Who made God?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]But you can assume that everything which was made and has a beginning needs a maker.

The above statment has the following premises:

1. Something which is made has a beginning.
2. For something to be made, a maker is needed.

Which premise do you disagree with, and why?[/b]

You can assume that everything that was made in the sense of being designed & created by a maker needs a maker.

But for this to have universal implications, you would need to argue:

1. All things have a beginning
2. All things that have a beginning are made
3. All things that are made need a maker

Which is an unclear argument, with a lack of clarity in its terms and three dubious premises.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
"Instantiated?" "Utility?" Who the hell do you think you are talking to here? Using words like that is like putting pepper in pudding: it just doesn't fit the rest of the dish.

Instantiated?

Sounds like the poster is talking about object oriented programming.

Originally posted by dottewell
You can assume that everything that was made in the sense of being designed & created by a maker needs a maker.

But for this to have universal implications, you would need to argue:

1. All things have a beginning
2. All things that have a beginning are made
3. All things that are made need a maker

Which is an unclear argument, with a lack of clarity in its terms and three dubious premises.

Would you care to explain why you reject God as being the uncaused first cause?

Does this not also have universal implications: ?

1. God is the uncaused first cause of the universe.
2. All other things have a beginning.
3. All other things that have a beginning are made.
4. All other things that are made need a maker.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I like this line best. You stand there accusing all of being miserable sinners, we all deserve to die. Yet you try to tell me in another thread that you believe you religion to be a good thing. I mean, talk about miserable. Oh yes, WHY did you stop responding in our conversation - I thought it was particularly interesting - didn't you?

Scotty,

Hold on there. I included myself. I am most familiar with my own personal sinful record.

Secondly, Christ's redemption totally erases the record of trangressions before God. Maybe I didn't speak of that enough.

Believing into Him makes you as you have never sinned. You are totally absolved, totally forgiven. In fact God says your sins and iniquities He will by no means remember anymore.

In other words if you were to try to remind God of the sins He would say "I don't remember what you're talking about". When God forgets He really forgets.

This is the good part Scotty. It is not as if God overlooks our sins. It is that He judges them and has them dealt with on the cross of Jesus. You and I are them looked upon by God as if we had never sinned at all. We are totally washed from all of our sins in the blood of Christ.

Then begins the work of transformation by the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit to conform us into the image of Christ. He delivers from the guilt of sin and then He delivers from the power of it.


Right here:

"For if we, being enemies, were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more we will be saved in His life, having been reconciled" (Romans 5:10)


1.) We are enemies of God in need of judicial reconciliation.

2.) Having BEEN reconciled by believing in the death of Christ for our redemption we are then saved in the realm of His indwelling life. And this "much more"

There is a legal and judicial side in which God makes Christ our righteousness. God looks upon us as if we had never ever sinned. We are "reconciled" from all enmity and alienation from God.

Then having been put into this favorable condition and purely righteous judicially, we are then in the process of being much more saved in the sphere of His life. He has come into our hearts and is saving us from the power of the sinful nature "much more".


Now, because I post a lot, you'll have to remind me of which interesting conversation that you say I did not continue.

Do you mean back on "A Simple Way to Experience Christ?"

Originally posted by dj2becker
I appreciate your question: Yes, I have comprehensively studied both.

Unlike other holy books, the Bible alone has been supernaturally confirmed to be the word of God. For only the Scriptures were written by prophets who were supernaturally confirmed by signs and wonders. Jesus did many miracles, Mohammed did none. The Bible was written over thousands ...[text shortened]... humanly predictable.

There is a lot more I could say, but I hope you get the picture.

Very interesting, jd. Looks like I have a lot of reading to do. I will research into both the bible and the Quran and do more comparison. But the thing I will be looking out for is this: of all the predictions given in the bible, whether there are those that were not accurate? Or was it possible that those inaccurate ones were left out deliberately? I mean by the authors?

On the other hand, jd, although I've posed this questions before in other tread (and was never answered), imagine that a fortune-teller of amazing ability, he can predict the future with such accuracy. How he does it who knows. Then he, let's say a David Copperfield of 2000 yrs ago, could fly over Jerusalem (modern one flew over London); made an entire building disappear (modern one made the Statue of Liberty disappear). Do your think those people of 2000 yrs ago would have been convinced that this guy had supernatural powers?

I saw a documentary on a man named Nostradomus (I hope I spelt the name correctly). He lived about 400 yrs ago. He had amazing ability in predicting the future. But like the bible, his predictions needed interpretations. For example he predicted an iron bird, and that was conveniently interpreted as the modern day airplane. If he claimed that he was sent by God, would you have believed him?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Would you care to explain why you reject God as being the uncaused first cause?

Does this not also have universal implications: ?

1. God is the uncaused first cause of the universe.
2. All other things have a beginning.
3. All other things that have a beginning are made.
4. All other things that are made need a maker.

Here I would take issue with 3 (if "made" means designed & created by a sentient agent), or 4 (if "made" means simply "caused to exist", and "maker" refers to a sentient agent).

Also, the argument doesn't lead to the conclusion that god exists, even if we grant premises 2-4. The conclusion of 2-4 is simply that "All things except god need a maker".

Originally posted by dottewell
Here I would take issue with 3 (if "made" means designed & created by a sentient agent), or 4 (if "made" means simply "caused to exist", and "maker" refers to a sentient agent).

Also, the argument doesn't lead to the conclusion that god exists, even if we grant premises 2-4. The conclusion of 2-4 is simply that "All things except god need a maker".

Within human experience (reality) do you know of anything which which has been made which is not designed or created?

Originally posted by dottewell
Here I would take issue with 3 (if "made" means designed & created by a sentient agent), or 4 (if "made" means simply "caused to exist", and "maker" refers to a sentient agent).

Also, the argument doesn't lead to the conclusion that god exists, even if we grant premises 2-4. The conclusion of 2-4 is simply that "All things except god need a maker".

Christians naturally believe that there must be a God because the world has a beginning. And everything that had a beginning had a beginner. Nothing cannot make something.

Originally posted by ckoh1965
Very interesting, jd. Looks like I have a lot of reading to do. I will research into both the bible and the Quran and do more comparison. But the thing I will be looking out for is this: of all the predictions given in the bible, whether there are those that were not accurate? Or was it possible that those inaccurate ones were left out deliberately? I mean ...[text shortened]... s the modern day airplane. If he claimed that he was sent by God, would you have believed him?

I would say the Bible is complete. There is no evidence that any inspired book hass been lost. This is confirmed by the providence of God, the immediate and careful preservation by the church, and the absence of any evidence of any other prophetic apostolic book. Alleged contrary examples are easily explained as either noninspired works to which the biblical author made reference or inspired works contained in the sixty-six inspired books but with another name.

With regards to your second question, I would say the 'supernatural' is rather broad. We should not underestimate the powers of darkness. I think the motive behind the supernatural manifestation would shead light on whether it is 'good' or 'evil'.

With regards to Nostradamus, my answer is no. The highly reputed "predictions" of Nostradamus were not so amazing at all. Consider one of the more famous ones:
The alleged California earthquake. Nostradamus is alleged to have predicted a great earthquake in California for May 10, 1981- a prediction reported on 6 May, 1981, in USA Today. However, no such quake occured. As a matter of fact, Nostradamus mentioned no country, city, or year. He spoke only of a "rumbling earth" in a "new city" and a "very mighty quake" on May 10. Considering the thousands of earthquakes that take place, an occurence this general was bound to take place somewhere and sometime.

Nostradamus's forecasts are far from supernatural. They are general, vague, and explainable on purely natural grounds. He succumbs to all the tests of a false prophet:
-False prphecies
-Vague predictions
-Predictions only understood after the fact
-Cofessed occult and demonic sources

Originally posted by dj2becker
Within human experience (reality) do you know of anything which which has been made which is not designed or created?

Yes. The natural world is not designed AND created.

However, it clearly was "created" in the sense that it came into being in the form it is.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Christians naturally believe that there must be a God because the world has a beginning. And everything that had a beginning had a beginner. Nothing cannot make something.

But this principle (that there must be an uncaused first cause) is not established. Still less is it established that any putative "first cause" would have to be a sentient being; still less is it established that we can know ANYTHING about the nature of that being.

Originally posted by dottewell
Yes. The natural world is not designed AND created.

However, it clearly was "created" in the sense that it came into being in the form it is.

Yes. The natural world is not designed AND created.

My question contained OR not AND. There is a difference.

How do you explain the remarkable design that we see in the universe? How can you make the absolute assertion that it was not designed?

However, it clearly was "created" in the sense that it came into being in the form it is.

The form it is in at present contains some remarkable design. How do you explain this?

If you saw a built house, would it not be reasonable to assume that it was designed?

Originally posted by jaywill
Scotty,

Hold on there. I included myself. I am most familiar with my own personal sinful record.

Secondly, Christ's redemption totally erases the record of trangressions before God. Maybe I didn't speak of that enough.

Believing into Him makes you as you have never sinned. You are totally absolved, totally forgiven. In fact God says id not continue.

Do you mean back on "A Simple Way to Experience Christ?"

How can God forget? That would go against omniscience. However, if he can't, that goes against omnipotence.


[edit; interesting conversation - spiritually bankrupt thread]

Originally posted by dj2becker
If you saw a built house, would it not be reasonable to assume that it was designed?

Ah, now we come to the point. An assumption.

But you can show no evidence of either the designer or the builder. There is another process by which it could be made, one which can be proven to exist. Which do you choose?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Who made God? No one did. He was not made. He has always existed. Only things that had a beginning - like the world - need a maker. God had no beginning , so God did not need to be made. For those who are a little older, a little more can be said. Traditionally, most atheist who deny the existence of God believe that the universe was not made; it was just ...[text shortened]... as well ask, "Where is the bachelor's wife?"

- Dr. Norman L. Geisler

Dr Geisler should know better than this. This first paragraph is full of unprovable assumptions. Given a series of totally whacked out axioms it's possible to make any story you want. That is what he does here. For example, he makes one statement "God had no beginning", then make a deduction from it "therefore, God did not need to be made". Whilst the deduction follows from the assumption the assumption does not follow from anything at all. It is a statement of faith, with no proof whatsoever. We can all do it. Look. The moon is made out of cheese. Cheese floats in space. The second statement must be true is the first is, but, well, the first statement is ludicrous. As is Dr Geislers suggestions.

Second paragraph. Dr geisler points out that the First law of Thermodynamics may be wrong. Quite so. However, that would violate quite alot of our other laws, such as relativity. Also, of course, he has no proof of his statement.

Third Paragraph. Dr Geisler makes an assertion that it is wrong to ask "Who made God"? Likewise, it may well be a category mistake to ask "who made the universe?" There is simply no evidence that anyone made the universe.

Dr Geisler complains of alot of mistakes, and then goes on to make those self-same logical fallicies himself. Amatuerish at best.