danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Persians. Persians created monotheism. So I'd eat Iranian food.
If God created everything, who created God ?
- Thread starter jcherish
- Start date
bubblesmcgrath
Well-Known Member
Solve the chicken and egg problem first before trying to solve the God problem.
abe11825
Like to take a cement fix
When a man and a woman like each other, there is a chance that they'll nap together. However, this isn't your typical nap, mind you. It's a mommy and daddy nap where a lot of loud noises may come from their bedroom and scare you. Don't be scared - in nine months you'll have a brother or sister to play with.
And to regain all those expended calories: I reckon some healthy alternative to snacking would be baked god with a bowl of salad greens.
And to regain all those expended calories: I reckon some healthy alternative to snacking would be baked god with a bowl of salad greens.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
It was the egg. At some point an ancestor of modern chickens, something very nearly a chicken but not quite, laid an egg which hatched to produce the first ever thing which we would call a chicken.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
In any case, the central paradox of monotheism is not the origin of god but the question of whether or not god could make a king prawn curry so hot that even he couldn't eat it.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Definist phaal-acy?
Jonti
what the dormouse said
Except that, to a biologist alive at the time, both the mother and the chick would appear to be the same species, being only minutely different. Crucially, they would presumably be able to interbreed ~ and that pretty much defines them as the same species.
But yeah, the egg came first, 'cos there were eggs long before there were chickens.
/pedant alert
The question should be-
What came first, the chicken or its egg.
What came first, the chicken or its egg.
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
Who's god? 
Whose god?
Whose god?
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
Objection. Assertion made without supporting evidence or even reasoning.
No. The notion that God is an "unconditioned cause" is a post hoc rationalisation for why older permutations of the God hypothesis, such as the the one traditionally interpreted by readers of the Bible, have been shown to be not just incorrect, but impossible. Nowhere in any holy book is it explicitly stated that God did not have a cause. The causeless God is a latter-day invention of theologians who needed to talk their way around knowledge gained in recent times through empirical investigation of the natural world. Investigation which has been steadily erasing the gaps in our knowledge where creatures such as gods and demons dwell.
Even if such a statement were explicitly made, why should such a causeless cause be any kind of anthropoid entity? Why not cut out the middleman and just argue that the universe is the causeless cause?
If God exists beyond time and space, then how can he interact with anything in the natural universe?
If you mean to say that God has abilities that transcend time and space in some unspecified manner, then why is there not a single shred of physical evidence, why does the whole universe act in a manner that is entirely consistent with reality being the emergent consequence of blind naturalistic forces?
If the supernatural existed, then there would be no debate about its existence at all, because science wouldn't work in a universe containing entities able to suspend the laws of physics on a whim.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
You can say God is the unmoved first mover if you like. The prime mover. People have said that for millennia. Or you could say God is the way the world systematically eludes our understanding (the mystery of existence).
But this is just a matter of words: there's no link to the kinds of Gods that people in practice believe in. Allah, Jahweh, the Lord of the OT, Lord Jesus ~ these are all quite well defined personalities that are not at all identical to each other; the prime mover notion is an inessential add-on.
Last edited:
doodlelogic
arbitrary message here
I quite like a Mars Bar.
*snicker*
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
I prefer Snickers.
TruXta
tired
Beat me to it.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
So let me get this right: You want to eat g-d's hot sausage, coated in mustard?
As perversions go, that's pretty deviant!
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
DotCom's mum. Blates.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
You should only voice such heresy in a wispa.
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
im liking this spaghetti and meatballs diety.
Gerry1time
Did a wee in Dirac's toilet
I like Thomas Hobbes' point in this regard. If god is omnipotent, then he/she/it is capable of anything. Thus he/she/it is capable of simultaneously existing and not existing. Thus to say 'god exists' is to deny the omnipotence of god, and is thus as blasphemous as saying god doesn't exist. So better not to concern ourselves too much with this debate, and separate church and state.
Similar threads
