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

[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

[kellyjin]

This post is deleted!

[Cherry 17]

I created god.

[QueenLope]

Have you ever studied religious science?
It is based on the fact that God (if you want, Jesus) is the sun.
If you take it from that perspective, god might not be seen as a being but rather as a force.
You could describe it as a higher frequency with no embodiment.
If you take it that way, God might not have been created has always been present in the core of the universe.

[TheStrangest]

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

Have you ever studied religious science?

No but i can't help not to say "religious science" is an oxymoron

It is based on the fact that God (if you want, Jesus) is the sun.

Yeah that's true

"The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the sun, in which they put a man called Christ in the place of the sun, and pay him the adoration originally paid for the sun"
-Thomas Paine (1737-1809)

@Jacob55 I HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY suggest that you watch that video, believe me you will not regret it. But really, get yourself some popcorn, sit down on a comfortable couch and focus on every word and i think you'll learn a lot more than you'd expect.

If you take it from that perspective, god might not be seen as a being but rather as a force.
You could describe it as a higher frequency with no embodiment.

What is this word salad, what is a "frequency" with no embodiment? A radio frequency? Is god a radio frequency? I find it extremely aggravating when people realise that the first definition they had of god was too strict therefore too easy to criticise and that's why they string together a bunch of words like "energy", "frequency", "collective consciousness" and call that god when infact that is no where near what you started with, in such case the word just looses it's purpose and becomes a needless label put on big things. What need is there for such foolery? What's more annoying is that usually when someone defines god as energy and they are shown what energy is and asked if that is the god they believe in, they say no, like, what.

If you take it that way, God might not have been created has always been present in the core of the universe.

That's just the same as saying that god is the universe in which case sure, god exists, you can feel his presence and you are part of him and he is part of you just like when meditating you're told to feel the world around you, how you are part of it and it is part of you(atheists meditate too and can be spiritual), but what need is there to call the universe god when you can just say "universe"?

[QueenLope]

@thestrangest "I find it extremely aggravating when people realise that the first definition they had of god was too strict therefore too easy to criticise and that's why they string together a bunch of words like "energy", "frequency", "collective consciousness" "
About this, you are acutally going against a school of thought. A school of thought that I believe in and just like jesus or any other Gods, at the end of the day, they are just beliefs.
I don't think there is any point on me trying to argue about the fact that my beliefs are the right ones or the ones that everyone should follow.
The reason why I believe God is "energy" or just an "higher consiousness" are simple.
I believe in a creator but I do not believe in the holly books and all the history and the beliefs that are taught around which is why I decided to start everything on my own and begin meditation.
As a result, I did feel a flow or a connection that went through the bounderies which is why I define it as the core and I decided to interpret that this energy that flows through everything is God as God is everywhere.
I can understand why you would think that "energy" has no link to the holly science but this is how I made the link between the sun and my beliefs:
The Sun is God and the Sun is a Major source of energy.
Either way, would you mind giving your definition of energy as you said people get confused when you show them energy itself?

Nice video by the way but if you want to get in debt into the subject I would highly suggest this one:

English is not one of my first languages so I might be making mistakes that I am not aware of, feel free to correct me if you feel the need to do so.

[TheStrangest]

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

@thestrangest "I find it extremely aggravating when people realise that the first definition they had of god was too strict therefore too easy to criticise and that's why they string together a bunch of words like "energy", "frequency", "collective consciousness" "
About this, you are acutally going against a school of thought.

"A school of thought" what is it called then? And if it's a school of thought then who cares? Does that mean I'm not allowed to criticise it?

A school of thought that I believe in and just like jesus or any other Gods, at the end of the day, they are just beliefs

Some beliefs are harmful(e.g. believing in the need for an Aryan race) and irrational(astrology) which in turn also makes them harmful(the average IQ of a theist is 7 points lower than an atheist). What is "they are just beliefs" supposed to mean

I don't think there is any point on me trying to argue about the fact that my beliefs are the right ones or the ones that everyone should follow.

Doesn't this mean you just admitted that you don't care if your beliefs are true or not?

The reason why I believe God is "energy" or just an "higher consiousness" are simple.

Well let's see the reasons

I believe in a creator

I don't think you have a good reason for believing in a creator

but I do not believe in the holly books and all the history and the beliefs that are taught around

You realise how stupid religion is but you still want to hold on to a concept/thing that comforts you and call it god when infact you can just hold on to that comfortable concept/thing and call it what it is

which is why I decided to start everything on my own and begin meditation

Good idea

As a result, I did feel a flow or a connection that went through the bounderies

your self perceived sufficient revelation which I'd argue adds no validity to your beliefs even from your own perspective because atheists have claimed to have had the same experiences(but ofcourse atheists and religious people all atribute these things to different causes, the atheist usually knows how neurology explains all these things or just that it does even though he doesn't need to) so until you give a good reason for why you think these experiences couldn't have happened without a god your opinion doesn't matter

which is why I define it as the core and I decided to interpret that this energy that flows through everything is God as God is everywhere.

So basically god is everything and everything is god.

(YOU CONVENIENTLY IGNORED THIS PART OF MY LAST REPLY):

That's just the same as saying that god is the universe in which case sure, god exists, you can feel his presence and you are part of him and he is part of you just like when meditating you're told to feel the world around you, how you are part of it and it is part of you(atheists meditate too and can be spiritual), but what need is there to call the universe god when you can just say "universe"?

I can understand why you would think that "energy" has no link to the holly science but this is how I made the link between the sun and my beliefs:
The Sun is God and the Sun is a Major source of energy.

so you are literally a sun worshipper, am i supposed to take what you're saying seriously? You believe the sun is god, that's just stupid, tge sun simply didn't create the universe, we know it didn't

Either way, would you mind giving your definition of energy as you said people get confused when you show them energy itself?

MY definition of energy? There is only 1 correct scientific definition of energy

Energy, in physics, the capacity for doing work. It may exist in potential, kinetic, thermal, electrical, chemical, nuclear, or other various forms. There are, moreover, heat and work—i.e., energy in the process of transfer from one body to another. After it has been transferred, energy is always designated according to its nature. Hence, heat transferred may become thermal energy, while work done may manifest itself in the form of mechanical energy.

What we perceive as our physical material world, is really not physical or material at all, in fact, it is far from it.This has been proven time and time again by multiple Nobel Prize (among many other scientists around the world) winning physicists, one of them being Niels Bohr, a Danish Physicist who made significant contributions to understanding atomic structure and quantum theory.

“If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet. Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” – Niels Bohr

At the turn of the nineteenth century, physicists started to explore the relationship between energy and the structure of matter. In doing so, the belief that a physical, Newtonian material universe that was at the very heart of scientific knowing was dropped, and the realization that matter is nothing but an illusion replaced it. Scientists began to recognize that everything in the Universe is made out of energy.

“Despite the unrivaled empirical success of quantum theory, the very suggestion that it may be literally true as a description of nature is still greeted with cynicism, incomprehension and even anger.” (T. Folger, “Quantum Shmantum”; Discover 22:37-43, 2001)

There is no reason to think energy as we know it is conscious, everything is energy including human consciousness(and other animals with brains) that's just a bunch of neurons and the electrical pulses neurons use to communicate with each other(as far as we know) but there is 0 good reason to think the universe is conscious, which means that it knows that it exists and can think for itself

Nice video by the way but if you want to get in debt into the subject I would highly suggest this one:

Go in depth*

That video wasn't meant for you but thanks. And no i will not watch a 3 hour video (this being part 1), i watched 5 minutes and stopped

English is not one of my first languages so I might be making mistakes that I am not aware of, feel free to correct me if you feel the need to do so.

Don't worry you're comprehensible. I'm Palestinian(Palestine;Jesus's supposed place of birth), it isn't my first language either not to mention me never having been in an English speaking country.

This is the first reply from you to me and you are already cherry picking which parts you want to respond to, read the whole thing man.

P.S. optional video, it helped me feel spiritual for the 1st time as an atheist:

[layla]

@mcurie No one created God because God was never created because God doesn't exist.

[Kugelblitz]

@layla That's what I'm saying. They - theists- don't understand.

[prince1432]

God is created by parent of god

[TheStrangest]

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

@layla That's what I'm saying. They - theists- don't understand.

Oi m8 what do you think of my work here on your topic?