If god created us do u know who created god?

[katie123cherry]

Who created god

[melioa]

yes...we did in our minds

[Madelaine McMasters]

I believe think that gods (across the 7+ billion of us on Earth, there appears to be belief in more than one), and the idea that we were created by them are constructs of the human imagination, driven by an evolutionary benefit to creatures who associate cause and effect, even if sometimes incorrectly.

But we are just residents here, like you. If you want to know what the Linden Gods think, this is the wrong place (and certainly the wrong day) to ask.

[sirhc DeSantis]

Same person who created the Tooth Fairy

[Nalates Urriah]

The answer is an exercise in logic and reason.

If an entity created God, then who created that entity? The question is infinite. There is only a finite number of answers. If god does not exist, then it is a pointless question. If one concedes God exists, then either God has always existed or some entity created God. If one decides to go with a created god then they must answer the question of who created the first creator. As there are no definitive proofs for changing everyone's opinion, it is an unproductive debate. 

If you take the naturalist's position, like Hawkins, that the nature of the universe is such that it had to self create and thus there is no need for a creator/god, then one has to explain why God could not self create... But, I see no logical argument to provide an answer to whether God self created or has always existed, a difficult concept for humans.

But, heavy duty philosophers point out the fallacies in Hawkin's statement... they point out there is some circular logic in there. You need to get the exact Hawkin's quote and the rebuttal.

At this point in time no one can provide good evidence or unquestionably convincing arguments for an answer to the questions here. The religious accept their version of creation without solid evidence that could be used in a court of law. But, the naturalists have the same problem. In both cases it is belief and presupposition.

If you aren't just trolling, you would want to check out the book: Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospel. It provides a secular look the evidence in existance for supporting the Christain beleif system. The best part of this book is it teaches one how to think past their presupostions and ingrained biases, something homicide detectives have to learn to do. I have yet to find definitive answers or reasoning on the assoicated subjects.

Scientce is another religion for most because they accept what they have heard without through examination. People that think evolution proves the naturalist viewpoint need to examine the theory in detail. 

Few taking either side of the debate are willing to put in the effort or keep an on open mind long enough to reach a conclusion or consensus. With the Rules for Radicals being the bible for those wanting to win debates without regard to truth, most debates devolve to name calling.

 

Or... if your question is more SL-in-character specific... then it was Philip and Andrew...

[KarenMichelle Lane]

---

Nalates Urriah wrote:

The answer is an exercise in logic and reason.

If an entity created God, then who created that entity? The question is infinite. There is only a finite number of answers. If god does not exist, then it is a pointless question. If one concedes God exists, then either God has always existed or some entity created God. If one decides to go with a created god then they must answer the question of who created the first creator. As there are no definitive proofs for changing everyone's opinion, it is an unproductive debate. 

If you take the naturalist's position, like Hawkins, that the nature of the universe is such that it had to self create and thus there is no need for a creator/god, then one has to explain why God could not self create... But, I see no logical argument to provide an answer to whether God self created or has always existed, a difficult concept for humans.

But, heavy duty philosophers point out the fallacies in Hawkin's statement... they point out there is some circular logic in there. You need to get the exact Hawkin's quote and the rebuttal.

At this point in time no one can provide good evidence or unquestionably convincing arguments for an answer to the questions here. The religious accept their version of creation without solid evidence that could be used in a court of law. But, the naturalists have the same problem. In both cases it is belief and presupposition.

If you aren't just trolling, you would want to check out the book: 

Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospel

. It provides a secular look the evidence in existence for supporting the Christian belief system. The best part of this book is it teaches one how to think past their presuppositions and ingrained biases, something homicide detectives have to learn to do. I have yet to find definitive answers or reasoning on the associated subjects.

Science is another religion for most because they accept what they have heard without through examination. People that think evolution proves the naturalist viewpoint need to examine the theory in detail. 

Few taking either side of the debate are willing to put in the effort or keep an on open mind long enough to reach a conclusion or consensus. With the

Rules for Radicals

being the bible for those wanting to win debates without regard to truth, most debates devolve to name calling.

 

Or... if your question is more SL-in-character specific... then it was Philip and Andrew...

---

You are delightfully my heroine!

As for my philosoiphy on everything - Being both a spiritual and curious human being, I love tripping over the reminders of what I still need to learn in order to know something - of what I need to experience in order to free my soul to soar.

I've love this quote from Richard Feynman - "Some people say, "How can you live without knowing?" I do not know what they mean. I always live without knowing. That is easy. How you get to know, is what I want to know."

Sigh!

[SaraCarena]

The Linden gods are angry tonight and broke our pixel dollies in their wrath.

[Canoro Philipp]

i'll follow your train of thought, theorically "if god created us", would that neccesarly mean that we would know what created it? no, unless we somehow find out, or its reveled to us in case that that god knows what create it.

if we created god, and god created us, it would be a simultaneous creation, therefore it would be two forces working together to deliver separate entities, now, we have to define what we mean by the word "us", all lifeforms? humanity? the universe? the regular posters of the Second Life Official forum General Discussion? you and me?

we have to be very specific in order to have correct answers.

[Madelaine McMasters]

Feynman (he's in my profile) is one of my heroes. My favorite answer to other's deep questions may very well be "I don't know". Not knowing gives me something to do.

I don't worry myself much with god/no-god/chicken/egg/turtles-all-the-way down philosophizing. I don't know that it's ever been terribly productive. I'm an engineer, I like stuff that works. I'd be athiest if that didn't require the kind of dogmatism that peeves me in the highly religious. So I have to settle for agnostic.

I have, in the past, thought of myself as a sort of spirtual agnostic, and I've religious friends who were shocked (some dismayed) to discover I'm agnostic. But it's worse than that. "Spiritual" is the wrong word for me. I experience awe, a sense of connection with the cosmos and other people, a sense of place, just like the religious. But I don't attribute that to spirits or the supernatural. That these feelings I have could all be the result of nifty neurochemistry is no less amazing than the idea of supreme beings, or the reality of puppies.

I had to go back to my first post in this thread to fix a sloppy mistake I suppose I make all the time, replacing "believe" with "think". Maybe think isn't even the right word. There are people who don't think I do that very well. But belief doesn't require evidence and I'm really fond of evidence. So I must try to avoid believing in stuff.

I am currently unaware of any evidence of a god. I am aware of evidence to back other explanations for why people believe in them. So, I don't believe in god, and I don't believe in evolution. But if you asked me to pick the one most likely explanation for where we're at, I'd pick evolution in a heartbeat. There's a mountain of evidence for it, and it's growing.

Are there things we cannot yet, or maybe ever know? I think that's possible. We went a good long time without knowing about germs. But I sure hope the possibility there are things we'll never know won't keep us from enjoying...

http://www.amazon.com/The-Pleasure-Finding-Things-Out/dp/0465023959

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

SaraCarena wrote:

The Linden gods are angry tonight and broke our pixel dollies in their wrath.

---

I think Hanlon's Razor and Murphy's Law apply here. I don't think the Lindens are angry. Murphy caught them with their pants down.

;-).

[beethros Karas]

I dont know who created God.. but i know that watching this Video (Yes! THank you YOUTUBE)

I am convincent "he" exist ... everywhere! Its like i see "him"

heheh

Courious ha?

Watch it then!

 

[Bree Giffen]

You are all going about this backwards. Did we create God? Yes. Did God create us? Of course not, because it was all made up. There you go. It's not difficult.

[Loralinda]

God has always been as creative force of the universe, not some big man in the sky.  Who created gravity?  No one.  It just is.  Who created God?  No one.  God just is.  God is conscious awareness and conscious awareness is God.  Without God we could not even discuss this question.  In reality, we as individuals don't exist.  We are simply the manifestation of collective consciousness or "life" if you prefer.  All life forms appear because there is a creative force of the universe and that force has been referred to as God throughout the ages.  Sadly, religions have taken this amazing life creating consciousness and in an effort to explain the ups and downs of life, made it into a fallable human concept, some sort of super human prone to senseless arbitrary acts.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Like gravity causes us to fall out of a tree and possibly break our necks as a consequence of climbing the tree, so God does not operate in an arbitrary manner.  For every action there is a reaction.  For the negative energy we put out, we suffer negative consequences.  For the positive energy we put out, we enjoy positive consequences.  This law applies just as much to group populations as to individuals. Nothing happens arbitrarily.  Who made consciousness?  No one.  It simply is.  Who made God?  No one.  It simply is.  When you were born, you were born into conscious awareness.  It was there before you and will be there after you.  It will be reborn with each manifestation of life.  It never dies.  It accepts every life form because every lifeform eminates out of this never ending, always present consciousness.  What better term have we for this phenomena, but God?

But, if you choose not to accept this explanation, please feel free.  I always go with the philosophy that you should give every explanation some thought and if it simply doesn't appeal to you, then you are free to reject it.  Simple as that.

 

[Baltar Torok]

God is eternal always has been always will be 

 

[Phil Deakins]

That someone or something created the existance that we know is patently obvious. Beyond that it's every man for himself - and woman, of course 

[irihapeti]

i think that before can definitively answer the God question then have to answer the question: Is it possible to create a universe?

 

 

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

That someone or something created the existance that we know is patently obvious. Beyond that it's every man for himself - and woman, of course 

---

Please tell us your definition of the word "create" as used in this statement.

[Jazleen Raynier]

According to my ex-husband - he did..and he was god, but he also thought he was a super stud muffin till I informed him if I managed to count to 3 before he finished i'm sure his girlfriends were equally grateful...

[Phil Deakins]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

That someone or something created the existance that we know is patently obvious. Beyond that it's every man for himself - and woman, of course 

---

Please tell us your definition of the word "create" as used in this statement.

---

'Create', as I meant it, means to create something in the midst of absolute nothingness, although "in the midst" is totally wrong because with absolute nothingness, there is nothing to be in the midst of.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

That someone or something created the existance that we know is patently obvious. Beyond that it's every man for himself - and woman, of course 

---

Please tell us your definition of the word "create" as used in this statement.

---

'Create', as I meant it, means to create something in the midst of absolute nothingness, although "in the midst" is totally wrong because with absolute nothingness, there is nothing to be in the midst of.

---

Then the "creation of existence" is not only patently obvious, it's patently impossible. Absolute nothingness would also mean there would be nothing to create existence. If anything exists, something has to be eternal - not "created", in other words. And if something is eternal, there's no reason that the underlying structure of everything can't be.

[Ceka Cianci]

---

katie123cherry wrote:

Who created god

---

What makes you think he created us?

Even the story say's different..

If i give someone the knowledge to create a lawnmower,does that mean i created all the lawn mowers?

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

That someone or something created the existance that we know is patently obvious. Beyond that it's every man for himself - and woman, of course 

---

Please tell us your definition of the word "create" as used in this statement.

---

'Create', as I meant it, means to create something in the midst of absolute nothingness, although "in the midst" is totally wrong because with absolute nothingness, there is nothing to be in the midst of.

---

Then the "creation of existence" is not only patently obvious, it's patently impossible. Absolute nothingness would also mean there would be nothing to create existence. If

anything

exists,

something

has to be eternal - not "created", in other words. And if

something

is eternal, there's no reason that the underlying structure of

everything

can't be.

---

You omitted, and overlooked, a part of what I said. I said "... the existance that we know". That part is very important. Including that part negates what you wrote.

Let's suppose that a creator person or thing is real. Now suppose that he/she/it decides to create an existance for other types of beings to be in. Where does he/she/it create it? Let's say the decision was to create a volume for it to be in instead of where he/she/it is - the volume we know as the universe. From our perspective, the universe, and all that's in it - the existance that we know - was created when there was nothing. There wasn't any matter lying around in this volume to create the things that are in it. The volume didn't exist before it (the universe) was created.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

If i give someone the knowledge to create a lawnmower,does that mean i created all the lawn mowers? 

---

If you gave someone the knowledge (ability really) to create a lawn mower out of nothing, then you must be God

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

If i give someone the knowledge to create a lawnmower,does that mean i created all the lawn mowers? 

---

If you gave someone the knowledge (ability really) to creat a lawn mower

out of nothing

, then you must be God

---

I'm just telling how the story say's it,i didn't write the books..

As the story goes,He created two pure people that went on to produce a bunch of impure people..

He had to kick them out of the garden before they took a bite out of the fruit that would have made them like him..

 

 

[Syo Emerald]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

If i give someone the knowledge to create a lawnmower,does that mean i created all the lawn mowers? 

---

If you gave someone the knowledge (ability really) to creat a lawn mower

out of nothing

, then you must be God

---

I'm just telling how the story say's it,i didn't write the books..

As the story goes,He created two pure people that went on to produce a bunch of impure people..

He had to kick them out of the garden before they took a bite out of the fruit that would have made them like him..

 

 

---

Sounds like incest.