If God made everything, Who made God? It's a simple question.

And I don't want to here that he just always existed unless you can tell me why everything else needs a beginning and God doesn't.

Looking forward to all your perfectly logical responses.

It is only logical to ask this question if you believe that God exists.
Do you believe in God?
If not than giving any answer is illogical and of no relevant use to you.

Well, "God" could not have been created. Here's what I personally believe. I believe that God is existence. If God is everywhere and is all-powerful then God is something that cannot be avoided. There is no where that God isn't. Thus, Everything we know has God in it. If God exists then we don't exist. We can't exist as he does. The tetragrammetron YHVH means "I was, I am, and I will be" It is literally the purest form of the verb "to be" in Hebrew. Thus, God is existence, he is a giant existence and we are like figments in his imagination. He is in everything and is everywhere and every created thing has a part of God in it. We are also in God. In the most purest form, nothing exists. Because to exist something would have to either start existing or always have existed. If God is existed then he would have no beginning because even nothing exists. Nothing else can exist outside of God because is everywhere, thus in order for us to truly exists God wouldn't, and in order for God to truly exist we wouldn't. Thus we are a lesser existence that is dependent on his existence. So long as something has existed so has God been.


Sure, your right, we can't say that everything needs a beginning because if that's the case the nothing would have ever begun. Things don't need a beginning, and thinking about God in the most logical sense then God cannot exist. Unless of course there is a way in which we are allowed to have our eyes opened to his presence in all that we see. Because we have the perception of existing, it is perfectly logical at the simplest level to believe that there is no God.

However, at a higher and more complex level of logic God has placed evidence for us to see His existence. He has given us the ability to percieve his existence and our own existence. We can only have a limited view of His existence because if we could truly percieve God we would be completely and totally wiped away. We would cease to exist. Why? Because God's existence is so existing in comparison to ours that nothing else can exist. The more your know that God exist the less you exist. The less your percieve your own existence the closer you get to God.

Bella-Angelique i don't believe in God but I am intrested in the concept. I am simply trying to understand other peoples concepts. So any info would be useful to me.

Kaizen I like your spin on it but here is where I get confused. I always thought that even if something is just a thought it does actually fully exist even if it is not reality. In other words, it's kinda like when parents tell that if you believe in Santa than he is real. So even if we are a figment of Gods imagination than we do exist as a thought don't we?

Religios people will answer --> God was always there

Non Believers will answer -> Man created God in his own mind

BM's answer- -> who give a toss?? I sure dont!! for no one can prove God exists, so how on earth can anyone give a straight answer as to who made God?

Do you believe in the big bang? Well then one possibility is that god came into existence as part of the process of the big bang As the univerese changed and formed through the processes of the big bang, the universe itself evolved a sentience . Being part of the universe in a fully integrated way, it is able to manipilate matter and energy at will It encompasses all space and (this is the tricky bit) all time, thus living outside of the normal boundaries/constraints of space and time. As part of its universal awareness it has instantaneuos communication, and knowledge of events at any time and place. Being sentient itself, it has a special relationship with sentient beings all through the universe. It may have created other sentient beings for its own purposes or it may simply nurture and guide sentiences as they evolve, but through its nature, it exists materially and consciously within every sentient being, and thus its communication with other sentient beings is not limited to what we undersatand as physical forms of communication such as speech.

In terms of the universe god is indeed all seeing and all knowing. Being a physical part of the universe and able to direct the matter and energy of his own being at will, he is basically all powerful. However does this make him infallible. No, because as a creature he has free will and no creature with sentience and free will is always infallible no matter how extensive their knowledge base.
God is god, in a way only because that is what we label him, and humans have come to lump his attributes into a parcel called god even though god is perceived in many ways by different people and cultures over time. Alot of the current attitudes to god label him as both much less than what he is and yet much more. Those attributes are only reflections of how we would like god to be, rather than based on analysis of his actual nature and form.

If you dont believe in the big bang, then god is still part of the universe, in the same way, but both of them have existed
"forever" however you perceive that to be.

Thats just one possible scenario(or two if you like)

Its quite likely completely wrong, but its one attempt by me to explain how god is able to do the physical things he does (or if you are a non believer without experience of god) the things he is reported to do. for example anbeing advanced a century or two beyond us would undoubtedly have control of both matter and energy and be able to transfor it to create what w still see as miracles. however to be able to give peole accurate visions of the future "god has to be able to both "see" that future and transmit that knowledge into the human mind in a recognisable form. Humans are close to being able to create and store real and virtuall memories . perhaps only decades away.

It is the awareness across time or possibly the more simple ability to cross time forwards and backwards which presents the second most intriguing question about the nature of god. The most interesting one is of course."What is the actual reason why such an advanced sentience is interested in such a lesser one." The stated reason is that he created us and is tryimg to uplift us, and that may well be the case, but it does not explain why. Personally i think the fact he does take an interest speaks to his nature. he is both creative and caring in nature with one sentience naturalcuriosity in other sentient beings. Sorry got a bit carried away ther bt it is such a fascinating question. To those who do not believe in the physical reality of god it is of only academic/philosophical interest but for those who believe or know that god has a real existence, understanding him becomes as impt to us, as sentient beings, as understanding us, is to him.

if you were a christian you would believe that God has always existed and has always been there. now the question is...do you believe it? or should i be asking do you want to believe it?

Simple - everything in this world is part of our physical reality. Every physical being needs a beginning, and an end. Everything must come from somewhere. The concept of God neatly sidesteps this conundrum. Because God is part of non-physical reality, he/she/it is therefore not subject to its laws. God does not need to have a beginning or an end, because God is not a physical being, and only physical beings need beginnings and ends.

So I think it is quite natural that IF God exists (and I'm not arguing whether he does exist or not, though my beliefs are that he does exist), there is no reason to expect God to have a beginning and an end.

Just a thought,

God / Amon (being the conscience of our Universe) was created as was everything else in our Universe, from the Primordial Vibration that was present in The Waters of Chaos / Nun.

Primitive Man created God. It was their way of understanding the world around them. As Man became more technologically advanced and, therefore, more knowledgeable about the world (and indeed the Universe) around them, they realised the mistakes made by their ancestors and their beliefs. If you look through history, it becomes obvious that, the more advanced Man became, so the belief and power of Religion began to wane. Today, with all the faster advances we make, church attendances are shrinking faster and faster. It won't be long before religion becomes a thing of the past, just one more lesson in a history class at school.

God is infinite. That simply means he is not affected by spacetime and is the basis of existence for all reality. He has no beginning or end and is timeless.

Yes! Exactly that. We do, in fact, exist and because of this it is very hard for us to understand God. It would be like a water molecule trying to grasp the fullness of the oceans waters.

so do i detect leanings towards a "agnostic" ....IMO its alot more honest....

I am NOT agnostic and I am not leaning anywhere near it Sheri. Please don't read into my writing what is not there. I merely said that which is true from a logical point of view. To believe in God is illogical at all times. To believe in God is foolish. To believe in God is to say that you will believe he exists when there is no evidence that he does. There are only two options. You either know that there is a God, or you don't. Most people do. To believe in God is illogical because without God presenting himself to someone there is no evidence of him. However, he has presented himself in some way or another to everyone.

Simple question, simple answer:

"As Man is, God once was.
As God is, Man can become."

Meaning God was created by another god just like we were. In his mortal life he was found worthy enough to become a god himself and create us. We have the potential to become gods and goddesses ourselves in the next life if we are found worthy to do so. We will be able to create our own worlds and beings to inhabit those worlds who will have the potential to become gods and goddesses and so on. It's a continuous cycle that has gone on forever.

I know you are not hon, but i see this sort of post alot on Um .. so to clarify a personal subjective experience that justifies the holding of a beleif claim or gives rise to a reason for it is in the realm of informal logic not evidence or proof......
i have had many personal experinces that could be labeled god spottings but they could also be labled alot of things.... ...as it is now science is able to explain visions, voices, angels... the popular reasons for supporting the beleif in a diety...Just for your information.........

try it like this i we you are god

for I am of him and as I grow he weakens.
he loves me but fears death.
I am his death
nature of an finite universe
I am the child that devours his parent.
for there is only his flesh to feed me.
and when he passes I shall be alone
thus the universe will be born again
this time they shall be my children

yeah i know creepy but i used i because we shall evolve into the new god [there can be only one]

The Snake that devours his own tail.

the scientists reject god yet worship his nature

and the religious reject his nature yet worship god

Yea thats what i said. How did you manage to capture it in one percent of my words?

Crikey Heres another one, cept of course the timeless bit depends on ones definition of the nature of time.

Never trust the server. It told me in no uncertain terms my previous post was lost and i should copy and paste another. It lied!

Not always, hon. As with ufo sightings, this is true of many, but always a significant percentage remain as "genuine sightings of an unexplained nature"

Personally i dont believe in aliens cos ive never met one. Angels i dont have to believe in cos ive met at least two.

I appreciate, and because of my own experiences, am well versed in the scientific explanations for many of these phenomenun.

However in talking to the doctors, specialists and psychologists/psychiatrists with whom i dealt, in the investigation of my experiences, they all admitted that there are many people who have experiences which are not able to be explained by present scientific knowledge. Being good little academics, and not sharing those experiences themselves, they simply classify them as presently inexplicable.
However as one of those who has experienced them, my conclusion is that any real manifestation, affecting the material world in any way, must have a real physical source.

Personally, the nature, amount, sequence and content of my experiences, "proves" to me the existence of a powerful sentient entity with an interest in people. Its name is something humans have bestowed upon it in many forms.

I dont mind you disbelieving this, but on the other hand it is false to imply that all paranormal events, including those of a religious nature, can be explained by present scientific knowledge.

[quote name='Mr Walker' date='May 5 2008, 12:21 PM' post='2282682']
Do you believe in the big bang? Well then one possibility is that god came into existence as part of the process of the big bang As the univerese changed and formed through the processes of the big bang, the universe itself evolved a sentience .

if the big bang created the universe then what created the big bang, where did all those little particles come from, as illogical as it may seem the only logical explanation is that there is a god and that our brains cant comprehend what god is, if space in infinite so is the possibillity of a greater existance

You actually know the answer. Every living thing knows the answer. Look within, stop demanding. Be still, and know.

I was very careful to say angels, voices, visions...to be fair ....

MW we supply the data for our experinces, they are not passive , we make contributions to them...hence our experiential understanding of the world ensues......the principle of caustation is a way of making sense of the patterns that we discern through the filters that we bring to the table...

the presumptions of uniformity of nature is something that we cannot generalize from the experinces we've already had , because we supply them..... cause and effect make sense of the patterns that we discern through the filters that we bring to the actual sensory exprinces as they occur...experience is subjective we construe it we render it into sense.....Remember I have had lots of god sightings myself ......


i also felt emotionally attached to my experinces this is common...
this has been our conditionings, how we have been taught to cope IMO ...

MW it doesn't matter if i beleive you or not what matters is how you use the experiences and from what I can see you have used them to turn many situations into win wins on a personal level.....I can see beleiving in angels is fun and could help in times of traumatic life experinces......


but trying to convince me they are something other than iwth what we do know scienctifically, well we will have to call an impasse...but that is okay with me

s

yes, sighs deeply. iIdo understand where you're coming from and what you are saying. I lived that life once.

My point was only that it is not reasonable, or logical, that you should express your belief that science can explain such things as a fact, and yet not allow me to present as a fact what you think is only a belief based on subjective intellectual/emotional responses that god is a real physical entity.

Even that would not worry me, but when people deny the absolute impossibility of real paranormal occurences(and i dont see how logically you can differntiate religious from non religious) then there actually is the possibilty that you do peolpe harm.

For example i believe innerspace does a lot of good presenting the facts and scientific evidence which allows some people to find the actual physical psychological causes of their experiences. But to insist these are the only possibilities, does create potential harm to people like myself who have absolutely no scientific evidence for any cause, and especially when those events do involve physical impossibilities in the natural environment, which are also witnessed by other people.

For example if i was either less absolutely sane and stable minded, if i did not have a scientific and methodological back ground to examine and determine data and if i was not simply such a stubborn and securely independent person, then i think that the insistence that my beliefs are unreal could do me considerable harm.

I worry about people in my position who may not have such a well established and thought through position and i think a blind insistence that they CANNOT be experiencing a verifiable concrete experience in the real world, especially when it comes almost universally from so many quarters may put them at risk.

Other than that, an impasse is not only ok with me, but really a logical and satisfactory conclusion to our differences.

The same way Jesus and 29 other sons of God inherit a world from our Father, is the same way Father inherited this world from his father and the universe, this goes on for infinity and has been since infinity.
Each son is one with The Father who in turn is one with Th e Father and on and on.

Now you know.

Love Omnaka

So how was a being created that could create other beings? it just doesnt make sense

If you're alluring to God as a being that is not what I said.
God is the conscience of our Universe, not a being.
The principals of the Universe are manifest into something that we can sort of grasp and that would be the other Gods.
God itself is not the creator, the Primordial Vibration and the subsequent vibrations are what creates everything.

I see her point. I think just to ask that very question, could be risky in my opinion. If God is indeed, some entity so complexed that we cannot comprehend on this plane of existence, than I don't think we can comprehend his creation, if there is indeed such a word or defination in his world.

Mcfoogle knows who made God.




For all you God haters and lovers, don't judge mcfoogle for his efforts to bring sanity to this forum.
But the truth of the matter is that God was made just like everything else... which was made by... well, umm. god.
but here is a basic layout which Mcfoogle provides for people to believe:

a. god made himself
b. spaghetti monster made god, and then god made everything else
c. god is a work in progress and the spaghetti monster assisted.


the lesson learned here (Clamy agrees with all this too, so don't think that Mcfoogle is just saying crap about nothing)
that everyone believes something and without believing in something whether it be evolution, creation, god or the spaghetti monster,
people will be passive about their goal in life because thats what motivates people. goals. thats right. Mcfoogle knows about these
things. If our goal as humanity is to evolve into an ever more sophisticated species, (like Mcfoogle already has) then our only purpose
in life is to live, pass on our genese and die hoping our children won't be r******ed. it makes life seem kinda short. But some people like to believe in many different types of things like god and other things and ways things happened. Some people like to think that if there is more life beyond death, or whatever else;
maybe more virgins to deflower, then perhaps this life here on earth is easier to live because now you have hope. Whether its
true or false, it not matter; especially not to Mcfoogle because either way we are just trying to make life more enjoyable.
but is it really what beliefs today have accomplished? instead we end lives because of beliefs. this makes Mcfoogle very sad.
life was meant to be enjoyed. Does anyone know what Mcfoogle is getting at???????

I really like your post, good job. The fact the you refer to yourself in the third person is a bit over the top though.

My belief is that God is outside our perceived reality.That means the 4 dimensions,time,space,matter,the laws of science,everything.In our reality,logic demands that God was made by something else,because everything has to come from something.Nothing can always exist,right???Well,not necessarily.If God is outside our reality then he isn't bound by time,so in effect he hasn't always been,because for him there is no such thing as always.And he won't exist forever,because fir him there is no such thing.It's difficult,if not impossible,for us to comprehend.
Can you imagine what it would be like for time not to exist???Really think about it...and you'll find that you can't.It's inconceivable for us.Every single thing in our universe depends on the existence of time.If time were suddenly gone,well....i have no idea what would happen

All this to say that God didn't 'always exist',because for him that phrase is meaningless.It's the closest thing we can think of as humans,so that's what we'll have to settle for.We and everything else in our reality have to have a beginning because we are bound by time.God isn't.So he didn't have a beginning,nor and end,nor a middle.Those words have no effect on him.

Your subjective experince can't be called 'fact" in the scientific application of the word MW.. Sceince never insists that this is the only possiblty, it is you who is insiting that this is the only posssible explanation for your experience... it just isn't, you can use informal logic but it doesnt meet the criteria in this case to base an arguement..... ... you prefer for your own reasons to find your experinces to be the exception, not only do i understand this i actaully feel its been a useful tool for you to deal with your life....If anything i have more of an understanding of how we cope as humans and how many use religion for this to great benefit ....... Santa claus for a child can be a fun time, the tooth fairy can be a great tool to encourage good dental hygene in a way a child can relate etc etc......Life isn't always a fun time and i can appreciate how one can derive comfort from traditons and rituals after all this is what we are conditioned towards....


My experiences encouraged me to research and learn from sceince about my brain and how it works...it helped me to discern and actually understand myself better and see that i was capable on my own, but should i say this is a fact for you ,I just know I am the exception....., heck no in truth it works for me ............I know people who are as us and like the idea of angels and god sightings it works for them ,


but the facts are there is 'no proof at this time' for such things IMO this is keeping it real.....

Oh, it is a bit unfair to make the assertion that all his experiences are only 'subjective' which means they are just from the mind and imaginary. Also Mr Walker never stated it was 'scientific fact' which in science is an observation made during a controlled and repeatable experiment. There can be other facts that are not 'scientific fact'.

Mr Walker said it best below and also that an impasse in the two views that vary is the best that can be achieved.

God and creation are One and the same and this same Oneness has existed eternally without cause.

So God didnt make the world and nothing made God. God is the world and the world is God and God is eternal.

No, I said we have an impasse Clovis, he agreed..... evidence represents the grounds for a claim.. It answers "How do you know? what do you have to go on? We can't agree on which constitutes evidence....In that we can't really progress further as I noted way back......

I get we have no stasis, hon ...


I realize MW is using his personal testimony as his source ( I did mention in my post) that so far his argument doesnt' meet the criteria for taking ones testimony as the classical 'ethos' as the basis of credibility......

simple reasons really , there are 3 criteria one must meet in this form....he doesn't meet them....

Well an impasse can be grand in actually attempting to understand someone else's view but still not agreeing. What you and IS post though have made me think lots about some of the theories I have heard before regarding the 'God construct'. There seems to be so much validity in the knowledge you pass down here that it simply cannot be dismissed.

Indeed, that is why i made that call, i use argumentation to create a win win for us all as does Inner Space.. you are very wise clovis....

I want to mention also that Inner space does meet the criteria for a sound posit....I concur i find her research compelling and valid...Thankyou for your kind words she put alot of her heart into this research( on a personal note .......)

Who made God?

Mr and Mrs God SR of course.

God have sex with a Goddess and they had kids. God and the us: Gods.

Ha ha. Source beat mcfoogle to the joke.

No problem, though. Source still enjoys mcfoogle's posts.

Thanks clovis for your comments. what i am really objecting to is supras refusal to believe ( as indicated in her comments above) that my experiences can be objective because she does not believe so. In fact all the experiences i use on this site (which constitute only a fraction of my experiences) i use precisely because they cannot be classified as subjective.

Subjective experiences cannot be witnessed by others, nor can they leave physical evidence, nor can they have an effect within the established scientific parameters of the scientificallty established real world. My experiences do. What supra is saying(whether she recognises this or not) is that she does not believe me when i say they do, because this level of acceptance is impossible in her world view. She could not review that level of belief without having to reconstruct her own world view.

The difference, is that i do not expect her to do so. She expects me to see non subjective experiences as subjective ones, because they are "ïmpossible" for her to accept.

Thus she sees them as somethiing i am using to deal with my life, but in fact those experiences are the only things i have ever had any difficulty dealing with in my life. I had few dramas or traumas in my life before god intruded. certainly while i might not have enjoyed them i understood both their sociological causes. eg some bullying, and their physical ones eg nicotine addiction. I did not need a god I had no belief, or interest in, to intrude into my life. .

But even if i had, I could not possibly create the physical effects and physical outcomes of gods intervention through any inner psychic or psychological power of my own

Whether she likes it or not they are not impossible, although at the moment inexplicable using current science. That is not just my opinion, but the conclusion of the doctors and others who went through my experiences with me. I am not the only person to whom such real events occur. Open minded experts do not deny this. They simply leave them as unexplained.

Alright kiddies, Drayno has the answer.


Do you want to know who created God? I'll tell you...


























With one roundhouse kick, he created God. With a second, he created the Earth. And in the third, he created man in a more scrawny and pale image of himself!

And yet, Bruce Lee kicked his @ss.

Hmm...

And which one is alive now?

Are you talking about the greatest martial artist who ever lived or the wannabe who's making infommercials now?

Bruce Lee may be the greatest martial artist, but Chuck Norris is the greatest Bowflex Seller!

Agreed!

Just a little comment here. I seriously cannot fathom the concept of a god. The universe is so vast and wondrous and down right mysterious that placing a god as it's creator just clouds the true meaning behind it's existence. IMHO the notion of god is a security blanket to protect the mind from the unknown. The irony that I see is that believing in an eternal god is actually a form of death to the perception to what the universe truly is. God only exists in the minds of humankind and when humans become extinct there will be no more god.

But the universe will continue to be majestic realm where life, though mysterious it may be, can and does exist.