Why Does God Need A Creator?

[Mister Agenda]

Isn't that the same god that's reported to have talked directly with Abraham, Moses and some others?
Oh, yeah... OT stuff doesn't apply... -.-'

Talked directly. Talks directly to me too. You still didn't get that this is written into the definition of God. Abraham, Moses and the rest also needed faith to believe.
What is ascribed to God could always also be ascribed to chance, coincidence etc. it'sa matter of perspective. From the biblical point of view, the perspective of faith.

I'd like to hear that definition of God to which you keep referring.

[The Grand Nudger]

Seconded, I'd love to hear what frodos god is like today as opposed to the last time I asked.

[Question Mark]

Loop to the post above: what we know about God we reasoned. What we now see, hear, or otherwise experience we do with the understanding that this reasoning affords us. In scientific knowledge, that is zero. In understanding purpose, it's everything.

Once more I'll repeat it: religion doesn't inform scientific investigation one tiny bit. Origins is a question for science, not religion.

Now I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you reason what you apparently know about god from the notion that there is purpose in the universe?

[fr0d0]

Thanks. Religion addresses purpose. If you investigate purpose, you are addressing the subject of religion. An answer to purpose is God. That's what God explains.

Attributes of God agenda: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribute...#section_2

[The Grand Nudger]

Baseless assertion. Please demonstrate that an investigation of purpose leads to -any- god, or even requires an invocation of -any- god?

[Ryantology]

I guess you disagree with mathematical solutions to problems for exactly the same reasons Ryan.

You do not intuit your way to mathematical solutions. You apply unbending and firmly established rules to them. Personal, unverifiable revelations have never solved a single math problem (or any other kind of problem, while we're at it). Working backwards in math is possible because the rules are not subject to interpretation. If you decide to interpret 2+2 as equaling 5, you'll never get a correct answer.

But of course now you conveniently abandon your other objection that there are thousands of ideas so how do you know that your one is right.

I have not abandoned it at all, I've piled onto it. The God assertion has so many flaws that one can attack it from virtually every angle.

Thanks. Religion addresses purpose.

Religion first assumes purpose and then invents it. It does not address a single thing which exists outside of its own fantasy.

[Baalzebutt]

One of the listed attributes of god is immutability.

"Immutability means God cannot change. James 1:17 refers to the "Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows" (NIV). Herman Bavinck notes that although the Bible talks about God repenting, changing his purpose, and becoming angry, "Scripture testifies that in all these various relations and experiences God remains ever the same."[12]Millard Erickson calls this attribute God's constancy, arguing that "some interpretations of the doctrine of divine constancy, expressed as immutability, have actually drawn heavily upon the Greek idea of immobility and sterility."

The problem here is that it specifically states that god cannot change. This conflicts directly with the idea that god is omnipotent (meaning that nothing is beyond his capability).

He is either omnipotent or immutable. Which is it?

[fr0d0]

Ryan: there is nothing changing about logical method. It's either logical or it isn't. We've not even got onto personal validation yet. Were not working backwards here. Were working forwards. But I believe you're losing coherence here in your attempt to deny this.

[Question Mark]

Thanks. Religion addresses purpose. If you investigate purpose, you are addressing the subject of religion. An answer to purpose is God. That's what God explains.

Attributes of God agenda: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribute...#section_2

All of those attributes are based upon bible passages, and I've never been presented with any legitimate reason as to why I should take what the bible says.

In addition, I contest the notion that there is a purpose to the universe. Purpose is a human property that developed in order to provide our advanced brains with occupation, otherwise we'd simply go insane. To extend that notion and impress it upon the universe is simple anthropomorphisation.

[Ryantology]

Were not working backwards here. Were working forwards.

Demonstrate a direct line of reasoning from "I have no idea why the universe exists" to "The God I believe in (and no other), which certainly exists beyond time and space, certainly made the universe for specific reasons".