Since I asked I will answer myself.

We are here because the God of this universe is building an entity called "New Jerusalem".


What is New Jerusalem? In the simpliest most straightforward explamation:


New Jerusalem is Christ expanded, Christ enlarged, Christ multiplied. But Who is Christ and what is Christ?

Christ is the mingling of divinity and humanity. Christ is the incorporation of God and man. Christ is the union and interweaving of God and humanity.

New Jerusalem is what God is after. We were created for New Jerusalem. And the universe exists for the building up of New Jerusalem.

God desires to mass produce many sons of God from the standard model of the Son of God and build them up into a "city" New Jerusalem as the capital of the new heaven and new earth in eternity to come.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Christians naturally believe there must be a God because the world had a beginning. And everything that had a beginning had a beginner. But the tough question to answer is how we know the world had a beginning. Maybe the world always existed.

Famous agnostic Bertrand Russell presented this dilemma: Either the world had a beginning, or it did not. If it ...[text shortened]... rse we call the cosmos—that is, God exists.

(As stated by Dr. Norman Geisler)

"I'm beginning to think this Geisler chap is another incantation of Kent Hovind." - Dr Louis Irving.



Famous agnostic Bertrand Russell presented this dilemma: Either the world had a beginning, or it did not. If it did not, it did not need a cause (God). If it did, we can ask, "Who caused God?" But if God has a cause, he is not God. In either case, we do not arrive at a first uncaused cause (God).

Makes an unsubstantiated jump between some force which leads to the creation of the world (although I suspect they mean universe) and god. many things are created in this world, especially by man, that does not mean man is god.


Of course, everything that had a beginning had a beginner. Nothing cannot make something. As Julie Andrews once sang, "Nothing came from nothing. Nothing ever could."

Not true. Glaciation had no beginner. Neither do rainstorms. They do not require intervention. Point 2. Julie Andrews was a SINGER. Not a philosopher. She just couldn't find anything to rhyme with "Big Bang" or "Hawkins' radiation"

och, I'm bored now. Suffice to say, this is crap.

Originally posted by jaywill
We are here because the God of this universe is building an entity called "New Jerusalem".

I was going to post something by Blake for Pawnokeyhole's benefit. A Divine Image (two versions).

A Divine Image


Cruelty has a human heart,
And Jealousy a human face;
Terror the human form divine,
And Secresy the human dress.

The human dress is forged iron,
The human form a fiery forge,
The human face a furnace sealed,
The human heart its hungry gorge.


The Divine Image
To Mercy Pity Peace and Love,
All pray in their distress:
And to these virtues of delight
Return their thankfulness.

For Mercy Pity Peace and Love,
Is God our father dear:
And Mercy Pity Peace and Love,
Is Man his child and care.

For Mercy has a human heart
Pity, a human face:
And Love, the human form divine,
And Peace, the human dress.

Then every man of every clime,
That prays in his distress,
Prays to the human form divine
Love Mercy Pity Peace.

And all must love the human form,
In heathen, turk or jew.
Where Mercy, Love & Pity dwell,
There God is dwelling too.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
"I'm beginning to think this Geisler chap is another incantation of Kent Hovind." - Dr Louis Irving.

Famous agnostic Bertrand Russell presented this dilemma: Either the world had a beginning, or it did not. If it did not, it did not need a cause (God). If it did, we can ask, "Who caused God?" But if God has a cause, he is not God. In either case, ang" or "Hawkins' radiation"

och, I'm bored now. Suffice to say, this is crap.

Makes an unsubstantiated jump between some force which leads to the creation of the world (although I suspect they mean universe) and god.

You are refering to what Bertrand Russell said?

many things are created in this world, especially by man, that does not mean man is god.

Of course not.

Not true. Glaciation had no beginner. Neither do rainstorms. They do not require intervention.

Science and Philosophy are two different fields of study.

Point 2. Julie Andrews was a SINGER. Not a philosopher. She just couldn't find anything to rhyme with "Big Bang" or "Hawkins' radiation"

Nobody said Julie Andrews was a philosopher. Her song just happened to have some philosophical truth in it.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Makes an unsubstantiated jump between some force which leads to the creation of the world (although I suspect they mean universe) and god.

You are refering to what Bertrand Russell said?

many things are created in this world, especially by man, that does not mean man is god.

Of course not.

Not true. Glaciation had no beginner ...[text shortened]... Andrews was a philosopher. Her song just happened to have some philosophical truth in it.

You are refering to what Bertrand Russell said?

No, to Geislers "jump" between his axiom (there must be a cause) and his conclusion (that cause MUST be God) (there are other possibilities he hasn't ruled out).


Science and Philosophy are two different fields of study.

I would disagree. But then I do have a "Doctorate in Philosophy" in Plant Science.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]You are refering to what Bertrand Russell said?

No, to Geislers "jump" between his axiom (there must be a cause) and his conclusion (that cause MUST be God) (there are other possibilities he hasn't ruled out).


Science and Philosophy are two different fields of study.

I would disagree. But then I do have a "Doctorate in Philosophy" in Plant Science.[/b]

No, to Geislers "jump" between his axiom (there must be a cause) and his conclusion (that cause MUST be God) (there are other possibilities he hasn't ruled out).

God is the most philosophically tenable cause and thus automatically rules out the other possibilities.

I would disagree. But then I do have a "Doctorate in Philosophy" in Plant Science.

Your Ph.D is in Plant Science. Geislers Ph.D is in Philosophy. I think it was Einstein who said, "The man of science is a poor philosopher."😉

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]No, to Geislers "jump" between his axiom (there must be a cause) and his conclusion (that cause MUST be God) (there are other possibilities he hasn't ruled out).

God is the most philosophically tenable cause and thus automatically rules out the other possibilities.

I would disagree. But then I do have a "Doctorate in Philosophy" in Plant ...[text shortened]... ilosophy. I think it was Einstein who said, "The man of science is a poor philosopher."😉

God is the most philosophically tenable cause and thus automatically rules out the other possibilities.

Only if (a) you can prove the existance of God, and (b) you can prove a causal link between God and creation.

We both know, you can do neither.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]God is the most philosophically tenable cause and thus automatically rules out the other possibilities.

Only if (a) you can prove the existance of God, and (b) you can prove a causal link between God and creation.

We both know, you can do neither.[/b]

In philosophy, the existence of God can be taken as a priori.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Okay, I promised I'd get back to this.

[b]It takes more faith to believe that space, time, matter, and energy exploded into existence from no cause, then it does to believe that an eternal Creator outside of nature commanded them into existence.

No, it doesn't. It takes exactly the same amount. Once you have a better understanding of the Bi o forget?' If he can, he's not omniscient. If he can't, he's not omnipotent.[/b]

I don't understand the Big Bang? Well perhaps. But would you consider that astronomer Robert Jastrow would understand the Big Bang? I think he would understand it well enough.

Robert Jastrow is the founder of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies. Maybe he knows a thing or two about the Big Bang. He says he is an agnostic. But he wrote a book called "God and the Astronomers". I read it.

Here is what this Big Bang proponent said in an interview:

"Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover ... That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."

From "A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths: Interview with Robert Jastrow" Christianity Today, August 6, 1982

Would you think Robert Jastrow knows a little about the Big Bang? Comment on his comment above about supernatural forces being scientifically proven.

You might read "God and the Astronomers".