For the love of god, can someone explain who created god?

[Katzpur]

Well I've noticed there are a few types of mormons, sure they are share the same beliefs, but a good portion of them do not think like the now minority of mormons (thankfully).
The General Mormons I've met are ones born & raised outside Utah, they are the majority, and tend to be a lot more open to other viewpoints of the bible and try their best to help others see the good, even in the obvious bad parts of the bible, and don't shun or bash people for their opinions. For the most part, this type tries its damnedest to be as positive as possible even when dealing with the extremely negative.

The Minority Mormons are mostly those born & raised in Utah, a small portion of them don't act like this and are trying to change that, basically eliminate this minority in a positive sense. Mostly to others and mormons that aren't part of this minority see them as arrogant, "holier than thou", about as open as a cracked rock, have racist tendencies, try to shove their beliefs down people's throats instead of letting them choose & grow into it at their own pace (like the General types do), carry abnormally high expectations of others (Accept the truth or You're evil kinda attitude), basically they are what is becoming the new definition of "Bad Mormon".

I once explained to some missionaries about one missionary that felt overbearing and very much like she was judging us, and the missionaries immediately cracked up saying "Yup, definitely born in Utah!"

I've also heard of another Sect of Mormons, but based on the opinions of mormons I've met, they say they are Lost. Apparently do things differently than the usual mormon like taking multiple wives instead of one, their prophet is always female (I guess as a way to be more different than the Utah based one or maybe to spite them), and they share the same arrogance all across the board as the Minority Mormons born in Utah.

Well, I'm a Utah-born-and-raised, and I've lived among Utah Mormons for 69 years. I don't know if you've ever noticed my title: "Not Your Average Mormon." Maybe I was thinking of Utah Mormons myself, since almost all of the Mormons I know are Utah Mormons. I try not to be the kind of person you've described, and I think I've probably succeeded for the most part. I actually enjoy hanging out with non-Mormons more than I do Mormons because I feel like I have more in common with them. People ask me why I stay "LDS." It's simple: I believe the core doctrines, I have found meaning for life in the way Mormonism explains God's "Plan of Salvation," and it has helped me to become a better person than I would probably other wise be. But if you'll notice my signature, at the bottom of this post, you'll see how I struggle with Utah Mormons myself.

 

[fallingblood]

I was trying to understand why creationists believe that we cannot originate without god, and yet god does not need an origin. Why do we need an origin then?

We don't necessarily need an origin. However, we know there was an origin. That's simply part of history.

So the main difference is that we know that humans originated someway. There really is no doubt about that. With God, if God exists, we don't have that history we can point back to. There is nothing in history that we can point to and say here is the origin of God. Instead, the standard idea of God is that God existed before our planet, before our solar system, and before the universe. That's why God doesn't need an origin, because there is nothing pointing to an origin.

There is no need for an origin - it is merely that the creationists/believers themselves set the parameters for an argument by saying "Look at the complexity! The universe/Earth/man must have been created!", and then are completely content to break from that exact same paradigm immediately by saying God didn't have to be created.

And the huge, overwhelming, stand-out difference between saying "God existed always" and "the universe existed always" is that we actually have proof of "the universe". We can actually witness it, we interact with it daily. In fact, we can't even choose not to deal with it. We ARE it. "God" however? Where is He/She/It? When is it that I am interacting with Him/Her/It? How would I know I was? Do I take someone's word for it?

It seems to me that it is nothing more than a bad joke that a lot of people take way too seriously.

You're mixing quite a bit here. So I will just say that God may not exist. I'm fine with that. That's not really being debated here though. The concept of God is a given when talking about Creationism, so we work within that framework.

If we accept that there is no need for an origin, then God fits fine with that, and the OP is answered with that. Not everything needs an origin, there can be an exception.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you explain the schizophrenia that lies beneath:

1. The universe is everything that came from nothing.

Not schizophrenia since it is supported by observations and experimentation. What evidence do you have for your beliefs?

2. Everything other than the whole universe has an origin.

or this:

1. The universe (or multiverse) is eternal, uncreated.

2. Therefore, there cannot be possibly be an eternal, uncreated God.

That is a combination of a strawman and a non sequitur on your part. Your side is the one guilty of special pleading fallacies here. The last claim appears nowhere in atheist claims. Perhaps you should try to learn what you are arguing against. Try again but ask one at a time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We don't necessarily need an origin. However, we know there was an origin. That's simply part of history.

Yes, we understand the origin of man as a species.

So the main difference is that we know that humans originated someway. There really is no doubt about that. With God, if God exists, we don't have that history we can point back to. There is nothing in history that we can point to and say here is the origin of God. Instead, the standard idea of God is that God existed before our planet, before our solar system, and before the universe. That's why God doesn't need an origin, because there is nothing pointing to an origin.

Yes, but the same claim can be made about the universe. The Big Bang was only the origin of our universe as we know it. That does not necessarily mean that we the origin of the entire, well lets use a "bigger" term, cosmos. Even if we don't know how our universe began that is not evidence or an excuse for the existence of a god.

You're mixing quite a bit here. So I will just say that God may not exist. I'm fine with that. That's not really being debated here though. The concept of God is a given when talking about Creationism, so we work within that framework.

If we accept that there is no need for an origin, then God fits fine with that, and the OP is answered with that. Not everything needs an origin, there can be an exception.

I think what is being debated are the false arguments that some theists use to "prove" the existence of a god. Now if you admit that those arguments are bogus since they clearly do not prove the existence of a god I think that we an move on. The OP was moved by the obvious self contradictions of the various arguments used by theists to attempt to prove their point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, there are theories and "testable and falsifiable" theories. Don't know any of the latter. Well... except for " even though you do not believe me, believe the works...". Now that's cool. 'Cept it's just in books right now. Keepin' watch.

Then those are not theories. When you mentioned the theory of evolution that is a scientific theory. You are changing the meaning of a word in the middle of an argument. That is roughly an equivocation error on your part. When the theist side has some reliable evidence for its claims that is when atheists will change their minds.

Most theists cannot understand what an atheist is. In most cases, I won't say all since atheism is a large tent, atheism is merely a lack of belief due to a lack of evidence. Let's compare the belief in gods to a belief in fairies. Theists tend to hate that since they think that it belittles their beliefs, but it really does not. I don't believe in fairies. I know that there are some that do. You probably do not believe in fairies for the same reasons that I have. There is no reliable evidence for the existence of fairies. But if someone found reliable testable, repeatable evidence for fairies I would change my mind. I would hope that you might too. I don't think that evidence will ever be found so I doubt if that would ever happen.

So back to your earlier claim . . . What alternative theories?

 

[fallingblood]

Yes, but the same claim can be made about the universe. The Big Bang was only the origin of our universe as we know it. That does not necessarily mean that we the origin of the entire, well lets use a "bigger" term, cosmos. Even if we don't know how our universe began that is not evidence or an excuse for the existence of a god.

Of course it isn't evidence or an excuse for the existence of God. But whether God exists or not isn't being debated here. If God exists, there is no reason to not think that God had no origin.

I think what is being debated are the false arguments that some theists use to "prove" the existence of a god. Now if you admit that those arguments are bogus since they clearly do not prove the existence of a god I think that we an move on. The OP was moved by the obvious self contradictions of the various arguments used by theists to attempt to prove their point.

The argument for the existence or non-existence of God are generally filled with the same amount of validity; that being none. The idea that God exists because God exists is bogus. But to say that God wouldn't need an origin, if God exists, isn't bogus. To make the argument that since man and the world, etc., needed an origin, and thus God also had to have an origin, is bogus.

 

[ExVasterist]

Well, I'm a Utah-born-and-raised, and I've lived among Utah Mormons for 69 years. I don't know if you've ever noticed my title: "Not Your Average Mormon." Maybe I was thinking of Utah Mormons myself, since almost all of the Mormons I know are Utah Mormons. I try not to be the kind of person you've described, and I think I've probably succeeded for the most part. I actually enjoy hanging out with non-Mormons more than I do Mormons because I feel like I have more in common with them. People ask me why I stay "LDS." It's simple: I believe the core doctrines, I have found meaning for life in the way Mormonism explains God's "Plan of Salvation," and it has helped me to become a better person than I would probably other wise be. But if you'll notice my signature, at the bottom of this post, you'll see how I struggle with Utah Mormons myself.

Well, "Not your average Mormon" can honestly mean anything (maybe "Not your typical Utah Mormon"?), just as I'm not your average American, Lefty (political), Writer, Mr. Right (entirely subjective and depends solely on the person), Agnostic, Practitioner (well use to be), and Human.

And most people knew to Mormonism (not really new when you think about it considering when your religion was founded) dunno that "LDS" stands for Latter Day Saints.
But to me, the bit that makes Mormons stand out from other Christians (I know LDS Church is a Christian organization and the Morroni is the apparent/assumed prophet that really started it before Joseph Smith - and I say assumed caused most Mormons don't actually know for sure if he/she was a prophet) is that they don't judge (again unless thinking of the hardcore Utah based ones, not saying you), they help more often than most other christian organizations (my biggest peeve is watching a homeless person begging for charity from people just coming out of a church and they act like he isn't even there, I was atheist, not anymore though, at the time and helped him get a full meal in his gut), MOST mormons don't shove their beliefs down people's throats (like its some divine competition), they don't have a look of "I'm doing this cause I have to" but instead "I'm doing this cause it makes me happy" (seen the negative look primarily on Jehovah's Witnesses, I swear they look like they wanna die), and MOST don't say/act "If you don't believe, you're gonna go to Hell".

And I've heard people saying that Mormons are crazy, but those people clearly haven't met crazy; Westboro Baptist Church (sure you know them), Reptillian Believers (they believe Reptillians are the Angels mentioned in The Bible), and Scientology (The very person who they say is their prophet has called them morons for believing it is divine writing).

 

[Katzpur]

Well, "Not your average Mormon" can honestly mean anything (maybe "Not your typical Utah Mormon"?), just as I'm not your average American, Lefty (political), Writer, Mr. Right (entirely subjective and depends solely on the person), Agnostic, Practitioner (well use to be), and Human.

Yeah, I know it can mean anything. But what I generally mean is that I think I'm pretty atypical in that I am considerably more liberal than most Mormons (whether they be from Utah or elsewhere). For instance, I am a strong advocate of LGBT rights and I march with "Mormons Building Bridges" every year in Salt Lake City's Pride Parade. I also am not afraid to admit that there have been times when the LDS leadership has made mistakes in establishing policies, etc. Most Mormons I know would rather die than take issue with anything the Church's leadership says.

Anyway, I'm glad your own experience with Mormons has been at least somewhat positive.

 

[WalterTrull]

Then those are not theories. When you mentioned the theory of evolution that is a scientific theory. You are changing the meaning of a word in the middle of an argument. That is roughly an equivocation error on your part.

OK. So maybe we were using different definitions.
From Dictionary.com
"2. A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. "

I'm thinking the theory of evolution is rather untested though. How would you test it?
On-the-other-hand, at least the basis for the Christian theory was tested a while ago. We've really got to test it some more. I'll let you know if I figure out how.

 

[suncowiam]

The grand irony of it all is that humans created God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course it isn't evidence or an excuse for the existence of God. But whether God exists or not isn't being debated here. If God exists, there is no reason to not think that God had no origin.

The same argument applies to the universe.

The argument for the existence or non-existence of God are generally filled with the same amount of validity; that being none. The idea that God exists because God exists is bogus. But to say that God wouldn't need an origin, if God exists, isn't bogus. To make the argument that since man and the world, etc., needed an origin, and thus God also had to have an origin, is bogus.

Correct. I was merely pointing out that the arguments for the existence of God were bogus and that appears to be the point of the OP.

 

[Kenny]

I
I don't know. What do you think?

That is the bottom line question. Either one believes in an eternal matter, substance and whatever or one believes in an eternal God.

People will make their decision one way or the other. I just lean to the eternal God.

 

[Kenny]

The grand irony of it all is that humans created God.

That a great created statement.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK. So maybe we were using different definitions.
From Dictionary.com
"2. A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. "

I'm thinking the theory of evolution is rather untested though. How would you test it?
On-the-other-hand, at least the basis for the Christian theory was tested a while ago. We've really got to test it some more. I'll let you know if I figure out how.

There are countless ways to test the theory of evolution. Are you serious that you do not think that it has been tested? Of course the theory has so much evidence for it that even a Cambrian bunny rabbit would almost not kill it, though since physicists have a pretty good argument against backwards time travel that would probably still be the end of the theory.

And you really should have looked up the definition of a scientific theory, but you can see how your "alternative theories" do not exist even with the dictionary definition supplied.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is the bottom line question. Either one believes in an eternal matter, substance and whatever or one believes in an eternal God.

People will make their decision one way or the other. I just lean to the eternal God.

We have evidence for matter. The evidence for a god is pretty much non-existent.

 

[fallingblood]

The grand irony of it all is that humans created God.

Can you prove that? I hardly think so. Such a view is based really on faith.

The same argument applies to the universe.

It could be. But that really is besides the point.

Correct. I was merely pointing out that the arguments for the existence of God were bogus and that appears to be the point of the OP.

Those arguments may be bogus, but the point of the OP seems to be just as bogus.

 

[Kenny]

We have evidence for matter. The evidence for a god is pretty much non-existent.

That is always a debate. I look at our earth and all that is in it and, for me, that is evidence of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is always a debate. I look at our earth and all that is in it and, for me, that is evidence of God.

That only tells us that you do not understand the nature of evidence. Evidence supports only one side of an argument. If it supports both sides it is a moot point at best.

 

[WalterTrull]

There are countless ways to test the theory of evolution.

Uhmm... care to elaborate?

 

[WalterTrull]

but you can see how your "alternative theories" do not exist even with the dictionary definition supplied.

Ok... What?