Who created god?

[smax]

God says He was not created, He says he's from everlasting to everlasting, this claim by God means He has always been. God doesn't operate on your feeble logic, being omniscient He operates on the greater knowledge. Simple really.

You obviously missed the following:

Now, for the believer who simply accepts that there really is no proof of a personal god, and that faith is your sole reason for believing in one, rather than logic or reason, this question really isn't for you.

Now, unless you can come up with something more compelling than "Because he says so", you fit in the category of blind faith.

Even at that, however, and just for kicks, why don't you ask god how he has simply "always been".

Perhaps he's just in denial about his own creator. Let your imagination run wild.....


As if you could help yourself!

---

While your question was for Tex and the like... mine was for fr0d0 and the like. when they read, they'll get it...

I have to admit, I'm still a little confused. But, I'm new around here, and not that familiar with the group.

[Minimalist]

God says He was not created, He says he's from everlasting to everlasting, this claim by God means He has always been. God doesn't operate on your feeble logic, being omniscient He operates on the greater knowledge. Simple really.

Of course it is. It is designed for simpletons.

[Mystic]

God would be an immense magical type of existence. The nature of atoms/quarks, is that they are small non-magical type existence.

The thing with magical immense existence, I can find myself believing it can cause itself to exist continuously. This doesn't mean it didn't always exist.

The thing with a quark or atom or smallest unit of existence, is that really, I can't get myself to believe it can cause itself to exist continuously.

Now the question, does existence require a constant cause? I think it does personally.

I think it's more special pleading to say everything but existence requires a cause.

Anyways, the bottom line is that I can't get myself to believe small things like quarks can just exist on their own continuously with no higher cause.

Of course, this is not the primary reason I believe in a Creator. But I hope you understand the difference in that the Creator being a magical super immense being, can cause itself to continuously exist. Or it can exist on it's own.

But I don't see it possible for something like a quark to exist on it's own or be it's own cause.

[pocaracas]

While your question was for Tex and the like... mine was for fr0d0 and the like. when they read, they'll get it...

I have to admit, I'm still a little confused. But, I'm new around here, and not that familiar with the group.

Don't worry. I don't!
You'll get to know them, in time...
The intro to the OP reminded me so clearly of Fr0d0 and ryft (the "use logic to reason god into our awareness of it" crowd) that I wanted to see your question go the way I posed... but it didn't... I expected something and was disappointed.
Instead, you went for the general theists who pride themselves of the use of logic in creation... and try to get them to question the creator of their god... and get the standard reply that you got from godschild, in two lines.

Your question has been done to death, it even has a page on iron chariots:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...used_cause
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...oved_mover

[smax]

Instead, you went for the general theists who pride themselves of the use of logic in creation... and try to get them to question the creator of their god... and get the standard reply that you got from godschild, in two lines.

Like I said, I'm new. But I've been around here long enough to know that your statement is contradiction within itself. I highlighted for clarification.

Your question has been done to death, it even has a page on iron chariots:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...used_cause
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...oved_mover

[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I get the feeling that you think Theists are making a compelling argument . If so, that explains why you and I already seem to be odds.

I have yet to see a single compelling argument that points to the existence of a non-contingent being.

In fact, I firmly believe the terminology itself was invented as a sort of bogus support for the existence of god.

[Godscreated]

@ smax, I started out like all Christians do with only my faith, however over the years that faith has become knowledge of God, so as far as I'm concerned I gave you the one true answer. This is very simple to understand God is eternity.

[smax]

@ smax, I started out like all Christians do with only my faith, however over the years that faith has become knowledge of God, so as far as I'm concerned I gave you the one true answer. This is very simple to understand God is eternity.

I know you gave the best answer you could. I also suspect that you don't really believe your answer.

You and I already tested your faith in god's power, to a much lesser degree I might add, and you came up short.

You claim that you speak with god on a daily basis, a conversation that is mutual. That's quite a supernatural claim, and yet you put it out there as if it's a normal event for you.

Someone who engages in that type of daily activity should have confidence in the power of god to clearly demonstrate his existence to those who, with good reason, doubt it.

And yet you and I could not come to terms because you also doubt it.

The funny thing is, I know that event has only caused you to increase your fanaticism, which I predicted would happen.

None of this is new to me.

[pocaracas]

I could be wrong, but I get the feeling that you think Theists are making a compelling argument . If so, that explains why you and I already seem to be odds.

No, they don't make any compelling argument... they utterly fail at the premise level, so, anything that comes after, is just non-sense.

I have yet to see a single compelling argument that points to the existence of a non-contingent being.

Nor have I...
Nor will any argument ever work on me, compelling or not. Like min keeps saying to all theists: Show me the evidence.
If any god exists, show me how people came to know about it some 10 or 20 or 100 thousand years ago.... and then explain why can't it keep doing the same thing to every human being and why it must rely on faulty human transmission to pass on the information.

I can come up with a completely reasonable naturalistic method by which humans acquired the concept of the divine, and how different groups developed different deities... and it would rely on human transmission for that info, of course, how else?... and it would explain the fact that so many fail to experience the currently believed in gods.

In fact, I firmly believe the terminology itself was invented as a sort of bogus support for the existence of god.

It's possible, but I wouldn't claim a belief in that.

[The Magic Pudding]

I've asked Who about this, she admits he did it but she says he never guessed it'd catch on as it has, otherwise she'd have thought it out better.

[Godscreated]