If god created the universe, then who created god? (question for theists)

[TheStrangest]

@sumof1 said in If god created the universe, then who created god? (question for theists):

@thestrangest she was joking

I don't see how but k

[TheStrangest]

@jacob55 said in If god created the universe, then who created god? (question for theists):

I know I'm about to incur the wrath of thestrangest, lol, but I don't care.
I've searched for the smallest particals that we are aware of and I keep finding "quark".

Yeah that is probably the smallest thing, 1 of the 5 quarks

As far as I know and have read, there isn't an easy answer as to what a quark is or made of.

We know what quarks do and approximately how much they weigh so we know what they are but as far as i know "what are they made of" question doesn't need to be asked, everything is energy

It is super tiny, fits in protons and neutrons, which make the atom, etc etc. Atoms are found in every bit of matter. From active to inactive materials, every single thing in the universe is made up of atoms, all the way down to quarks.

No, quarks form atoms, atoms do not form quarks.

I brought all this up because science has shown that our universe started with an explosion, "the Big Bang", a massive collection of energy (innumerable amounts of these quarks) and blew outward to expand the universe. So those quarks always existed even before being collected into the titanic ball of energy. Where is those quarks come from? They always existed.

We don't know, man, but they could have always existed or in better words, spacetime didn't exist before the big bang therefore there was nothing before it so in other words quarks existed since the beginning of time (and space) but there could aswell be a multiverse(which is the most likely possibility IF there was even something before the Big Bang)

Theists gather from scripture that God is eternal. Always was, always will be. Like those quarks, always was, always will be.

Sure but no scientists asserts that, it is merely a possibility i.g.

Scripture says humans are made in the image of God.

Logic says God is made(made up) in the image of man

Quarks bonded together, thanks to Gluons, to form protons/neutrons, so on so forth; just as they must have before in order to exist.

"Just as they must have before in order to exist" weirdly stated statement but if all you're saying is that quarks formed everything through time then true

Humans are created through conception, same as most every "living" thing. Animals, plants, and chemical compounds (like H²O. Gasses coming together to make water).

eggs...

In the King James Version of The Holy Bible, New Testament, Christ said in John 5: 18-19:
"18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise."
Jesus claims to do what God, His father, has done. Jesus claims to be God's son. Jesus was living a life on Earth, in a body of flesh and blood. God, at one point in all of eternity, lived as a man in a body of flesh and blood.

You do understand that the bible is not a historical textbook r8? As far as we know we jesus might have not even existed since there is no historical proof for his existence, I'm not saying he didn't exist, I'm just saying the bible has as much historical merit as the Harry Potter books

God was created by His own Celestial parents, and so on.

And somehow his celestial parents are also himself, k christian theology

(This is were I'm guessing I'll be questioned on my sanity) To answer the main question simply... Just as matter has always existed and been formed from other matter, so is the same with God, created and formed by another God. Like parents creating children and raising them to go on and do the same. An eternal cycle.

Yeah... as far as we know none of this ever happened m8, no proof, no good reason to believe it. Contrary to Jesus we know and have evidence for the existence of quaeks and the happening of the Big Bang and even if we know for sure he existed that doesn't mean that his claims of being the son of a god were true.I don't get your point

[Jacob55]

@thestrangest Hahaha. Thank you for giving my post your thorough go-over.
I didn't say the Bible was a historical textbook, I said it was scripture. The second definition of scripture is "the sacred writings of a religion" and that is the context that I was using. Not historical, but theological.
Eggs... Well, are we talking fertilized or...
I may have mis-written about atoms to quarks, I meant that quarks made atoms, I just used a digressive pattern rather than progressive. My bad.
I mean my argument to be taken as possible just as much as the theory of the Big Bang. So my point is a possibility. I'm working on being clearer. 😊

[TheStrangest]

@jacob55 said in If god created the universe, then who created god? (question for theists):

@thestrangest Hahaha. Thank you for giving my post your thorough go-over.
I didn't say the Bible was a historical textbook, I said it was scripture. The second definition of scripture is "the sacred writings of a religion" and that is the context that I was using. Not historical, but theological

Sure, except what is and isn't sacred is arbitrary, i personally am on the side of "nothing is sacred"

Eggs... Well, are we talking fertilized or...

You said all life is conceived

if i am not wrong(i definitely might be) when an animal comes from an egg it isn't conceived but even if it is and i just forgot what conception meant the first multicellular cells definitely were not conceived

I may have mis-written about atoms to quarks, I meant that quarks made atoms, I just used a digressive pattern rather than progressive. My bad

No problem

I mean my argument to be taken as possible just as much as the theory of the Big Bang.

How about... hell no? We know and have proof for the big bang, we even record and know the amount if radiation left in the universe from the big bang, there is 0 evidence for the existence of jesus, god or really anything in the bible, it even has stuff that are JUST WRONG(couldn't have happened) like Adam and Eve, the world being created in 6 days, witchcraft(1 samuel 15:23) and all the "miracles"

So my point is a possibility. I'm working on being clearer. 😊

Yeah please continue working on that. I still don't think i fully understood your points

P.S. sorry for the late reply, i wasn't home

[hi17detective07]

If you are asking in a literal sense it would be his mom, who's identity is unknown. Don't try to ask about who his mother is.
But if you are talking about how God was created in order to create the world that we live in today, the most realistic answer would be the first microorganism that had first appeared on earth. Due to that one organism, it would cause a chain reaction that results in the evolution of many animals, insects, plants, etc.
However, if you believe that God, as a super human, created everything on earth, then I have no answer for that.

[NutellaBigGoat]

@mcurie God's parents. When a sperm meets an egg, it forms a zygote.

[SUmof1]

When you say ‘who created God’ after someone tells you that God created the universe, then that means you assume their first statement to be true therefore you now believe in God. So if you ask that question then you already believe in God, God exists, case closed.

[TheStrangest]

@sumof1 said in If god created the universe, then who created god? (question for theists):

When you say ‘who created God’ after someone tells you that God created the universe, then that means you assume their first statement to be true therefore you now believe in God. So if you ask that question then you already believe in God, God exists, case closed.

This is a perfect case of @SUmof1 trolling

Scenario 1 (theists be like)

P1 (person1)- I have a 1000 kg seal in my living room

P2 (person2)- I don't believe you

P1 (person1)- Well why don't you prove it isn't there?

Now replace the word "seal" with "god"

This isn't what you did, what you did is even dumber IF you were serious

Scenario 2

P2 (person2)- Well how did the seal get into the room? It can't fit through the door or the window

P1 (person1)- why should i prove to you that it exists, in order for you to ask how it got there you must have to already believe that it exists because you OFCOURSE couldn't have assumed a premise you don't believe in to ask a rhetorical question and drive a point in, you definitely believe in the all mighty seal so there is no need for me to say more

P2 (person2) -

[SUmof1]

@thestrangest the universe is a little bit bigger than a room

[TheStrangest]

@sumof1 said in If god created the universe, then who created god? (question for theists):

@thestrangest the universe is a little bit bigger than a room

IT'S AN ANALOGUE. JIGGA STOP THE TROLLING THE SIZE OF THE ROOM IN THE ANALOGY IS AS RELEVANT TO THE ARGUMENT AS THE SIZE OF SHREK'S DICK

[Jacob55]

@thestrangest 0 evidence of Jesus... That is an incorrect statement. According to modern day historians, 1 ancient Jewish historian and two Roman politicians around the Second Century AD who make reference to Jesus of Nazareth. Flavtheius Josephus (the Jewish historian), who wrote a history of Judaism around AD93 who references James the brother of Jesus, "the so-called Christ", then Pliny and Tacitus write of Jesus and his followers. Tacitus making note that Jesus was executed by Pontius Pilate.
Just because a book is deemed "sacred" doesn't make it 100% inaccurate to historical events or figures.

[SUmof1]

@thestrangest said in If god created the universe, then who created god? (question for theists):

@sumof1 said in If god created the universe, then who created god? (question for theists):

@thestrangest the universe is a little bit bigger than a room

IT'S AN ANALOGUE. JIGGA STOP THE TROLLING THE SIZE OF THE ROOM IN THE ANALOGY IS AS RELEVANT TO THE ARGUMENT AS THE SIZE OF SHREK'S DICK

Cringe.

[TheStrangest]

@jacob55 said in If god created the universe, then who created god? (question for theists):

@thestrangest 0 evidence of Jesus... That is an incorrect statement. According to modern day historians, 1 ancient Jewish historian and two Roman politicians around the Second Century AD who make reference to Jesus of Nazareth. Flavtheius Josephus (the Jewish historian), who wrote a history of Judaism around AD93 who references James the brother of Jesus, "the so-called Christ", then Pliny and Tacitus write of Jesus and his followers. Tacitus making note that Jesus was executed by Pontius Pilate.

1st Josephus's works are generally accept to be forgeries, the only debate that remains is on how much of it isn't forged if it isn't 100% forged, he talked about MANY Jesuses in his books and none of them completely fit the description of the christian jesus, here are the 2 most common citations and a short explanation on how they are most definitely forgeries.

The Testimonium Flavianum

"About this time, there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah(Christ). When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.Citation 12"

A citation that comes next

"Ananus… convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned."

-Josephus was jewish and these are not things a devout jew would write(e.g. "Jesus was the messiah/christ", "On the third day he appeared to them restored to life"... would never have been written by him)
-Josephus is usually sophisticated in his vocabulary(E.g. he wouldn't have said "he won over many jews and many of the greeks"... without saying to what he would have won them, he also wouldn't have said that he was one "who wrought surprising feats"/"a doer of incredible feats"... without giving examples and explaining what he meant)
-Josephus usually explained anything out of the ordinary to his audience(Christ was not a common word in gentle vocabulary so Josephus wouldn't have used such a word without explaining what a Christ is, neither would he have said that there were Christians without explaining what Christians are)

If you strip away all the things that Josephus would have never written the only thing that remains is "About this time, there lived Jesus, a wise man" not to mention that even this should be stripped away since not only is the whole citation above out of place and doesn't fit in the story Josephus was telling but even if it was just this small "about this time lived Jesus..." then Josephus would have most definitely explained who this Jesus is and what his role in the story is

For the James citation to not waste anymore of my time I'll just quote one of the 2 sources i state below

"It must be admitted that this passage does not intrude into the text as does the one previously quoted. In fact, it is very well integrated into Josephus’ story. That it has been modified from whatever Josephus’ source may have said (remember, here too, Josephus could not have been an eye-witness) is nevertheless extremely probable. The crucial word in this passage is the name James (Jacob in Greek and Hebrew). It is very possible that this very common name was in Josephus’ source material. It might even have been a reference to James the Just, a first-century character we have good reason to believe indeed existed. Because he appears to have born the title Brother of the Lord,Note Hit would have been natural to relate him to the Jesus character. It is quite possible that Josephus actually referred to a James “the Brother of the Lord,” and this was changed by Christian copyists (remember that although Josephus was a Jew, his text was preserved only by Christians!) to “Brother of Jesus” – adding then for good measure “who was called Christ.” According to William Benjamin Smith’s skeptical classic Ecce Deus,Citation 15there are still some manuscripts of Josephus which contain the quoted passages, but the passages are absent in other manuscripts – showing that such interpolation had already been taking place before the time of Origen but did not ever succeed in supplanting the original text universally."

Sources:

https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/did-jesus-exist/

But if you prefer a video breakdown and in depth explanation, here is one:

Now for the next 2 i hope you forgive me for this but if the 1st one took me so long i really am not in the mood for these 2. I would appreciate it if you can just read these 2 citations i spent some time to pick but if you don't want to I'll just come back to this in 1-4 weeks and write a long ass text explaining why they do not provide historical proof for the jesus of christianity

2nd Pliny

In addition to the palpably bogus passage in the Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus called the "Testimonium Flavianum" is another of the pitiful "references" dutifully trotted out by apologists to prove the existence of Jesus Christ: To wit, a short passage in the works of the Roman historian Pliny the Younger. While proconsul of Bithynia, a province in the northwest of Asia Minor, Pliny purportedly wrote a letter in 110 CE to the Emperor Trajan requesting his assistance in determining the proper punishment for "Christiani" who were causing trouble and would not renounce "Christo" as their god or bow down to the image of the Emperor. These recalcitrant Christiani, according to the Pliny letter, met "together before daylight" and sang "hymns with responses to Christ as a god," binding themselves "by a solemn institution, not to any wrong act." Regarding this letter, Rev. Robert Taylor remarks

"If this letter be genuine, these nocturnal meetings were what no prudent government could allow; they fully justify the charges of Caecilius in Minutius Felix, of Celsus in Origen, and of Lucian, that the primitive Christians were a skulking, light-shunning, secret, mystical, freemasonry sort of confederation, against the general welfare and peace of society."

Taylor also comments that, at the time this letter was purportedly written, "Christians" were considered to be followers of the Greco-Egyptian god Serapis and that "the name of Christ [was] common to the whole rabblement of gods, kings, and priests." Writing around 134 CE, Hadrian purportedly stated:

"The worshippers of Serapis are Christians, and those are devoted to the God Serapis, who call themselves the bishops of Christ. There is no ruler of a Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Presbyter of the Christians, who is not either an astrologer, a soothsayer, or a minister to obscene pleasures. The very Patriarch himself, should he come into Egypt, would be required by some to worship Serapis, and by others to worship Christ. They have, however, but one God, and it is one and the self-same whom Christians, Jews and Gentiles alike adore, i.e., money."

It is thus possible that the "Christos" or "Anointed" god Pliny's "Christiani" were following was Serapis himself, the syncretic deity created by the priesthood in the third century BCE. In any case, this god "Christos" was not a man who had been crucified in Judea.

Moreover, like his earlier incarnation Osiris, Serapis—both popular gods in the Roman Empire—was called not only Christos but also "Chrestos," centuries before the common era. Indeed, Osiris was styled "Chrestos," centuries before his Jewish copycat Jesus was ever conceived....

In any event, the value of the Pliny letter as "evidence" of Christ's existence is worthless, as it makes no mention of "Jesus of Nazareth," nor does it refer to any event in his purported life. There is not even a clue in it that such a man existed. As Taylor remarks, "We have the name of Christ, and nothing else but the name, where the name of Apollo or Bacchus would have filled up the sense quite as well." Taylor then casts doubt on the authenticity of the letter as a whole, recounting the work of German critics, who "have maintained that this celebrated letter is another instance to be added to the long list of Christian forgeries..." One of these German luminaries, Dr. Semler of Leipsic provided "nine arguments against its authenticity..." He also notes that the Pliny epistle is quite similar to that allegedly written by "Tiberianus, Governor of Syria" to Trajan, which has been universally denounced as a forgery.

Also, like the Testimonium Flavianum, Pliny's letter is not quoted by any early Church father, including Justin Martyr. Tertullian briefly mentions its existence, noting that it refers to terrible persecutions of Christians. However, the actual text used today comes from a version by a Christian monk in the 15th century, Iucundus of Verona, whose composition apparently was based on Tertullian's assertions. Concurring that the Pliny letter is suspicious, Drews terms "doubtful" Tertullian's "supposed reference to it." Drews then names several authorities who likewise doubted its authenticity, "either as a whole or in material points," including Semler, Aub, Havet, Hochart, Bruno Bauer and Edwin Johnson. Citing the work of Hochart specifically, Drews pronounces Pliny's letter "in all probability" a "later Christian forgery." Even if it is genuine, Pliny's letter is useless in determining any "historical" Jesus.

Source : http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm

3rd Tacticus

Turning next to another stalwart in the anemic apologist arsenal, Tacitus, sufficient reason is uncovered to doubt this Roman author's value in proving an "historical" Jesus. In his Annals, supposedly written around 107 CE, Tacitus purportedly related that the Emperor Nero (37-68) blamed the burning of Rome during his reign on "those people who were abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Christians." Since the fire evidently broke out in the poor quarter where fanatic, agitating Messianic Jews allegedly jumped for joy, thinking the conflagration represented the eschatological development that would bring about the Messianic reign, it would not be unreasonable for authorities to blame the fire on them. However, it is clear that these Messianic Jews were not (yet) called "Christiani." In support of this contention, Nero's famed minister, Seneca (5?-65), whose writings evidently provided much fuel for the incipient Christian ideology, has not a word about these "most-hated" sectarians.

...the Tacitean passage next states that these fire-setting agitators were followers of "Christus" (Christos), who, in the reign of Tiberius, "was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate." The passage also recounts that the Christians, who constituted a "vast multitude at Rome," were then sought after and executed in ghastly manners, including by crucifixion. However, the date that a "vast multitude" of Christians was discovered and executed would be around 64 CE, and it is evident that there was no "vast multitude" of Christians at Rome by this time, as there were not even a multitude of them in Judea. Oddly, this brief mention of Christians is all there is in the voluminous works of Tacitus regarding this extraordinary movement, which allegedly possessed such power as to be able to burn Rome. Also, the Neronian persecution of Christians is unrecorded by any other historian of the day and supposedly took place at the very time when Paul was purportedly freely preaching at Rome (Acts 28:30-31), facts that cast strong doubt on whether or not it actually happened. Drews concludes that the Neronian persecution is likely "nothing but the product of a Christian's imagination in the fifth century." Eusebius, in discussing this persecution, does not avail himself of the Tacitean passage, which he surely would have done had it existed at the time. Eusebius's discussion is very short, indicating he was lacking source material; the passage in Tacitus would have provided him a very valuable resource.

Even conservative writers such as James Still have problems with the authenticity of the Tacitus passage: For one, Tacitus was an imperial writer, and no imperial document would ever refer to Jesus as "Christ." Also, Pilate was not a "procurator" but a prefect, which Tacitus would have known. Nevertheless, not willing to throw out the entire passage, some researchers have concluded that Tacitus "was merely repeating a story told to him by contemporary Christians."

Based on these and other facts, several scholars have argued that, even if the Annals themselves were genuine, the passage regarding Jesus was spurious. One of these authorities was Rev. Taylor, who suspected the passage to be a forgery because it too is not quoted by any of the Christian fathers, including Tertullian, who read and quoted Tacitus extensively. Nor did Clement of Alexandria notice this passage in any of Tacitus's works, even though one of this Church father's main missions was to scour the works of Pagan writers in order to find validity for Christianity. As noted, the Church historian Eusebius, who likely forged the Testimonium Flavianum, does not relate this Tacitus passage in his abundant writings. Indeed, no mention is made of this passage in any known text prior to the 15th century.

The tone and style of the passage are unlike the writing of Tacitus, and the text "bears a character of exaggeration, and trenches on the laws of rational probability, which the writings of Tacitus are rarely found to do." Taylor further remarks upon the absence in any of Tacitus's other writings of "the least allusion to Christ or Christians." In his well-known Histories, for example, Tacitus never refers to Christ, Christianity or Christians. Furthermore, even the Annals themselves have come under suspicion, as they themselves had never been mentioned by any ancient author....

In any event, even if the Annals were genuine, the pertinent passage itself could easily be an interpolation, based on the abundant precedents and on the fact that the only manuscript was in the possession of one person, de Spire. In reality, "none of the works of Tacitus have come down to us without interpolations."

Regarding Christian desperation for evidence of the existence of Christ, Dupuis comments that true believers are "reduced to look, nearly a hundred years after, for a passage in Tacitus" that does not even provide information other than "the etymology of the word Christian," or they are compelled "to interpolate, by pious fraud, a passage in Josephus." Neither passage, Dupuis concludes, is sufficient to establish the existence of such a remarkable legislator and philosopher, much less a "notorious impostor."

It is evident that Tacitus's remark is nothing more than what is said in the Apostle's Creed—to have the authenticity of the mighty Christian religion rest upon this Pagan author's scanty and likely forged comment is preposterous. Even if the passage in Tacitus were genuine, it would be too late and is not from an eyewitness, such that it is valueless in establishing an "historical" Jesus, representing merely a recital of decades-old Christian tradition.

Here is a video only on Tacticus if you want:

Just because a book is deemed "sacred" doesn't make it 100% inaccurate to historical events or figures.

True but this one in particular(the bible) has close to 0 if not 0 historical merit

[SUmof1]

@TheStrangest

[TheStrangest]

@sumof1 said in If god created the universe, then who created god? (question for theists):

@TheStrangest

1st good job on copying my memes, no really i have no problem with dat
2nd that was not really meant for anyone other than @Jacob55

[SUmof1]

@thestrangest said in If god created the universe, then who created god? (question for theists):

@sumof1 said in If god created the universe, then who created god? (question for theists):

@TheStrangest

1st good job on copying my memes, no really i have no problem with dat
2nd that was not really ment for anyone other than @Jacob55

Meant*

[TheStrangest]

@sumof1 correct

[alicedoll]

This post is deleted!

[Jacob55]

@thestrangest Well, teaches me to try an defend anything religious on this platform. Hahaha

[TheStrangest]

@jacob55 the truth is that there probably might have been a jesus the bible stories are loosely based on but otherwise there is 0 proof for a historical jesus