Who Made God?

If you approach this with the idea that God created the universe for man’s sake, then certain things are not going to add up.

The Bible tells us very clearly that God created the universe for His own sake and for His own glory. This is especially true about His plan of redemption for mankind. It was in order to magnify His own glory and make known to his redeemed children the richness of his mercy and grace so that they may glorify and worship Him forever.

So you have two choices. Bow down and serve God as your Lord and king, or shake your fist at Him and tell Him that His creation and his plan for humanity are not good enough in your opinion. And that you would have done better if you were god.

I just wanted to add to my last post what bowing down and worshiping God as Lord and king means for those he has redeemed (the following is all from Scripture):

  • Freedom from the law of sin and death

  • Adoption into God’s family and the right to be called sons and daughters of God.

  • An anchor in the storm. Knowledge that God is working all things out for the good of those who love Him.

  • Eternal life on a new, redeemed earth in a new, perfected body. The Bible does not tell us that believers will spend eternity floating around playing harps, but rather that we will live, work, learn, feast, create, worship and live with God on a perfected earth where there will be no more sin and no more sorrow. Man was made to be physical, and that is what we will be after the resurrection and the judgement.

You are actually much more closer to the truth than you realize,the latest finding in science are that there is not one universe, but many, maybe a couple of millions (or billions ???), and not one Big bang, but countless Big bangs, our Big Bang is just one of many,so what did God do with all that time he had left after he created our universe in six days?, he created a billion other universes !!!

[quote]topmuscle wrote:
You are actually much more closer to the truth than you realize,the latest finding in science are that there is not one universe, but many, maybe a couple of millions (or billions ???), and not one Big bang, but countless Big bangs, our Big Bang is just one of many,so what did God do with all that time he had left after he created our universe in six days?, he created a billion other universes !!![/quote]

I was ALMOST going to put on my Physics-Nazi cap and address every single one of your “imprecisions” above (starting with you calling it a “latest finding”), but that would probably take me the rest of the day, and, honestly, I have better stuff to do…

So I’ll just say this: next time, please read at least ONE Astrophysics book before you talk about it, OK?

[quote]topmuscle wrote:
You are actually much more closer to the truth than you realize,the latest finding in science are that there is not one universe, but many, maybe a couple of millions (or billions ???), and not one Big bang, but countless Big bangs, our Big Bang is just one of many,so what did God do with all that time he had left after he created our universe in six days?, he created a billion other universes !!![/quote]

Like hspder said, it would take too long to address everything that’s wrong in what you wrote, but basically, there are no such “recent findings” in science.

People actually interested in science would benefit greatly in learning it from recent science books and publications, instead of thousand year old books and sci-fi movies.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

The Tsunami disaster was an indescribable negative occurrence. That much human suffering from one natural disaster is often hard to put into words. I think it is natural to ask why things happen. Why did my Grandmother have to die the way she did. She helped a lot of people in her life time…most of all me. Why did she have to suffer? One thing I can tell you, is that I work harder and live harder because of it. I know I won’t live forever and that nothing is guaranteed. In my honest view, if a man lives well in spite of the negative, there isn’t anything much better. I have also seen some very negative things in my life. Maybe it helps me appreciate the positive that much more.[/quote]

Personally, I don’t believe there is an inherent reason why things happen the way they do. Assuming an omnibenevolent God, though, I still wonder how it can be that any creature would have to suffer the consequences of “natural evil”, i.e. evil which is not the consequence of the exertion of free will.

Anyway, I guess the way you see things in this regard is the most constructive approach one can take. I for my part don’t always manage to take away something positive from negative (from my perspective) occurrences. At least knowing that I have done everything possible at that time in order to make the positive occur and the negative stay away gives satisfaction to some extent, even when things go wrong.

[quote]

In all honesty, do you get the impression that the majority of the people in the world are deep thinkers? Do the majority come across as “highly intelligent” to you? Is that even necessary to understand the value of human life?[/quote]

No, no and no. As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t even consider it necessary to be exceedingly knowledgeable with regard to the bible or the philosophical substructure of any specific system of belief to be a religious person and to live a life compliant to the moral framework of that system.

The issue I was alluding to is that some definitions of God in the bible which describe Him using negative human attributes and experiencing negative emotions seem diametrically opposed to what I would consider God to be. As far as I know, the words omnipotent, omniscient or omnibenevolent aren’t mentioned in the bible. Nevertheless, I think Pookie summed it up very well…

[quote]pookie wrote:
For those who believe in God, that’s what God is: A perfect being. He has to be, or else he’s not “God”.[/quote]

Surely, there would be ways to signalise this “perfection”, yet at the same time keep the verbalisation simple enough for a broad range of readers to understand, e.g.

1 John 4:8
He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

Why did God not choose to do so?

[quote]
I think we did pretty good. Don’t you?[/quote]

Yes, you did. Just as I expected…

:wink:

[quote]JPBear wrote:
If you approach this with the idea that God created the universe for man’s sake, then certain things are not going to add up.

The Bible tells us very clearly that God created the universe for His own sake and for His own glory. This is especially true about His plan of redemption for mankind. It was in order to magnify His own glory and make known to his redeemed children the richness of his mercy and grace so that they may glorify and worship Him forever.[/quote]

I understand. What would a “perfect” being gain by creating something “for His own glory”, “magnifying His glory”, being worshipped by His creation, etc., though? The way I see it, God by definition is complete in every sense already, so His glory could already be considered infinite.[quote]

So you have two choices. Bow down and serve God as your Lord and king, or shake your fist at Him and tell Him that His creation and his plan for humanity are not good enough in your opinion. And that you would have done better if you were god.
[/quote]
There are more choices as there is the possibility of not believing in God at all.

[quote]michael2507 wrote:

I understand. What would a “perfect” being gain by creating something “for His own glory”, “magnifying His glory”, being worshipped by His creation, etc., though? The way I see it, God by definition is complete in every sense already, so His glory could already be considered infinite.
[/quote]

You are right. The whole creation could disappear and God would not lose any of His attributes or his perfections. God does not have needs, but He does have desires, and one of His desires is to make his glory known to His creation.

I have also heard it explained that every single attribute of God can be expressed by God outside of a fallen humanity, except for the attribute of mercy.

[quote]michael2507 wrote:
There are more choices as there is the possibility of not believing in God at all. [/quote]

Everyone knows there is a God. God has put that knowledge in them. He evidences Himself to the whole world through the mystery of His creation, and through the conscience he has placed in man.

[quote]JPBear wrote:

You are right. The whole creation could disappear and God would not lose any of His attributes or his perfections. God does not have needs, but He does have desires, and one of His desires is to make his glory known to His creation.[/quote]

Doesn’t the very same problem mentioned above also pertain to desires? What could an inherently perfect and complete being have to desire? Wouldn’t the insight that nothing could possibly add to one’s perfection only lead to an unconditional acceptance of what is as opposed to yearning for some other state?

[quote]
Everyone knows there is a God. God has put that knowledge in them. He evidences Himself to the whole world through the mystery of His creation, and through the conscience he has placed in man. [/quote]

While I appreciate your insight, I definitely don’t agree with this. First of all, I consider the issue inherently unknowable, there is as little proof for the existence of God as there is against. How can you affirm the truth-value of the statement “God exists”? It’s a matter of believing or not believing.

As for the statement “Everyone knows there is a God”, the problem is taken a step further here. Even if you could provide proof of the existence of God on this thread for all to see, the statement would still remain incorrect as at present there still would be people who don’t believe in God, much less know that he exists.

Perfection is sterial,
perfection does’nt need anything,
does’nt want anything
does’nt create anything,
perfection is the end not the beginning,therefore a perfect God(omnipotent and all the rest) is in itself an absurd idee,because only an inperfect God, one with needs and desires will create and produce anything

[quote]pookie wrote:
topmuscle wrote:
You are actually much more closer to the truth than you realize,the latest finding in science are that there is not one universe, but many, maybe a couple of millions (or billions ???), and not one Big bang, but countless Big bangs, our Big Bang is just one of many,so what did God do with all that time he had left after he created our universe in six days?, he created a billion other universes !!!

Like hspder said, it would take too long to address everything that’s wrong in what you wrote, but basically, there are no such “recent findings” in science.

People actually interested in science would benefit greatly in learning it from recent science books and publications, instead of thousand year old books and sci-fi movies.
[/quote]

I got my “recent findings” from a program called:“HORIZON” that regarerly airs on BBC2 in Britain, I don’t know if it can be seen in the USA (maybe on PBS ??),so I am talking about science, recent TODAY science, and NOT sciencefiction.

[quote]topmuscle wrote:
I got my “recent findings” from a program called:“HORIZON” that regarerly airs on BBC2 in Britain, I don’t know if it can be seen in the USA (maybe on PBS ??),so I am talking about science, recent TODAY science, and NOT sciencefiction.[/quote]

Most science shown on TV is very old. Nova aired last year a “new” program on string theory that was pretty much based on a book (The Elegant Universe, by Brian Greene) published in 1998, which dealt with String Theory as it was understood around 1995… The program’s outlook was quite upbeat and optimistic, but since then, ST has had somewhat of a downturn.

I don’t know which theory your program takes its info from (it might be recent ST findings, but the possible universes are not “2 billions” but more like 10^500 (10 to the 500th power) ).

Having not seen the program, I can’t really comment further upon it; but if you want recent findings that are actually recent, you’re better off with magazines or, even more recent, you can read papers submitted by scientist mere days after they submit them here: http://xxx.lanl.gov/

TV programs tend to be quite outdated by the time they make it to the air.

Who made who, who made you?
Who made who, ain’t nobody told you?
Who made who, who made you?
If you made them and they made you
Who picked up the bill, who? And who made who?