Who created God?

>heh huh so nothing exploded and everything appeared huh mhmm? muh stupid atheists
Well so why should we even add an extra step into this model? It's not a better explanation if there was eternal unexplained singularity first and then unexplained God out of it instead of just sole eternal unexplained singularity.

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You're thinking like a man. God is not man.

    When God created the world, he decided every single thing down to it's smallest detail. It is he who made it so that something must come from something. God existed before he made such a rule. He does not need to operate by it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Man created god you idiot

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I disagree.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Atheist "arguments"

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What was before God?
      >inb4: nothing
      How is God different from singularity then?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >he decided every single thing
      You're thinking like a man too, your model boils down to functionally same model as big bang atheists'

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What's the other model then?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >You're thinking like a man too,
        Somewhat. We cannot truly grasp the mysteries of God. I can only try to reason with my limited understanding.

        A chair made of nothing is something we can slightly imagine, but not really. However, for God something like that is fully possible.

        What was before God?
        >inb4: nothing
        How is God different from singularity then?

        >What was before God?
        I don't know. I don't think there was a before God. God is not something bound by past present and future.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >I don't think there was a before singularity. Singularity is not something bound by past present and future.
          So what's the difference? Besides singularity not being claimed to have a human form.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand what you mean by singularity.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I can only read this briefly as I am heading to bed soon, but I don't see the need to compare it to God. Many people believe God has a physical body, but we are told in the bible that God is spirit "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." Though, we also know Jesus , who has a physical body, is God. "I and the Father are one." "Because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

            The trinity is something I don't believe we can ever hope to understand. At least not in this world. It's something that doesn't operate by our laws. Christianity is a religion strongly of faith.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >You're thinking like a man.
      That's rich comic from the guy who explains literally everything with "big man in the sky wanted it that way".

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >You're thinking like a man
      You don't think like a man? What are you, a woman?

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think the arguments goes that there had to be something truly outside this universe, something completely immaterial, to set the chain of causality in motion.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And what was that? If you mean this thing was not God, it sounds too close to blasphemy. If you mean it was God, it doesn't solve the problem whether it was material or immaterial. What was before God?

      >You're thinking like a man.
      That's rich comic from the guy who explains literally everything with "big man in the sky wanted it that way".

      IIRC he was never stated to be actually big but yeah, he definitely is an anthropomorphic being in Christianity. It actually is an important point, the claim thay God is not a literal man in the sky was denounced as one of the first heresies.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Such a thing or being would operate beyond the rules of the material world. Beyond concepts like cause or time. The argument is precisely that the material worldn't be possible without something, which requires no cause itself, something completely BEYOND this world.
        If you accept that, then the question is what this thing or being is like. Can we call it God? Does it have a will? Is is omnipotent? Did it send it's only-begotten son down to earth to redeem us from sin? I think Aquinas tries to answer these questions, though I have not read him.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Beyond concepts like cause or time.
          Just like the singularity, yeah. For the first, because it's just mindless, for the latter, because it's just too heavy. Why a sentient man-like creature is needed anywhere in such a model?
          >argument is precisely that
          The argument is (though indeed it might be a strawman from my side), the Big Bang cosmology theory is deemed by Christians to fail because it doesn't explain from where the first-first original pre-thing emerged but the point is, Christianity doesn't explain it either.

          I can only read this briefly as I am heading to bed soon, but I don't see the need to compare it to God. Many people believe God has a physical body, but we are told in the bible that God is spirit "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." Though, we also know Jesus , who has a physical body, is God. "I and the Father are one." "Because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

          The trinity is something I don't believe we can ever hope to understand. At least not in this world. It's something that doesn't operate by our laws. Christianity is a religion strongly of faith.

          >Many people believe
          All Christians believe, the anthropological nature of God (the Father) is only slightly less essential for any of modern conventional churches than the Trinity itself.
          >trinity is something
          Depends on definition. The one that claims the persons are different manifestations of God is quite easy but it's a heresy too for what I know.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Christian claim is that the material reality could not begin by itself without an immaterial intervention. That there can not be explanation for force and matter to appear out of nowhere or exist without a cause without something beyond it creating it. The next claim is that this thing is God.
            It makes no sense to ask what preceeded that immaterial thing, since it requires no cause. The proper counterargument to that claim is that the material world could birth itself and that original thing was purely material.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Quite literally not a single person in the world still believes in god. Let it go already.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's really based you consider only Europe to be "the world" but let's use a wider definition anon.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What do you see in nature?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Reflected photons sir. Tip your hat please.

      The Christian claim is that the material reality could not begin by itself without an immaterial intervention. That there can not be explanation for force and matter to appear out of nowhere or exist without a cause without something beyond it creating it. The next claim is that this thing is God.
      It makes no sense to ask what preceeded that immaterial thing, since it requires no cause. The proper counterargument to that claim is that the material world could birth itself and that original thing was purely material.

      There's not really an actual opposition of material and immaterial at least in cosmology, and originally even the Heavens had been taken literally. Besides, God didn't merely give a spark of life or something out of nowhere, he already had been pre-existing in the same state as his creation as he is an anthropomorphic being according to the canon.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Who created God?
    Cobson (PBUH)

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Cobson was created by BBC himself.
      >Verification not required.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It’s almost like God is eternal and all powerful like descriptions depict him as

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Wow singularity is eternal too. Why a man in a cloud?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >man in a cloud
        Atheists have such a childish interpretation of what God is. Maybe some people believe in a man in the sky but God itself is quite literally everything and the fact that our current and best understanding of the universe is that it emerged from a singularity is quite consistent with the idea that God created the universe.

        You don’t have a problem with God, you have a problem with the personification of God, which is simply a human interpretation of what God is, which is obsolete and imperfect. You can’t take God out of the universe because God IS the universe.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *