Who Created God?

[Cartoonist]

Man, obviously. Remember the "Intelligent Design" fad of a few years ago? The thinking went that the human eye is so complex that it obviously had to have been designed by a very smart fellow. ID was quickly crushed by its own concept. Surely, God is a complex being, so who created him? It's like that old saw, If God is so omnipotent, can he create a rock that even he can't lift?

This all gets to the question of infinity and the start of everything. Atheism has no answer to those questions, but we're still searching. The religious have given up and created God to explain everything. What are everyone's thoughts concerning infinity. I come up empty.

[TerrapinFlyer]

1. Time surpasses any "god"

Before any Gods were created.. there was Time.

[TheBlackAdder]

31. Ahh... Father Time. If God were alone, why did he have male private parts (Adam in his image)? nt

[Joe Turner]

60. "Time surpasses any "god""

We are prisoners of our universe and all the laws that govern it. We cannot comprehend a world without time or space. Mankind will be debating the existence of God until our civilization comes to an end. Trying to use one-dimensional simplistic logic to prove or disprove a Creator is futile. Of course this will never stop the extremists of either side of this eternal debate because it is just too damn fun to believe you know it all.

[cbayer]

2. Do you think it is possible that there might

be life elsewhere in the universe that has evolved to an even greater degree than humans have?

I think most people who believe in a god will tell you that they think god existed before anything else at all. Others may think that god is just a more highly evolved life form than we can even imagine.

What do you imagine there was before the big bang? Nothing? Something?

All kinds of people are searching for answers about infinity and the start of everything, not just atheists. Religious scholars generally do not think god explains everything at all and many, in fact, are some of the most dedicated searchers for truth and knowledge.

You are creating a division where none exists. These are just different paths all going in a similar direction.

At any rate, you conclusion that man created god is shared by many but it is no more true than someone's belief in god. It's only your belief.

[Jackpine Radical]

17. It has always been a puzzlement to me that humans have certain traits--

like the propensity to indulge in philosophical argument, sophisticated skill at graphic art at least as old as Cro-magnon times, universality of music, etc., that have little immediately apparent survival value in the Darwinian sense, but that are generally held to improve the quality, texture and meaning of life.

[cbayer]

18. I'm not sure that there is no survival value.

If painting or playing an instrument made you more sexually attractive, that would do it right there. If being more intelligent, or at least appearing to be more intelligent, was a factor in attraction, there is your value.

It's all about who gets sex.

[Jackpine Radical]

19. OK, any number of random traits can be "selected for" in that way.

And in fact Darwin used this argument as a hypothesis to explain racial differences.

And there is the problem. If that sort of random selection accounts for the plumage of the peacock, it also accounts for the appearance of the turkey. A random feedback loop between a trait and its sexual attractiveness is better for explaining how things diverge than how they converge. I would argue that the species-specific universality of the traits I originally mentioned stands as evidence that something more than random chance needs to be invoked as an explanatory device.

[cbayer]

24. I think it's simply random mutation that results in the increased likelihood

of procreating.

If a random mutation results in someone making a particular noise that has not been made before, and that noise increases opposite sex attraction resulting in more pregnancies, that trait is more likely to be genetically passed on.

The more esoteric things you bring up are only different in that they speak about attraction on a level that is not traditionally animalistic and that we consider rather uniquely human. But I think that is really just about human sexuality, which tends to be very complex.

This is somewhat a devil's advocate position I am taking, because I tend to agree that there is something else going on. I don't think that thing is inconsistent with Darwinian evolution at all, but I do think we do not yet understand it.

[Cartoonist]

53. Interesting mention of art

I may be revealing my ignorance, but are there examples of animal created art? I don't mean architecture like nests or hives. I know there are examples of animals using tools.

[Jackpine Radical]

55. I seem to recall a video of an elephant making paintings with a brush in its trunk.

Anyway, my argument would actually be strengthened if we found esthetic sensitivities in other animals.

[3catwoman3]

35. "Do you think it is possible that there might...

...be life elsewhere in the universe that has evolved to an even greater degree than humans have?

As I watch the rejection of intellect that seems to be a growing trend in this country, I sure hope so. I fear we are devolving.

[cbayer]

41. Agree and it's frightening.

We have built our own doomsday machine and I suspect that other species will move on ahead.

Perhaps too much "intelligence" of the human kind is not a good trait at all.

[bravenak]

3. I like this idea.

Don't get mad, please.
https://m.

[Agnosticsherbet]

4. When considering the universe on a quantum level, everything is probable and every probable state

exists at the same time.

So in infinite probabilities there are Quantum Gods.
And in an equal number there are none.

However, check out the internet and you will find that Intelligent design is alive and well in our probability because no bad idea is ever forgotten.

[pinto]

5. Does theoretical endeavor - spiritual, philosophical or scientific - share some things in common?

We, humans, seem to have a high degree of inquisitiveness among the life on earth. We're not the only ones, by far, but I think it's an accepted hallmark of humanity.

Part of that inquisitiveness may stem from some sense that none of us have all the answers but sure are interested.

[Arugula Latte]

6. I accept that the origins of the universe are beyond human comprehension at this point.

However, I don't think overlaying a supernatural explanation on it helps anything. Humans have just started to to comprehend some of this stuff (well, people like Stephen Hawking have, anyway), but to me the god explanation is like giving up and just saying: "Uhh -- Magic!"

[Cartoonist]

7. Thanks for the thoughtful responses

I didn't want to stir things up.
Two things have come up.

While I don't claim this is the way things are, I tend to go with the circular idea. The circle is one of natures dominant shapes. I see our universe expanding until it reaches some kind of limit, then it will collapse on itself until it ends up with another big bang.

I don't buy that infinite possibilities thing. The idea that there are realities in which I am rich, not poor, or an infinite number of possibilities leaves me asking one question: Why did I get stuck with this one?

[cbayer]

11. Who are you responding to?

[Cartoonist]

54. Posts 1-10

including yours, believe it or not.

[cbayer]

56. Oh, I don't see anything in there that responded to my post.

I asked some questions.

[Cartoonist]

57. That counts as a response

It moves the conversation without being confrontational. That's positive.

[cbayer]

58. So, are you going to actually respond to my post when I asked you some questions?

You don't have to of course, but that is really what moves a conversation.

BTW, when you make the statement that religious people have given up and it's only atheists that are looking for answers, that's confrontational. It's also profoundly wrong.

[Cartoonist]

61. Accepting God as the creator

means you can't ask these questions. It shows doubt. HRM, for example, has bought into the whole God thing. To even ask if there was something before God would make him an agnostic.

[cbayer]

62. Garbage. There are scientists and mathematicians and philosophers and

every kind of questioning person that you can imagine that are also religious believers. They don't feel that restriction that you have only imagined. Asking if there was something before god has absolutely nothing to do with a belief in god and certainly doesn't make one an agnostic.

BTW, saying that a very nice, very sane religious believer has "bought into the whole God thing" is confrontational.

[CJCRANE]

8. What created the Tao?

[Htom Sirveaux]

9. I don't think God is complex.

I see God as pure, unbound existence, as simple as you can get, which voluntarily created limits and complexities for the sake of having an other to love. Furthermore, it seems to me that such an entity would precede time, and thus there would be no "before God" for a "creator of God" to exist in.

[cbayer]

10. Conceptually, that is a really intriguing way of looking at it.

I can't wrap my head around "before there was time" but it sure is fun to try.

[3catwoman3]

40. I remember the first time I heard a science teacher...

...say that the universe was infinite, but was expanding. How can something get bigger if it has no end? I'm still chewing on that one.

[cbayer]

43. These kinds of questions are so above my pay grade, I get dizzy thinking about them.

But I love it when Neil Degrasse Tyson does some 'splaining. He has made previously incomprehensible ideas comprehensible for me.

[3catwoman3]

45. Did he have an...

...answer for this one?

[cbayer]

47. I don't know, but I would love to hear him talk about it.

:swoon:

[cbayer]

13. I knew about elephants, but this other information is new to me.

It makes sense that many of our own rituals would not be unique to humans.

[Cartoonist]

14. Anthropomorphism

look it up

[Cartoonist]

16. You had me on ignore?

And missed all my wonderfulness? Attributing a belief in God to the animal kingdom is so laughable that I insist you put me back on ignore.

[okasha]

21. Last time I looked

humans were part of the animal kingdom.

[cbayer]

25. Well, "Atheism has no answer to those questions, but we're still searching."

Maybe the OP will discover the truth about humans being animals.

[Cartoonist]

52. I was responding to the God part

I believe animals have emotions and experience grief. When my brother died, our family got together as a way of emotional healing. God wasn't part of the picture.

[okasha]

20. To carolinayellowdog

It looks as though you made a couple really interesting posts that I missed. Would you please consider reposting?

[hrmjustin]

23. Agreed. interfaith is a good place for it to be posted.

[cbayer]

26. Also to cyd, your post was great, but

putting a thoughtful and thought provoking response in a thread like this generally doesn't work. Man "obviously" created god and there really is nothing else to be said.

I smell a Nobel Prize.

[carolinayellowdog]

63. Once deleted they're gone, but I did repost about the article in question

in Interfaith. Here I had agreed, explicitly and precisely, with the OP and said that of course and obviously, since "God" is a spoken and written human word, humans created it. Not one word in the blog post I quoted here, nor the philosopher whose views it discussed, attributed any kind of theological thinking to animals. The term god was not mentioned, just "religious behavior." So the disdainful and disrespectful response was not to anything I think or wrote, nor to anything stated in the article in question. But even a friendly and respectful response to the post in Interfaith involved a misreading of what Schaefer and De Waals think about what religion really is-- so to clarify the point I'll repost my explanation here:

"It seems to me to imply that such emotions must be dependent on a belief in a 'higher power' or the related concept of an afterlife" is precisely the opposite of what is implied by the articles. Rather, what develops in humans as belief in a higher power or afterlife MUST BE DEPENDENT on such emotions which existed for millions of years in other species.

If you simply define religion in purely human cognitive terms, then by definition animals are incapable of it. Case closed, problem solved, but it seems like an evasion of the essential question posed by the article.

Obviously animals don't have thoughts about religion like those humans that attempt to explain the universe. But is religion purely a matter of thinking in symbolic terms, or is it (equally if not more so) a matter of feeling awe and connectedness? Schaefer argues the latter:


Schaefer argues that the best explanation for these animal behaviors is that these animals are expressing religious emotion—they are naturally reacting to the mystery and “divinity” around them. As Schaefer puts it, “Animal religion… is a product of bodies constructed inside particular evolutionary-historical lineages—affective, pre-linguistic bodies.” In other words, religion is not primarily about beliefs or highly cognitively demanding complex systems, but about something affective and bodily. Animal religion does not have language or philosophy, and it does not need to to be religion because religion is much more primitive (perhaps even more natural) than either of those.

[Cartoonist]

66. "religious behavior."

When I see the word religion, I automatically think of deities and such. Sorry if my response was out of line.

You didn't need to delete your posts because of my misunderstanding. I still disagree with the argument put forth, but that's what debate is about.

[WhiteTara]

22. why does there have to be a start?

That contradicts infinity.

[cbayer]

29. Yeah, it's because of those kinds of contradictions that

they are still working on it.

[Skittles]

27. people who are unable to live in reality

[cbayer]

28. Are you really proposing that the vast majority of people on this planet are unable

to live in reality or is this just snark?

[Skittles]

30. could be snark

maybe not

[cbayer]

33. Would the corollary be that the only people able to live in reality

are people who don't believe in god?

Perhaps what you think is reality really isn't. Not uncommon.

[Skittles]

36. not even a tiny bit interested in continuing

it bores me; I have heard it all before

[okasha]

34. My guess is that it's a combination

of tribalism and ignorance.

[cbayer]

38. Well, she has heard it all before so her conclusions are probably absolutely accurate.

[hrmjustin]

32. It is a mystey of faith for me. i am happy to leave it a mystery.

[cbayer]

37. No, no. You are just a person who is unable to live in reality

and who has given up and created God to explain everything.

It has to be true. I read it right here in this thread!

[hrmjustin]

39. Ahhh! You blew my cover!

[cbayer]

44. Ha! You are so transparent.

Answer this, why don't you.

If god is so omnipotent, could he create a triangle with internal angles that did not add up to 180 degrees?

Well, could he??

[hrmjustin]

46. .

[cbayer]

48. Happy Saturday, you young sot! Hope you have a great evening.

[hrmjustin]

50. You too cbayer!

[Joe Turner]

42. Who Created God?

Is like asking Who created the Universe? If time can be considered another dimension in our universe both these questions have no definitive answer. It's why I remain Agnostic. Such questions are well beyond our ability to even begin to understand.

[cbayer]

49. Agree. Taking definitive stances on things that can probably never be understood is...

well, you choose a word.

"I don't know" is the right answer.

[Cartoonist]

59. No definitive answer, YET

I don't know if it's beyond our ability to understand. Maybe we will have to evolve some more. You know, grow those enormous brains.

[rogerashton]

51. She created herself along with the universe.

Indeed God and the universe are the same thing, more or less, looked at from different points of view. "I am that I am." (But please don't put any other Biblical words in my mouth -- that's a source I use selectively.)

[rug]

64. IF you reject the notion of the super-natural, you'll get no answer beyond infinite regression.

Barring Larry Krauss writing another book.

The reason why God is not simply a stopgap is that it is utterly unlike anything in nature.

[NYC_SKP]

65. Science and Faith both rely on unprovable and unknowable concepts and beliefs.

Both are human inventions, states of mind.

It is to laugh.

[Iggo]

67. Some fucking genius of a caveman.

[Cartoonist]

68. That would make him the first priest

[NeoGreen]

69. Kick...

...(interesting) thread resurrection.

[edhopper]

70. We don't know what happened before the Universe

or what is outside the Universe, therefore not enough information except for highly speculative theories.

I think it had something to do with the Celestials, Galactus and the Infinity Stones. Or maybe The Source.