Who. Made. God?
The question gets a quickly dismissed—the only way the believer can keep the debate alive. But really, it’s a child’s question and deserves honest inquiry. Religious philosophy falls pathetically short of the mark—”Whatever caused the universe can not have a cause itself. It must be an “unmoved mover” (or uncaused causer). That’s generally accepted in all communities“. Who’s? So religions can claim creation?
Dave has accepted the Big Bang and the 13.8 billion year scientific creation hypothesis—now attempts to shoehorn Jesus and YHWY in as the creators. The earth certainly needed be created. How else did it get here? Says who? But, whoever created it certainly could not have been created too. That is god, says who?
Since he is now accepting science claims, will he also accept the scientific conclusions when life begins or on climate change?
It fascinates me that, right at the end of logic, right at the end of reason—we find religion laying claim, lying in wait to deceive with mere belief. Defining debate rules to desperately hang-on to some poorly interpreted meditations. Do your own meditations! Humans have two curses haunting them. Gullible, and Lazy! Religions masterfully manipúlate both with turn-key spirituality that falls short. Very short. Abrahamic religion isn’t nearly the best story (it’s yours) but it’s all about the packaging. Ready-made enlightenment was never so easy…to the lazy who won’t put in the time on their own meditations, but merely copies of copies of agendized copies. The blur is now relative to the amount bullshit spattered on a page—a life in the Bible
You’ve ordered your package and wait by the mailbox but it never comes… or when it does? It’s never as described and poorly fashioned, but hey, the no return policy is an authoritative excuse. Who are we to question god? He’s now testing your faith.
Castilleja, commonly known as Indian paintbrush or prairie-fire, is a genus of about 200 species of annual and perennial herbaceous plants native to the west. I have them in my yard!
TheCommonAtheist 
Lovely pic, Jim. I love Indian Paintbrush. First time I ever saw it was when I was driving north through the Cascades, oh, about a hundred years ago! 🙂
LikeLike
They’re a little sparse this year. If I had my way I’d put about a million of them strewn throughout the property. There are about 200 varieties. God was certainly busy that day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In my view, the universe or even universes, have always been here in some convoluted fashion of fields and quanta we do not understand. There was no beginning and there will be no end.
If there had ever been absolute nothingness, there would have always been nothingness. You either have something or you never have something….not both.
The fact that we are here and there is something is proof that it’s all eternal, probably infinite and always has been. There is no first cause, so you don’t get into the thing of what created gods or what created the universe.
LikeLiked by 4 people
If there is no beginning, there is no god. Grasping at straws, making scientific claims without saying how and coatailing the science that suits them. Religion 1:01.
Anyone can say they created whatever they want. Without demonstrating how, it isn’t so. I wonder why the Bible left out the how? Maybe it’s in the Bible codes…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mary, your second paragraph is excellent! Sums it up like I’ve never heard before. And makes perfect sense! ❤
LikeLiked by 2 people
i disagree. you can very well have something out of nothingness, and back to nothingness again. the whole buddhist philosophy is based on the this. all manifested world comes out of nothingness (or void, or no-thing). another parallel are the cyclical life and death. you cannot have one without the other.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m speaking in a strictly scientific sense and in trying to grasp what you mean, I found this and I certainly agree about everything being connected for all time always. And I agree about the cycle of life and death being for all time, as well, but the amount of total energy remains the same and is there.
This made some sense to me, but it does not seem to be saying what you are suggesting about nothingness. It is interesting.
https://qr.ae/TWnYKb
LikeLiked by 2 people
yes, this buddhist ‘nothingness’ is full potentiality. like zero-field.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I test god every day, and every day he fails my test. Every day, I fail his test. I think we’re about even.
Every day I exist, he cannot. Will that change once I am gone? I doubt it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Possibly every day you exist we do exist. We are the god we seek, but for some reason humanity loves to believe.
LikeLike
We do, but some of us choose what we choose to believe in, while others choose to believe what they are told to believe in. The latter is an easy choice, as you mention above, it takes no sweat to believe in what others tell you to believe in. The former takes sweat, because firdt you must determine what is possiible tpo believe in, and eliminate from there what makes no sense to believe in. When you have eliminated all the nonsensical, how many things are you left with to believe? Now you have to choose positives instead of negatives. More work, harder work–more sweat. Choosing what to believe is not easy, but it sure feels good in the end.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Currently religious spirituality is like a low-grade public education—designed to teach to the lowest common denominator and uneducated. Bible college is then designed for those that question belief, then learn to professionally whitewash the inadequacy of the Bible and it’s outcomes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think god ever got to hear that awkward ‘you see… your mommy and your daddy loved each other very much…’ speech.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haha. The other mystery?
LikeLike
Yeah, apparently god was always just around. Hanging out… smoking a giant bong in the basement.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mankind created God, end of story. Or maybe the first line of a story chronicling how religion evolved into an absolute means of control over blooming populations. No amount of creationist hamster wheel logic negates the fact they scamper in endless circles without beginning or end. Personally, I choose to ignore relentless squeaking of hamster wheels.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for oiling my wheel.
LikeLike
Three flowering plants dominate Texas roadsides in Spring: bluebonnet, Indian Paintbrush, Indian Blanket. None of them look like the lovely flower in your picture. I may have to research. We may have a bit of floral shoehorning going on. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haha. This is the variedad tenemos aquí. What? Maybe these aren’t real paintbrushes. They haven’t been evangelized yet
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gabriel’s red trumpets? Whatever they are, they’re mighty pretty.
LikeLike
They seem a little thin thin this year. Been very cool still in the low 50s every night and barely broke 80 a couple times.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s always fun to ask the theist if their Creator is also responsible for the bad stuff, especially the bad stuff that leads to good stuff, like bolide impacts. All semblance of competence vanishes in a puff of apologetic confusion.
LikeLike
Yet, then we find even the simplest of replies leads to their confusion. I have no idea what you’re talking about, gibberish, it makes no sense!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, since it takes two minds or Gods to reference each other, the other God? Or did they spontaneously pop out at the same time? One God floating around doesn’t know here nor there. It takes two.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your simplical prowess is perfect. It’s just not that complicated, is it?
LikeLike
The correct response to such claims is “Why do you think so?” These things are just made up so ask for details (how, why, etc.). If his god was responsible for the Big Bang, what went bang? (Most idiots think that it came from nothing, but there is no indication of that.) Who made the thing that went bang? (Why? How do you know?) How was the explosion triggered?
I can hear Tom Lehrer chanting “Expose the ignorance, expose, expose, expose.” (He never said that, I just have a lively imagination.) If you are feeling malicious you can say things like “Science has proven that what went bang was the previous universe that had been compressed into a very small package that was inherently unstable and it must be presumed that this has happened a great many times.” (None of that is true but if they change their story based upon it, you have them!)
LikeLiked by 1 person
”Whatever caused the universe can not have a cause itself. It must be an “unmoved mover” (or uncaused causer). That’s generally accepted in all communities“.
Aristotle, who originated the “unmoved mover” as a term, did not argue for creation event starting everything. He actually argued for the eternity of the cosmos. This was common in antiquity. “Unmoved mover” did not refer to some causeless first cause. It was more literal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover#Aristotle's_theology
Keep in mind that when Aristotle talked about the heavens and the celestial spheres, he was speaking about what we literally see above us, and the celestial spheres and their unmoved movers were postulated to account for the differing motions of the planets and the uniform motion of the “fixed stars”. It had nothing to do with some Christian concept of creation. Aristotle wanted to account for motion, and argued based on his premises that there was no beginning.
LikeLiked by 1 person
it came out of itself, and always goes back into itself. much like the spiral, found everywhere in nature. multiplying from unicellular organism to multicellular, then back to one again. such is the evolution of consciousness. but how can it know itself, being only one? so it splits into many, but also forgetting its original oneness state.
and here we are, all wearing a mask of ‘god’
LikeLiked by 1 person
But for something to be nothing, I think we have to fudge the word meaning a little. Even if this we’re some type of hologram, in turning it off technically our have nothing, but there is still the projector. Nothing would actually be a void, which is something. I could go with lifeless, but zero is an ambiguous word game.
On another note, if something can truly be nothing, zero mass or energy, nothing would actually have to be something for the theory to work. What strikes me as odd, I can’t imagine nothing, an empty void of collapsed expanse turning itself inside out would still be something. I have a pretty good imagination, and the way I see it for now anyway, by nature we cannot imagine nothing and total death, but we can contemplate living in and on. I’ll go with my senses on this one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
of course mind cannot grasp nothingness, any more than it can grasp concepts like infinity, or undying and unborn. yet, awareness is not created, it just is. always been and always will be.
these are ‘spaces’ where mind just cannot enter. after all, isn’t mind a product of the universe? why would it tell all its secrets? it can definitely be experienced and known, but not understood.🌞
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not understood…until it is. Yet! Hah!
LikeLiked by 1 person
haha! when you figure it out, pls share with me!
till then, i’ll just be basking in its awesomeness💃
LikeLiked by 1 person
going back a lil, you are the creator of the experience, the experience and the experienc-er. so, no projector remains, Jim. YOU are all three in one.
so there’s nothing to ‘discover’, everything is already there. we’re just looking at it in the wrong way. this cosmic game.😊
LikeLiked by 1 person
Simple…something either is or it isn’t.
Any universes slipping back or enfolding into nothing and then re emerging again in some fantastical way is still proof that there can not be absolute nothingness. Or there would be nothingness. No enfolding, no universes, no time, no space, no consciousness. Nothing.
Imagining something always existing in some unfathomable way (at this point) is similar to imagining infinity. Both are difficult concepts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m open to the thought exercise. Although I’ve never studied Buddhism in depth, my first instinct suggested to me through the conscious field—this is the unprovable notions that puts meaning in the search (like the invisibility of the incomprehensible god of Abraham) where you find yourself but never find the the source. Distractions from a life of living.
Buddhism is a bit of a respected mystery here in the west, but they’ve got their own serious issues. And like Christianity, is lean toward the proof is in the outcomes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As I’ve intimated before (here and elsewhere), as humans (and all that that entails), we are inclined to think in terms of what we know and experience. That is, we study what we see and feel. But this, in itself, is not the end-all, be-all answer to the universe or anything that may or may not be in it. IOW, simply because WE exist, we (can’t help but) think in terms that affect US.
But is this really “the answer”?
LikeLiked by 2 people