Jump to content

Who created God?


Guest Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

The question is as valid as "Who created science?" except for one thing. Science is real. You have to assume there is a god to ask this question. But once you make that assumption, the same question applies to this as to anything else.

Or, in the alternative, you have to throw out the assumptions that led you to ask the question about science in the first place. The assumption is that if something exists, then somebody had to have created it. But then, who created the somebody?

Either way, there's nothing in this to support a belief in a god or gods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u

The question is as valid as "Who created science?" except for one thing. Science is real. You have to assume there is a god to ask this question. But once you make that assumption, the same question applies to this as to anything else.

Or, in the alternative, you have to throw out the assumptions that led you to ask the question about science in the first place. The assumption is that if something exists, then somebody had to have created it. But then, who created the somebody?

Either way, there's nothing in this to support a belief in a god or gods.

Gobbledygook. You have no clue how to put a cogent thought together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gobbledygook. You have no clue how to put a cogent thought together.

It does put a cogent thought together, several of them. In fact, the reasoning is impeccable. Put another way, it goes like this:

Either causation is a universal principle, or it isn't.

If it is, then it applies to God, and God must have been caused by something else. What is that something else?

If it isn't, then there's no basis for saying that there was a first cause. It could just be that we don't understand time or some other dimension of reality. Einstein already gave us a glimpse into that.

Perhaps what you mean to say is that it doesn't fit with what you want to believe, and you don't understand it. So, in your usual sarcastic but vacuous way, you simply sneer at it.

Now, can you answer the question? Who created God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Predictably, the God-babblers have no answer to the question. That's because reason and reasonableness mean nothing to them on this subject. They just believe what they want to believe, even if it makes no sense at all.

So they'll make an argument or ask a question that they think is a killer, with no clue that it applies at least as much to their belief. When you point it out, they won't discuss it.

And ironically, they seem to forget or ignore the fact that in the Bible, Jesus criticized hypocrites very severely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u

It does put a cogent thought together, several of them. In fact, the reasoning is impeccable. Put another way, it goes like this:

Either causation is a universal principle, or it isn't.

If it is, then it applies to God, and God must have been caused by something else. What is that something else?

If it isn't, then there's no basis for saying that there was a first cause. It could just be that we don't understand time or some other dimension of reality. Einstein already gave us a glimpse into that.

Perhaps what you mean to say is that it doesn't fit with what you want to believe, and you don't understand it. So, in your usual sarcastic but vacuous way, you simply sneer at it.

Now, can you answer the question? Who created God?

I know the answer but I won't tell you until you answer this correctly; What came first, the chicken or the egg ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2dim:

As usual, you want a simple answer to a question that involves more complexity than the question acknowledges. After the first cell formed from amino acids, which formed proteins, evolution occurred. Eventually, organisms began reproducing by means that, over time, more nearly resembled the egg. Over time, the structure of the egg changed to include more complex forms. After that, some species began producing eggs that were laid outside the female parent's body. These were encased in a hard shell. As evolution continued, the species we now call the chicken (gallus gallus) developed. The first chicken was the result of genetic change(s) within the egg, from which the new organism developed into the first chicken. There was sufficient genetic similarity for this chicken to continue to breed with its parent species, and over time the genetic structure of gallus gallus survived and multiplied. So strictly speaking, the egg came first, but you won't understand why that is true if you don't understand the science. But once you understand the science, the answer is simple. Every organism is a product of its genetic material. Therefore, the egg comes first. Of course, it's possible that the first gallus gallus was a rooster and not a chicken but that would not change the answer.

Perhaps you will provide your usual snot-nosed response and claim that isn't the correct answer, even though it is. Or maybe you'll keep your promise for once and give an answer to the question "who created God." But what you won't be able to do is give an answer, based on facts, which connects the dots and truly answers the question in a way that is consistent with the premise that God exists.

Go ahead, dazzle us with your brilliance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I know the answer but I won't tell you until you answer this correctly; What came first, the chicken or the egg?"

Yeah, sure you do. By the way, it should be a colon, not a semi-colon.

So you think that's a hard question, right? The hardest part is the question, not the answer. The question assumes that there is an identifiable first chicken, the first of its species. But the leading definition of a species is its ability to reproduce with other members of the species. Assuming a first chicken could ever be identified, it was able to reproduce with members of the previous species because their DNA was nearly identical. So the first thing you have to do is recognize that "species" is not exactly defined. It's precise enough for science to work with but it's not exact, and scientists use other definitions besides reproductive isolation (the ability to reproduce with other members of the species but not with other species).

However, assuming that a first chicken could be identified, then of course the egg came first, just as you were a zygote before you were an adult. The egg contained the DNA that made the chicken, and that DNA was not quite the same as in its parents. In fact, the first chicken's DNA came from two parents, a chicken and a rooster. Anyone who asks "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" as though it was a serious question that no one can answer forgets that the chick has two parents; in that sense, it's a silly question. The main mistake people make in thinking the question is hard, is that they don't understand how much we know because of science. They also don't understand that science is not always exact. And they sure don't know the science itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the answer but I won't tell you until you answer this correctly; What came first, the chicken or the egg ?

You don't know the answer and you missed the point, which is not a surprise. It's called the problem of infinite regress, which is why you won't be able to give a good answer to the question. You can give your usual stupid answer but not a good one.

What came first, the chicken or the egg ?

Sad thing is, you seem to think that's a hard question. It's only hard if you don't appreciate the central role evolution plays in biology. The correct answer is "the egg."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2dim:

As usual, you want a simple answer to a question that involves more complexity than the question acknowledges. After the first cell formed from amino acids, which formed proteins, evolution occurred. Eventually, organisms began reproducing by means that, over time, more nearly resembled the egg. Over time, the structure of the egg changed to include more complex forms. After that, some species began producing eggs that were laid outside the female parent's body. These were encased in a hard shell. As evolution continued, the species we now call the chicken (gallus gallus) developed. The first chicken was the result of genetic change(s) within the egg, from which the new organism developed into the first chicken. There was sufficient genetic similarity for this chicken to continue to breed with its parent species, and over time the genetic structure of gallus gallus survived and multiplied. So strictly speaking, the egg came first, but you won't understand why that is true if you don't understand the science. But once you understand the science, the answer is simple. Every organism is a product of its genetic material. Therefore, the egg comes first. Of course, it's possible that the first gallus gallus was a rooster and not a chicken but that would not change the answer.

Perhaps you will provide your usual snot-nosed response and claim that isn't the correct answer, even though it is. Or maybe you'll keep your promise for once and give an answer to the question "who created God." But what you won't be able to do is give an answer, based on facts, which connects the dots and truly answers the question in a way that is consistent with the premise that God exists.

Go ahead, dazzle us with your brilliance.

:D Love it!

There's your answer, 2dim. What do you have to say now? (The same as before: nothing.) :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't know the answer and you missed the point, which is not a surprise. It's called the problem of infinite regress, which is why you won't be able to give a good answer to the question. You can give your usual stupid answer but not a good one.

Sad thing is, you seem to think that's a hard question. It's only hard if you don't appreciate the central role evolution plays in biology. The correct answer is "the egg."

This is a great video on the link to "the egg." Anyone who wants to understand the science here should watch it. It gives the definitive answer to a question that people once thought was hard - only it isn't hard once you get the science.

Einstein was language delayed as a child. As an adult, he said this helped him become a scientist because it allowed him to experience the world just as it was for a longer time without having to fit it into the arbitrary categories imposed by language. The problem with the chicken/egg question is a problem of categories. They are never perfect. As the video points out, there is no point in evolution where a new species can be clearly identified. It's only in retrospect when we see the big picture that we can categorize species.

No doubt, 2dim will count that a black mark against science. But all he'll be doing is displaying his ignorance, yet again. There's no clear point at which a person becomes a senior citizen either. We just choose to say that it happens the moment you turn 65, or 62, or whenever a particular group decides to say "OK, now you're a senior citizen." You weren't middle aged a second before you hit 65, and you suddenly became old. It was a gradual process of becoming older over time. But because we humans use categories, we can get lost trying to understand what they mean. That's all that's going on with the chicken-egg question.

Again: It's a great video. Everyone should watch it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Kearny Christian

You don't know the answer and you missed the point, which is not a surprise. It's called the problem of infinite regress, which is why you won't be able to give a good answer to the question. You can give your usual stupid answer but not a good one.

Sad thing is, you seem to think that's a hard question. It's only hard if you don't appreciate the central role evolution plays in biology. The correct answer is "the egg."

You don't know the answer and you missed the point, which is not a surprise. It's called the problem of infinite regress, which is why you won't be able to give a good answer to the question. You can give your usual stupid answer but not a good one.

Sad thing is, you seem to think that's a hard question. It's only hard if you don't appreciate the central role evolution plays in biology. The correct answer is "the egg."

Wrong again, Dummy. A chicken egg was created in the body of a chicken, ergo, a chicken came first. Unless you're a loony atheist, then you believe Mother Nature was the chicken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong again, Dummy. A chicken egg was created in the body of a chicken, ergo, a chicken came first. Unless you're a loony atheist, then you believe Mother Nature was the chicken.

Stupid,

Watch the video. Read the posts. The first chicken egg came from a proto-chicken and a proto-rooster, which had nearly all the genetic material of the first chicken but not quite. The DNA of the first chicken was in the egg first, which developed into the chicken. That is how evolution works in gradual increments to produce new organisms. You were given detailed and correct explanations, which you didn't bother to read because apparently you think you know everything. But as can be seen from your response, not only do you know practically NOTHING about evolution, you also know NOTHING about what it means to learn something.

Which is why you're so damned stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong again, Dummy. A chicken egg was created in the body of a chicken, ergo, a chicken came first. Unless you're a loony atheist, then you believe Mother Nature was the chicken.

My God! You were given the explanation, multiple ways, and you didn't read any of it. Saddest thing is, you think you're intelligent because nothing can change your mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong again, Dummy. A chicken egg was created in the body of a chicken, ergo, a chicken came first. Unless you're a loony atheist, then you believe Mother Nature was the chicken.

Yes, we all know that you think everyone who disagrees with you is a dummy but think about you’re saying. You’re saying the first chicken didn’t come from an egg. So where did it come from? You can’t answer that, as your hero Bill O’Reilly would say.

The reason you can’t answer it is that it didn’t happen that way. The first chicken did come from an egg. You think you’ve been very clever by pointing out what seems like an impossibility in the opposing view but all you’ve done is the same thing you would have to do to “answer” the question “who created God?” You’ve walked yourself into the problem of infinite regress. There’s a link to that a few posts back.

That might have left you on even ground with the people you call “dummies” but you’re missing one important factor: science. You think you’ll never have to answer the question “who created God?” because this chicken-egg “dilemma” can’t be answered. That’s where you’re wrong. It is easily answered once you understand science, and in particular evolution.

If you had watched the NPR Video, you would have seen it explained that the first chicken egg did not come from a chicken. It came from a proto-chicken, an animal with DNA almost but not quite that of a chicken. Once you get that very simple point, the mystery is gone and the answer is clear.

So you see, this is the difference between science and fantasy. Science has answered many questions we never thought could be answered. This one is easy once you get the science. But if you’re ignorant and hell-bent on staying that way, you’ll never understand that, or much of anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong again, Dummy. A chicken egg was created in the body of a chicken, ergo, a chicken came first. Unless you're a loony atheist, then you believe Mother Nature was the chicken.

That's right, put a bag over your head and pretend you're not 2Stupid4Words.

Kids, don't let this happen to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong again, Dummy. A chicken egg was created in the body of a chicken, ergo, a chicken came first. Unless you're a loony atheist, then you believe Mother Nature was the chicken.

How very Christian-like of you to name call! Just like when you're posting under your other wrongfully assumed name of patriot, you don't capitalize American and when you post under 2 smart , you post the dumbest things. You truly are a sorry individual that wouldn't know what it means to be Christian, patriotic nor smart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u

Yes, we all know that you think everyone who disagrees with you is a dummy but think about you’re saying. You’re saying the first chicken didn’t come from an egg. So where did it come from? You can’t answer that, as your hero Bill O’Reilly would say.

The reason you can’t answer it is that it didn’t happen that way. The first chicken did come from an egg. You think you’ve been very clever by pointing out what seems like an impossibility in the opposing view but all you’ve done is the same thing you would have to do to “answer” the question “who created God?” You’ve walked yourself into the problem of infinite regress. There’s a link to that a few posts back.

That might have left you on even ground with the people you call “dummies” but you’re missing one important factor: science. You think you’ll never have to answer the question “who created God?” because this chicken-egg “dilemma” can’t be answered. That’s where you’re wrong. It is easily answered once you understand science, and in particular evolution.

If you had watched the NPR Video, you would have seen it explained that the first chicken egg did not come from a chicken. It came from a proto-chicken, an animal with DNA almost but not quite that of a chicken. Once you get that very simple point, the mystery is gone and the answer is clear.

So you see, this is the difference between science and fantasy. Science has answered many questions we never thought could be answered. This one is easy once you get the science. But if you’re ignorant and hell-bent on staying that way, you’ll never understand that, or much of anything else.

NPR ?? They're right up there with the Disney Channel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong again, Dummy. A chicken egg was created in the body of a chicken, ergo, a chicken came first. Unless you're a loony atheist, then you believe Mother Nature was the chicken.

The science of genetics tells us that the genetic makeup changes from generation to generation but not during the lifetime of an organism. So the egg has to come first because the genetics can't change as the egg becomes a chicken.

So let's see, science tells us the egg came first and you tell us the chicken came first. Which one should I believe, science or you? Yeah . . . yeah, that's a tough one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong again, Dummy. A chicken egg was created in the body of a chicken, ergo, a chicken came first. Unless you're a loony atheist, then you believe Mother Nature was the chicken.

So who created God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NPR ?? They're right up there with the Disney Channel.

When you have absolutely nothing to say, attack the source. NPR isn't trying to make a profit, so they're more independent than any of the commercial news organizations. In fact, if you want real news and not entertainment, it's a great place to learn about things in depth, which helps explain why you don't like NPR.

You still didn't watch the video, did you. Think about it this way. The egg had to come first. Once the egg embryo has been produced, its genetics do not change. So every chicken and every rooster carries the exact genetic material it started with in the egg. The only time a genetic change can occur is from generation to generation. That's why what seems like a dilemma isn't a dilemma at all. New species come about as a result of genetic changes, which can only occur from generation to generation. Therefore, the egg had to come first. Watch the video. Pretend you hear Rush Limbaugh talking.

Now, who created God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Species" is a category devised by people for human purposes. To be entirely technical, it is unlikely that either the chicken nor the egg came first, because evolution does not go from one species to another in a generation. However, it is true that all genetic changes occur from parent to offspring, so that every new form is in the egg first.

The more important point is that this is not a dilemma. There's no cosmic mystery here. It's just that most people are not accustomed to thinking about the tiny changes that occur from generation to generation, which add up over time to species change. If someone evolves from thinking magically to thinking scientifically, that's progress. And yes, evolution occurs in thought, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So who created God?

This is a great video on the link to "the egg." Anyone who wants to understand the science here should watch it. It gives the definitive answer to a question that people once thought was hard - only it isn't hard once you get the science.

Einstein was language delayed as a child. As an adult, he said this helped him become a scientist because it allowed him to experience the world just as it was for a longer time without having to fit it into the arbitrary categories imposed by language. The problem with the chicken/egg question is a problem of categories. They are never perfect. As the video points out, there is no point in evolution where a new species can be clearly identified. It's only in retrospect when we see the big picture that we can categorize species.

No doubt, 2dim will count that a black mark against science. But all he'll be doing is displaying his ignorance, yet again. There's no clear point at which a person becomes a senior citizen either. We just choose to say that it happens the moment you turn 65, or 62, or whenever a particular group decides to say "OK, now you're a senior citizen." You weren't middle aged a second before you hit 65, and you suddenly became old. It was a gradual process of becoming older over time. But because we humans use categories, we can get lost trying to understand what they mean. That's all that's going on with the chicken-egg question.

Again: It's a great video. Everyone should watch it.

"Black mark against science" ?? That's a racist remark ! You're a typical left wing hate monger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...