How can GOD, a being without origin, be trusted?

[The Sum of Awe]

if god had no beginning, then he cant possibly have knowledge of his origin. he just is what he is, without the knowledge of why or how he is this way.... he cant say "i am this way because supergod created me this way" because as far as god knows no one created him..... now again, god could very well have been created and then given the knowledge that he was not actually created. we dont know, he doesnt know.

Just curious, if there indeed were a God above God, what importance would it serve to us when it created us indirectly?

 

[crispalmer]

What you're presenting isn't a possibility about my God, because in your scenario, truth isn't possible, existence isn't possible, trust isn't possible.

how so?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

you believe your god is omni-max, but you dont know. your god knows he is omni max. but he doesnt really know either. he might actually not be omni anything, but merely a being far superior to human beings.

Sigh.

I'm asserting a premise.

The Premise is that God is Omni-max. How do you think classical arguments of theology have worked for the past 2000+ years?

So lets set up these premises.

God is not a human (so saying he thinks makes no sense)

God is Omnipotent (all-powerful)

God is Omniscient (All-knowing)

God is Omnipresent (All present)

These are the omni-max qualities usually attributed to God at the basic level.

All these are qualities of a none human being. A creature who is All knowing cannot Think that it is all knowing. It is knowledge the source of all knowledge.

So explain how a being that is knowledge would be fake knowledge?

 

[crispalmer]

Just curious, if there indeed were a God above God, what importance would it serve to us when it created us indirectly?

dont know. you tell me.

 

[crispalmer]

Sigh.

I'm asserting a premise.

The Premise is that God is Omni-max. How do you think classical arguments of theology have worked for the past 2000+ years?

So lets set up these premises.

God is not a human (so saying he thinks makes no sense)

God is Omnipotent (all-powerful)

God is Omniscient (All-knowing)

God is Omnipresent (All present)

These are the omni-max qualities usually attributed to God at the basic level.

All these are qualities of a none human being. A creature who is All knowing cannot Think that it is all knowing. It is knowledge the source of all knowledge.

So explain how a being that is knowledge would be fake knowledge?

you are asserting a baseless premise. GOD IS OMNI-MAX ......i am asserting another baseless premise GOD IS NOT OMNI-MAX, GOD IS JUST A LIMITED BEING SUPERIOR TO HUMANS CREATED BY AN ACTUAL OMNI-MAX GOD........ how do you know which baseless assertion is true?? how would your god know which is true? he wouldnt

 

[crispalmer]

ill be back in a few hours....

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

you are asserting a baseless premise. GOD IS OMNI-MAX ......i am asserting another baseless premise GOD IS NOT OMNI-MAX, GOD IS JUST A LIMITED BEING SUPERIOR TO HUMANS CREATED BY AN ACTUAL OMNI-MAX GOD........ how do you know which baseless assertion is true?? how would your god know which is true? he wouldnt

So your point is to prove why God would not have those qualities. Do you not understand how these arguments work?

So I say God has these qualities, your point would be to show why such qualities could not exist in God.

 

[Matemkar]

what if a deistic supergod was first, who then created god and made god believe that he always existed, and that he had all the knowledge???? how would this created deluded god know this wasnt the case? he wouldn't.

And what would stop you to think about a super duper God who created that one?

the fact that we exist and nothing comes from nothing with nothing, there has to exist an infinite deity that created all. And he can't have a creator for you would think then who created that God and who created that one. And it would take you to infinity. And infinity at the level of creator"s" would mean nothing could exist for each "creator" would need another preceding God to create him..

Please see;

[youtube]rRNvOivzRCw[/youtube]
Br. Hassanain Rajaali - Worshipping God

Secondly a supposed mediator (or mediators with limited number) can not be a creator for he would then be created. And the created one does not have the ability to create others (for all that he is supposed to create are like him, the created, be them some form like him or some lower forms of life).. Thus, creator can not be two.. Creations can not be like him.. All that exists is the one and only Creator and his words, like "be"..

 

[The Sum of Awe]

dont know. you tell me.

I don't see a reason in asking this type of question at all, because if it weren't true it wouldn't matter, and if it were true it doesn't change anything.

Thanking your grandparents instead of your actual parents for bringing you into this life makes no sense, and it seems like this would be the case.

Why does it interest you if there was cause to the first cause? Wouldn't it be contradicting to even say that anyways?

 

[sojourner]

how so?

Because my God is truth, existence and trust.

 

[sojourner]

dont know. you tell me.

Theology is about making meaning out of the world around us, our interior lives, our relationships, and what we value (things like truth, justice, compassion, mercy). Theology isn't about empirical proof of some supernatural thing that's completely other than us. Theology is about the stress between what is fully immanent and yet fully transcendent (like perfect love, perfect trust, perfect peace) -- things that we cannot fully realize, but toward which we aspire.

Making God out to be less than what is transcendent, while keeping God at an objective arm's length doesn't serve any purpose in making meaning out of either the world around us, or our interior lives, or our relationships, or what we value. In short, it's not theology. And since theology is "talking about God," essentially what is happening in your posts, is that you're not really talking about God, because you're not talking theology. You're talking speculation of of some self-imagined ineffable something that means nothing to human endeavor, and then saying, "Aha! I told you your definitions of God were imaginary."

And making that claim adds absolutely nothing to the universe, or the meaning we attempt to make of ourselves and our lives. It's obstructive to meaning and destructive to meaning. Why would you want to waste your time with such meaningless speculation that does not engage theological discussion?

Tell me this: What does it serve you to put forward these meaningless speculations? What does it serve humanity? Or are you simply getting some cheap entertainment? Which also adds nothing to the universe.

Fine. Carry on with your mock-philospohical masturbation, and in the meantime, the rest of us will continue to talk theology and add to the universe, making meaning out of our lives.

 

[crispalmer]

So your point is to prove why God would not have those qualities. Do you not understand how these arguments work?

So I say God has these qualities, your point would be to show why such qualities could not exist in God.

why? do you not understand the burden of proof? here, i will explain it.

if you pull a random baseless unscientific assertion out of your bunghole, it is up to YOU to prove your claim, not up to everyone else to disprove it.

now, to teach you a lesson i gave you a taste of your own medicine and pulled my own unscientific assertion out of my own stinky bunghole.

you claim one omnimax god created the universe, i claim one omnimax god created a being far superior to us(which we call our god) who then created the universe.

so now that we are on equal footing in lala land, each with one baseless claim, I ASK YOU how is your claim any more credible than my claim? how do you know to trust your version over mine?

even if your god somehow made himself known to all human kind and personally told us "i am omnimax" HOW WOULD HE REALLY KNOW? he wouldnt. he could easily just be a limited being, created by an actual omnimax god, who implanted delusion into your god.

you have no way of verifying god's words and neither does he.

 

[crispalmer]

And what would stop you to think about a super duper God who created that one?

the fact that we exist and nothing comes from nothing with nothing, there has to exist an infinite deity that created all. ..

how do you know that nothing comes from nothing? you already believe in the possibility that something could always have existed by nothing, so i dont see how the belief that something can come from nothing is any less likely. you may not like it, but these two options are on equal footing if you honestly think about it.

same goes for the possibilities that there is only one creator, and that there are two creators, one who created our creator, and our creator who created us... all equally likely

And he can't have a creator for you would think then who created that God and who created that one. And it would take you to infinity. ..

oh, so the creator of the universe cant have a creator because of what WE think, and because of how it would confuse US? what kind of argument is that?? what if there are 3 generations of creators, and the third is the actual uncreated creator?? YOU CANT KNOW ITS ALL EQUALLY LIKELY. just because this makes you uncomfortable doesnt mean its impossible.

 

[crispalmer]

Theology is about making meaning out of the world around us, our interior lives, our relationships, and what we value (things like truth, justice, compassion, mercy). Theology isn't about empirical proof of some supernatural thing that's completely other than us. Theology is about the stress between what is fully immanent and yet fully transcendent (like perfect love, perfect trust, perfect peace) -- things that we cannot fully realize, but toward which we aspire..

thanks for the feel good lesson on the meaning of theology

Making God out to be less than what is transcendent, while keeping God at an objective arm's length doesn't serve any purpose in making meaning out of either the world around us, or our interior lives, or our relationships, or what we value. In short, it's not theology. And since theology is "talking about God," essentially what is happening in your posts, is that you're not really talking about God, because you're not talking theology. You're talking speculation of of some self-imagined ineffable something that means nothing to human endeavor, and then saying, "Aha! I told you your definitions of God were imaginary.".

sorry to break the news to you, but meaningless speculation is exactly what you are doing when you leave behind science(that which is known) and go off the deep end into lala land to invent an imaginary feel good sky daddy in selfish pursuit of a false sense of comfort to combat the scary unknown.

the point of this thread is to expose this meaningless exercise for what it really is. MEANINGLESS. just as meaningless as my claim. this is the actual irony here. you lash out against my idiotic assertions when your own assertions are just as absurd and dont have an ounce more credibility. neither of our claims is productive or adds anything to the universe.

Fine. Carry on with your mock-philospohical masturbation, and in the meantime, the rest of us will continue to talk theology and add to the universe, making meaning out of our lives.

oh, right. excuse me. your baseless assertion is "theology" and adds so very much to the universe, while my baseless assertion (which did nothing more than add one additional creator into the mix) is useless crap, because.... well, you dont like it. and it makes you uncomfortable. how mature and intellectual.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

these are all baseless assertions about god made by humans who invented the god concept.....

but even if god could be proven to actually exist, and even if god himself made all these assertions about himself, and even if god actually believed that he really did have complete knowledge and awareness and understanding .... HOW WOULD HE REALLY KNOW??

believing to have complete knowledge is not the same as ACTUALLY HAVING complete knowledge.

if we slip into imaginary lala land where we accept every baseless assertion we like, we have to be consistent and accept other baseless assertions we don't like and assign equal likelihood to those as well. otherwise we are guilty of dishonesty and plain stupidity

so you make the baseless assertion that god exists as pure awareness, and I counter with the baseless assertion that god was only created to believe that he exists as pure awareness...... now how do you know which baseless assertion from lala land YOU CAN ACTUALLY TRUST? and how does your god know that he can trust his own knowledge or belief that he is pure awareness, rather than some delusional patsy created by a supergod for entertainment???

Okay, let's do this.

I totally agree with you. My whole argument is baseless and pointless. There is no logic in my assertions whatsoever.

There, are you happy now? Does this satisfy your ego enough or do you need more from me?

When you are ready to open yourself up to any possibilities beyond what you currently perceive, I'll be here waiting.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

Why can't you just admit to yourself that you are an Atheist and that God just doesn't exist and be done with it rather than *****-footing around the issue like this?

 

[crispalmer]

Okay, let's do this.

I totally agree with you. My whole argument is baseless and pointless. There is no logic in my assertions whatsoever There, are you happy now? Does this satisfy your ego enough or do you need more from me?...

if your admission is in fact honest, good for you. the world we live in needs as much honesty as it can get.

When you are ready to open yourself up to any possibilities beyond what you currently perceive, I'll be here waiting.

this is the whole point of the thread, to teach this lesson. if you open the gates to meaningless unscientific speculation, then everything goes, and you CAN NOT trust anything, because YOUR arbitrary feel good line of "origin" can be extended by anyone, and you have to grant EQUAL CREDIBILITY to all theories for the sake of honesty and consistency.

 

[crispalmer]

Why can't you just admit to yourself that you are an Atheist and that God just doesn't exist and be done with it rather than *****-footing around the issue like this?

I am not pussyfooting around anything. I am an agnostic atheist. have been for a long time. the reason I did not start this thread by declaring what I am, is because most people are weak and get turned off by labels as they bring their own preconceived notions to the table. this way we got some pretty good use out of this thread I think.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

My admission is honest in relation to the world limited by our own senses and the 'human rationality' we hold so precious.

I'd also like to have a shot for every time you have mentioned the phrase 'baseless assertion'. I'd be pretty drunk by now.

You've had many people here debate this with you and have dismissed everybody off-hand, which leaves me wondering 'just what is it do you want? What do you want people to tell you?'

In this way, you have given 'equal credibility' to nothing whatsoever.

You have totally lost me now. I just don't see the point or purpose of this anymore.

I hope somebody else can tell you what you want to hear.

:run:

 

[crispalmer]

My admission is honest in relation to the world limited by our own senses and the 'human rationality' we hold so precious.

I'd also like to have a shot for every time you have mentioned the phrase 'baseless assertion'. I'd be pretty drunk by now.

You've had many people here debate this with you and have dismissed everybody off-hand, which leaves me wondering 'just what is it do you want? What do you want people to tell you?'

In this way, you have given 'equal credibility' to nothing whatsoever.

You have totally lost me now. I just don't see the point or purpose of this anymore.

I hope somebody else can tell you what you want to hear.

:run:

I think you would actually suffer of alcohol poisoning if you had a shot for every time someone actually made a baseless assertion, which is the reason why I dismissed them off hand, calling them out on their baseless ars-ertions, for they did nothing more than pull ertions out of their arsch