The Forbidden Question - Did God Create Himself?

[mwc]

1 minute ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Neither do you... which leaves us with the question... who's doing all the typing to each other?

     More lies.  I just looked and I saw myself but I didn't see you.  I'm watching myself type this.  You're probably just an AI or corporate/government stooge (maybe both).  I don't know or care since you're just making up stuff anyhow.

 

          mwc

 

[LogicalFallacy]

Just now, mwc said:

     More lies.  I just looked and I saw myself but I didn't see you.  I'm watching myself type this.  You're probably just an AI or corporate/government stooge (maybe both).  I don't know or care since you're just making up stuff anyhow.

 

          mwc

 

 

How do you know that you are not AI who has been programmed with self awareness code? You think you are looking at a real human but its just zeros and ones on a circuit board on some server main frame.

 

I looked and I didn't see you typing therefore my eyeballs tell me you are the one that is lying! You have to demonstrate that what you are not seeing is in fact what you are seeing.

[mwc]

3 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

How do you know that you are not AI who has been programmed with self awareness code? You think you are looking at a real human but its just zeros and ones on a circuit board on some server main frame.

 

I looked and I didn't see you typing therefore my eyeballs tell me you are the one that is lying! You have to demonstrate that what you are not seeing is in fact what you are seeing.

     That's exactly the sort of thing I'd expect to come from you.  You're beginning to sound like a new version of Eliza.

 

          mwc

 

[LogicalFallacy]

14 minutes ago, mwc said:

     That's exactly the sort of thing I'd expect to come from you.  You're beginning to sound like a new version of Eliza.

 

          mwc

 

You have no proof Eliza exists. Your argument is invalid.

[mwc]

Just now, LogicalFallacy said:

You have no proof Eliza exists. Your argument is invalid.

     Uh oh.  It seems something clogged up your logic processor.  It's probably time for a reboot.

 

          mwc

 

[LogicalFallacy]

2 minutes ago, mwc said:

     Uh oh.  It seems something clogged up your logic processor.  It's probably time for a reboot.

 

          mwc

 

 

Really? Show me proof this so called Eliza exists. I haven't seen this thing called Eliza, and until I see it I don't buy your bull.

[mwc]

15 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Really? Show me proof this so called Eliza exists. I haven't seen this thing called Eliza, and until I see it I don't buy your bull.

     What does it matter if you haven't seen it?  I've seen it.  That's what makes it real.  It's not what you claim to see.  You claim a lot of things.  Things that aren't real.  If they were real I would have seen them.  If I didn't bother to read your words you'd be in real trouble.

 

          mwc

 

[duderonomy]

On 12/24/2017 at 3:44 AM, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Considering that science only deals with reality, and anything currently outside that is not our reality, then its impossible to have evidence of something beyond what we can have evidence for - rather self evident that should be.

 

However the question is malformed. The burden of proof for God is upon the person making the claim, not on the person rejecting the claim. One cannot prove that something does not exist.

 

When you show me evidence that my invisible, immaterial, transcendent pink unicorn doesn't exist I'll do the same for God.

 

 

Well if we take @mwc line of thought, New Zealand doesn't exist because he hasn't seen it with his own eyes.

 

That aside, FTNZ did pop back some time ago momentarily. If I knew her name I could find her. And its you who has the funny accent - I'm sure of it  

 

Seriously, I'm not talking about Biblegod. I'm not even talking about Science™.  If we have to admit that our knowledge 

breaks down before, or didn't form until after the Big Bang, and that we don't know where that came from or how it happened, then doesn't it follow that no claims, either from religion or from science can be true?

It seems that anyone can assert anything about how the world came into existence, and it can't be refuted.

 

Having said all that, I don't know FTNZ's name. I remember when she popped back in like a quark. I hope she comes back someday. 

As to BAA...do you suppose that he has been in hiding all of this time and is just observing the Lion's Den to see how we would do without him here? 

 

 

 

Edited to add: Look at the spelling. You seem to understand that, right? Which one of us pronounces the word "yes" as "yees"?

Uh huh.  

[pantheory]

3 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

Seriously, I'm not talking about Biblegod. I'm not even talking about Science™.  If we have to admit that our knowledge 

breaks down before, or didn't form until after the Big Bang, and that we don't know where that came from or how it happened, then doesn't it follow that no claims, either from religion or from science can be true?

It seems that anyone can assert anything about how the world came into existence, and it can't be refuted.

 

Having said all that, I don't know FTNZ's name. I remember when she popped back in like a quark. I hope she comes back someday. 

As to BAA...do you suppose that he has been in hiding all of this time and is just observing the Lion's Den to see how we would do without him here?

 

Edited to add: Look at the spelling. You seem to understand that, right? Which one of us pronounces the word "yes" as "yees"?

Uh huh.  

 

Yes, we have no certain knowledge about the beginnings of reality, but it doesn't follow that "no claims, either from religion or from science can be true" (question mark noted).   As for me, I can be certain concerning religion, that the god of the Christian bible, or beliefs of any other religions, are  complete fantasies. outside of their philosophical implications: betting my immortal soul against a six pack, that all theistic religions are simply BS. On the other hand, concerning science, there are a lot of great science understandings and theory out there, but nearly all educated people realize that some of these will probably be replaced over time, as history has shown. This doesn't discount at all the value of science to enable our insights into understandings of reality.

[midniterider]

2 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

Seriously, I'm not talking about Biblegod. I'm not even talking about Science™.  If we have to admit that our knowledge 

breaks down before, or didn't form until after the Big Bang, and that we don't know where that came from or how it happened, then doesn't it follow that no claims, either from religion or from science can be true?

 

Are you making a claim? (haha)

 

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

Concerning the subject "did god create himself?" Of course not, otherwise the Bible would say that he did. He has always existed.

 

OK then, what did he do in the infinite time before he created the heavens, the Earth, and mankind?

 

Answer: (paraphrasing a famous quote)

 

He was creating hell for people who ask such questions.

[Margee]

21 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

  We really need to settle the question of god's existence before we worry over who created him, her, or it.

It's so simple Prof!! God always was. It just took awhile to 'cook things up' before he could explode himself into existence. So simple.

 

I was once a christian and this was our answer. Simple. 

 

[duderonomy]

19 hours ago, midniterider said:

Are you making a claim? (haha)

 

Nah. I was asking a question!  Really just trying to stir the soup.

 

I think maybe I'll leave this one alone and let you other folks talk. It's funner that way! 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

7 hours ago, Margee said:

It's so simple Prof!! God always was. It just took awhile to 'cook things up' before he could explode himself into existence. So simple.

 

I was once a christian and this was our answer. Simple. 

 

If the presence of god is an eternal condition, and hell is the absence of god, then how can god be eternally present, since there is a place where god's presence ends?

[Guest end3]

Not sure why this is a forbidden question.....

Made me contemplate John 1:1

 

First I'm gonna make God, and then make stuff and watch the stuff do battle with itself in order that the stuff I choose to keep comes back to hang with me and God.  And God damn the rest of the stuff.  Not really damned, just in storage like the stuff we put into storage.  But God calls his storage unit "hell".... 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

12 minutes ago, end3 said:

Not sure why this is a forbidden question.....

Made me contemplate John 1:1

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  John 1:1

 

If the word was with god "in the beginning", and the word was god "in the beginning", then there was a "beginning" to god.  He is, therefore, not eternal.

[Guest end3]

2 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  John 1:1

 

If the word was with god "in the beginning", and the word was god "in the beginning", then there was a "beginning" to god.  He is, therefore, not eternal.

I believe that was my point.... 

 

Now, go back to fighting the other creation....specifically death, that you might get to go hang with the Word and his God.

[Guest end3]

Kind of an interesting thought Prof.  This would potentially separate God and Jesus in terms of qualities....

[TheRedneckProfessor]

11 minutes ago, end3 said:

I believe that was my point.... 

 

Now, go back to fighting the other creation....specifically death, that you might get to go hang with the Word and his God.

I have no reason to fight death.  In fact, I'd rather like to think I'll embrace it when it comes to carry me to that far distant shore.  But even if I don't, I have no use for eternity with the word or his god.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

4 minutes ago, end3 said:

Kind of an interesting thought Prof.  This would potentially separate God and Jesus in terms of qualities....

Bringing us back to the question of the trinity.  Which is better, one god with three heads, or three gods with one head?

[Guest end3]

16 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Bringing us back to the question of the trinity.  Which is better, one god with three heads, or three gods with one head?

Idk.  It would appear that we would be looking at the evolution of creation played out through these "heads".....God, the "father" of creation, Jesus, the "son" of creation, and the Holy Spirit, the progeny of creation.

 

I think I might post this on FB and see how many blasphemer comments/votes I gather...

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 minute ago, end3 said:

Idk.  It would appear that we would be looking at the evolution of creation played out through these "heads".....God, the "father" of creation, Jesus, the "son" of creation, and the Holy Sprit, the progeny of creation.

 

 

I think it would be more accurate to say that we are looking at the evolution of the creation of god.  In the beginning there was "god"--angry, vengeful, brutal--but he didn't fulfill all of humanity's needs, so we created jesus--peaceful, loving, kind--but we still lusted after power and glory (and the need to have things our own damn way), so we created the holy spirit--power from on high, authority over all things, designer of divine destiny.  We're still not content; but at least now we have president trump and can say "merry christmas" again.  And we don't have to bake wedding cakes for gay people.

 

Merry christmas, by the way.

[Guest end3]

5 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I think it would be more accurate to say that we are looking at the evolution of the creation of god.  In the beginning there was "god"--angry, vengeful, brutal--but he didn't fulfill all of humanity's needs, so we created jesus--peaceful, loving, kind--but we still lusted after power and glory (and the need to have things our own damn way), so we created the holy spirit--power from on high, authority over all things, designer of divine destiny.  We're still not content; but at least now we have president trump and can say "merry christmas" again.  And we don't have to bake wedding cakes for gay people.

 

Merry christmas, by the way.

Lol, ok that's a little funny....but I respectfully disagree.  Everything fits the model if you will notice.  The late model generations are more grace-filled while the Boomers and church are holding the party line.  Sin has created all of us yet the evolution continues..... (Socialism continues to be the most loving ideal).  The whole scenario fits too well to be the evolution of the creation of god.  Will sleep on it.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Do you really think we live in a society that is more grace-filled?  Currently our list of favorite words includes racism, homophobia, islamophobia, terrorism, and transgender.  And most of the sentiments attached to these words can be traced back to religion.

[Guest end3]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Do you really think we live in a society that is more grace-filled?  Currently our list of favorite words includes racism, homophobia, islamophobia, terrorism, and transgender.  And most of the sentiments attached to these words can be traced back to religion.

I see two sides.  The capitalistic group that says love is old school, self-earned, hard work, etc., and I see the socialistic bunch, the left, the millennial generation, that express love being provision for everyone regardless.....no genders, no orientations, etc.  In that regard, I personally believe that "sin" or evolution has moved us to this place where we are a melting pot of humanity.  What other choice do we have except provision and acceptance.  The old sentiment resides still in the church and older generations where the more grace-filled sentiment is in the younger crowd.  The argument we have before us now is how to provide, the mechanisms for provision.  The old school is currently winning with Trump....