Who made God?

[Not_Now.Soon]

I dont think for a moment they can explain how anything actually happened or who or what God is. But nether do I think they are reaching for straws. There are very intelligent men and women that have come around from the days of promoting the dogma of universe eternal to finding evidence that confirms what was written by some desert sheep herders 4000 years ago that the universe actually had a beginning (Genesis 1:1). Their investigations and theories of reality are leading some to think the universe may be akin to a great thought or information than anything else. I just find it interesting when I compare those scientists ideas with those ideas written several thousand years ago Psalms 33:6,9: By the word of Yehovah were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth... For he spoke, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.
Proverbs 3:9 Yehovah by wisdom has founded the earth; by understanding has he established the heavens.

It's not that I disagree with the conclusions. I know God created the heavens and the earth. I know it because I trust God. But that said, I heard some time ago how the church adopted the astronomical view that the sun and stars orbit the Earth. The great intellectuals at the time (maybe they were scientists, maybe science as we know it wasn't around then) devised a well thought out and complicated explaination of the movements in the heavens. Having several levels of heaven that the stars and planets moved in. One layer explained the majority of the stars, a few more explained the movements of planets that didn't follow the same paths.

It was a well thought out theory but by the time it was found out to be wrong by Galileo, it had become adopted as part of Christian belief. Any other explaination was a heresy. With how many explanations out there competing for why the Quantum mechanic observations occur, I don't trust enough to say one thing was part of how the universe was made, only to later be corrected as the theory changes to account new data.

That's just me though. If this kind of reasoning works well in your testimony to atheists, that's great. Good luck to ya.

 

[OzSpen]

Interestingly too is that Gods words He spoke at creation are an audible articulation of his thoughts.

How do you know that?

 

[Bick]

I'm not familiar with Oneklos interpretation, but I wll stick with the Scriptures,
From the KJV I read Genesis 2:7 thus:
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;
and man became a living soul."
NOTICE: a separate soul was not infused into Adam, he
became a living soul, a sensual being capable of experiencing life.
I disagree that man became a "speaking spirit". "Soul" and "spirit" are two different words: "nepesh" and "ruach:" As man breathes, his spirit (invisible life force) is being formed within him. Ref: Zech. 12:1
When man's spirit (breath) departs, he dies.
Ref: Gen. 7:22, Job 12:10, 34:14-15, Psa. 104:29,
146:3,4.

 

[selihah]

How do you know that?

Read the definition of word in a dictionary. Wether in Hebrew or english its the same.

 

[OzSpen]

Read the definition of word in a dictionary. Wether in Hebrew or english its the same.

We are not dealing with dictionary definitions. We are dealing with the knowledge of what God does. You said: 'Gods words He spoke at creation are an audible articulation of his thoughts.' I hope you meant "God's words" and you KNOW they were audible articulation (words) of God's thoughts???

You would have had to be there in the beginning to KNOW that God's words are audible. The dictionary definition won't explain that for you.

I've presented words in this post and they are not audible! ed

Oz

 

[selihah]

Words are audible (or written) and they express the thoughts and ideas of the one speaking (or writing) them. I thought that would be pretty easy to understand, sorry if I confused anyone. The biblical references which lead me to that conclusion are found in Genesis chapter 1 verses 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20 and 24 where it is written "And God said...". Further clarification how He created the heavens and earth are found in the Psalms 33:6,9 where it is written: By the word of Yehovah were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth... For he spoke, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Proverbs 3:9 Yehovah by wisdom has founded the earth; by understanding has he established the heavens.

The way I read it, wisdom/understanding are of ones mental faculty (thoughts) and he spoke words, spoke is the past tense of speech which is defined in Webster's 1828 dictionary as uttering articulate sounds or words...

What I cant tell you is how many or what particular words or sounds were spoken I just know God had the wisdom and understanding to create, he spoke communicated his thoughts and ideas and the heavens were made.

Thats my opinion, Im not saying you have to agree with it.

 

[OzSpen]

Words are audible (or written) and they express the thoughts and ideas of the one speaking (or writing) them. I thought that would be pretty easy to understand, sorry if I confused anyone. The biblical references which lead me to that conclusion are found in Genesis chapter 1 verses 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20 and 24 where it is written "And God said...". Further clarification how He created the heavens and earth are found in the Psalms 33:6,9 where it is written: By the word of Yehovah were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth... For he spoke, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Proverbs 3:9 Yehovah by wisdom has founded the earth; by understanding has he established the heavens.

The way I read it, wisdom/understanding are of ones mental faculty (thoughts) and he spoke words, spoke is the past tense of speech which is defined in Webster's 1828 dictionary as uttering articulate sounds or words...

What I cant tell you is how many or what particular words or sounds were spoken I just know God had the wisdom and understanding to create, he spoke communicated his thoughts and ideas and the heavens were made.

Thats my opinion, Im not saying you have to agree with it.

sel,

We need to remember, firstly, what Jesus told us about the nature of God: 'God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth' (John 4:24 NIV). So God does not have a literal, physical, bodily voice that speaks. 'He spoke' cannot mean what we understand as physical beings because 'God is spirit'.

Secondly, you quoted from the Psalms where it stated, 'all the host of them by the breath of his mouth'. The Psalms are poetry so we can expect figures of speech such as metaphors. We know that this verse cannot be referring to a literal physical breath coming out of God's literal physical mouth because God is spirit.

You stated: 'Words are audible (or written) and they express the thoughts and ideas of the one speaking (or writing) them. I thought that would be pretty easy to understand, sorry if I confused anyone'.

You are thinking of physically audible words to express thoughts and ideas when speaking. It's not 'pretty easy to understand' because you seem to have confused the physical being with a spirit being (God).

Oz

 

[selihah]

uh huh, ok. So when Yehovah spoke to Moses face to face as a man speaks to his friend. God's speech wasn't really speech but just one of those spiritual mysteries only the Nicolaitans can explain and we just have to believe? Whats the point of even having a book with words in it if we cant use the meanings assigned them?

Anyway, whether they're spoken audible or inaudible, written in a poem, essay, or note. The original point I was trying make was that words are, in this case, the expression of the 'speakers' thoughts or ideas. Understanding-->speech-->creation.

 

[OzSpen]

uh huh, ok. So when Yehovah spoke to Moses face to face as a man speaks to his friend. God's speech wasn't really speech but just one of those spiritual mysteries only the Nicolaitans can explain and we just have to believe? Whats the point of even having a book with words in it if we cant use the meanings assigned them?

Anyway, whether they're spoken audible or inaudible, written in a poem, essay, or note. The original point I was trying make was that words are, in this case, the expression of the 'speakers' thoughts or ideas. Understanding-->speech-->creation.

Ex 33 (NIV) does not tell us exactly how God, a spirit being, spoke to Moses. We do know that Moses heard and wanted God's presence to go with them.

My point was to try to tease out how a spirit being and a human being could communicate with one another in 'words'. I don't want to be pursuing this discussion from a purely human understanding of thoughts, ideas and words.

There is more to the encounter of God and Moses than that.

Oz

 

[selihah]

Ex 33 (NIV) does not tell us exactly how God, a spirit being, spoke to Moses. We do know that Moses heard and wanted God's presence to go with them.

My point was to try to tease out how a spirit being and a human being could communicate with one another in 'words'. I don't want to be pursuing this discussion from a purely human understanding of thoughts, ideas and words.

There is more to the encounter of God and Moses than that.

Oz

You said it yourself "We do know that Moses heard..." pretty much nails it God spoke Moses heard. I am content to know that he did. I figure because he's God the one who created the universe and us he ought to know how a man's ears work and adjust accordingly.

I thinking this is going nowhere, Ive said my peace shared my opinions. Feel free to have the last word. Im done here.

Peace

 

[Hawkins]

NNS,

Even if somebody does believe in the possibility of God's existence, I'm raising the objection: If your God exists, who created him/her? Where did he/she come from?

It's a human question bound by time. In human conception, creation is a process for something being absent at a point in time axis but present later in the same time axis. Scientifically, if you can tell me at which point of time that God didn't/doesn't exist, then I can tell you at which point God started to be present. God doesn't need to be created unless you can spot the time point at which He's not present. However this point never exists, or please point it out when!

The problem of humans is that they assume that they understand time but they do not. We have such a kind of questions with our assumption/perception that time is an evenly progressive physics quantity, while it's not. Science (both quantum physics and relativity) tells us that time is not even a stable physics unit. Einstein once said, time is not a stable physics unit but speed/velocity is. Time goes beyond human comprehension once it no long sticks to our human conception that it stably progressing forward. We no long know what time could possibly be once it's no longer in its stable state.

God on the other hand is someone who can live outside this time stuff. Thus creation may not be a good word to use especially in terms of how time itself is 'created' (brought to existence). The Bible thus says that God spoke His creations into existence, including time itself. That's why He's the Alpha and Omega (another avoidance of the use of time itself).

 

[OzSpen]

It's a human question bound by time. In human conception, creation is a process for something being absent at a point in time axis but present later in the same time axis. Scientifically, if you can tell me at which point of time that God didn't/doesn't exist, then I can tell you at which point God started to be present. God doesn't need to be created unless you can spot the time point at which He's not present. However this point never exists, or please point it out when!

The problem of humans is that they assume that they understand time but they do not. We have such a kind of questions with our assumption/perception that time is an evenly progressive physics quantity, while it's not. Science (both quantum physics and relativity) tells us that time is not even a stable physics unit. Einstein once said, time is not a stable physics unit but speed/velocity is. Time goes beyond human comprehension once it no long sticks to our human conception that it stably progressing forward. We no long know what time could possibly be once it's no longer in its stable state.

God on the other hand is someone who can live outside this time stuff. Thus creation may not be a good word to use especially in terms of how time itself is 'created' (brought to existence). The Bible thus says that God spoke His creations into existence, including time itself. That's why He's the Alpha and Omega (another avoidance of the use of time itself).

Hawkins,

You have raised some excellent points here.

Because we live in a physical world, we tend to look on most of what we see and do from a space-time perspective. However, God is spirit (John 4:24), so lives in a realm that is outside of our physical senses.

He is not limited by our understanding of time and the other physical laws in our universe. God is eternal, i.e. timeless. Psalm 90:4 (NIV) puts it succinctly: 'A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night'.

Here we are dealing with the eternity of God when we are only temporal beings. God is outside of time. So past, present and future time are associated with the meaning of God's eternity.

That topic is for another thread.

See: 'What is God's relationship to time?' (Got Questions Ministries)

Oz

 

[Jim Parker]

I heard some time ago how the church adopted the astronomical view that the sun and stars orbit the Earth.

That was what appeared to be the case before the development of scientific instruments which enabled people to figure out that the sun was the center of the solar system.
Please note, it wasn't until the start-up of the Mount Wilson observatory, in the early 20th century, with the then largest mirror ever made (100") that Edwin Hubble discovered that there were other galaxies and that they were all moving away. This observation has enabled astro-physicists to determine that the universe is about 14 billion years old. (Not good news for Darwin et. al. who needed multiple billions of years for evolution to work according to the original concept.)

Prior to that time, the accepted view was that there was only one galaxy (our Milky Way) and that it was unchanging (static state) and that it was infinitely old.

So don't fault the Church for accepting the then common belief of astronomers who were considered the experts.

iakov the fool

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

That was what appeared to be the case before the development of scientific instruments which enabled people to figure out that the sun was the center of the solar system.
Please note, it wasn't until the start-up of the Mount Wilson observatory, in the early 20th century, with the then largest mirror ever made (100") that Edwin Hubble discovered that there were other galaxies and that they were all moving away. This observation has enabled astro-physicists to determine that the universe is about 14 billion years old. (Not good news for Darwin et. al. who needed multiple billions of years for evolution to work according to the original concept.)

Prior to that time, the accepted view was that there was only one galaxy (our Milky Way) and that it was unchanging (static state) and that it was infinitely old.

So don't fault the Church for accepting the then common belief of astronomers who were considered the experts.

iakov the fool

Oh I don't blame the church leaders for that. But I don't want to make the same mistake. If there are five or more theories about how something works (I think 5 is a low estimatite for theories in quantum physics) and many of those are unable to provide data to prove the theory, then I don't want to attribute parts of those theories to how God works. If later I was wrong and an atheist heard my claim he can use my words to mock the faith, and lead others away from God. "Oh they don't know anything at all, listen to what I heard from one guy..."

That's where I'm comming from.

 

[Gregg T]

"Who made God?"

You should not allow yourself to answer the question, but rather turn it back to him by asking "Do you think that God could have been made?" His answer will tell you if he meant it as a genuine question, if he was asking for empirical evidence of God's existence, or if he was pushing your buttons. In my experience, he will be eager to answer your question.

Most atheists have regretfully been successful at disarming Christians from their only offensive weapon in the battle. Our Christian world view stands firmly on the Scriptures. If you set the Bible aside, and step out of your world view and into the atheist's territory, then you have conceded defeat and the battle is over. The atheist has stood his ground while you have given up your ground.

 

[OzSpen]

"Who made God?"

You should not allow yourself to answer the question, but rather turn it back to him by asking "Do you think that God could have been made?" His answer will tell you if he meant it as a genuine question, if he was asking for empirical evidence of God's existence, or if he was pushing your buttons. In my experience, he will be eager to answer your question.

Most atheists have regretfully been successful at disarming Christians from their only offensive weapon in the battle. Our Christian world view stands firmly on the Scriptures. If you set the Bible aside, and step out of your world view and into the atheist's territory, then you have conceded defeat and the battle is over. The atheist has stood his ground while you have given up your ground.

Gregg,

Welcome to the forum. Thanks for joining us. I look forward to further discussions with you.

In my anti-Christian, Australian culture, if I start with the Bible, I lose my encounter with the atheist immediately as in his/her view the Bible is unreliable. It cannot be trusted.

The Bible is not where I begin. It is where I end. I begin with questions such as:

• What causes this? Police illegally obtained journalist's phone records under new metadata retention regime (Brisbane Times, April 28, 2017).
• What evidence will you give me to demonstrate God doesn't exist?
• How do you determine if that article from the Brisbane Times is accurate?
• I ask the 2 questions from Evangelism Explosion: (1) Do you know for sure that you are going to be with God in Heaven when you die? (2) If God were to ask you, “Why should I let you into My Heaven?” what would you say?

Oz

 

[Gregg T]

Oz,
Thank you for the welcome.
Pardon my questions off-topic, but are you witnessing to strangers or to those with whom you have a relationship? Also, are you accompanied by another believer when witnessing?

 

[Jim Parker]

Oh I don't blame the church leaders for that. But I don't want to make the same mistake. If there are five or more theories about how something works (I think 5 is a low estimatite for theories in quantum physics) and many of those are unable to provide data to prove the theory, then I don't want to attribute parts of those theories to how God works. If later I was wrong and an atheist heard my claim he can use my words to mock the faith, and lead others away from God. "Oh they don't know anything at all, listen to what I heard from one guy..."

That's where I'm comming from.

We do see the same kind of mistake being made by some in church leadership who accept the man-made climate change scam as actually being the factual and based on good science.

 

[OzSpen]

Oz,
Thank you for the welcome.
Pardon my questions off-topic, but are you witnessing to strangers or to those with whom you have a relationship? Also, are you accompanied by another believer when witnessing?

Gregg,

I witness to skeptics (sceptics is how we spell it) wherever I can find them - in person, in letters-to-the-editor, online. Occasionally I witness to relatives or those with whom I have a relationship.

Five other Christians and I currently meet with husband and wife sceptics (more like a browned-off former church goers) in a local pub over lunch. It's hard to turn a conversation to spiritual questions with him because he likes to dominate the conversation. His wife says he has a case of verbal diarrhoea. Too often he wants to talk about the benefits of the retirement village where they live but last week he told how they were married in a Baptist church (it's a second marriage for both of them).

I'm moving towards asking him the 2 Evangelism Explosion diagnostic questions:

1. “Do you know for sure that you’re going to be with God in Heaven one day?”
   
2. “If God were to ask you why He should let you into His Heaven, what would you say?”

With these 2 questions, I'm able to get a pretty good idea of where they are heading spiritually, especially the source of eternal life for them. They may not even believe in eternal life. I have to be prepared for dialogue on that view.

We've been having lunch with them for a few weeks, every Wed after the cell group. Two other Christians and I most often engage in discussion with the husband.

Oz

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

We do see the same kind of mistake being made by some in church leadership who accept the man-made climate change scam as actually being the factual and based on good science.

Yeah that's an issue too. Real facts verses made up facts. I honestly don't know what to say about global warming or several other science based information such as the age of the stars or the material of planets orbiting them, or what really causes cancer one decade and another is healthy in moderate dosages later on with new studies. There are too many squirrelly ideas out there that looking at the more light sounding ones to look for faults is a hassle for a lot of people. (Expecially if you don't know how someone came to those conclusions.). Quantium physics though (as far as I'm aware) doesn't have any made up data though. Just crazier ideas followed by even crazier ideas due to a lack of data to make sence of.

I hope you don't know any church leaders that are talking about global warming in a sermon. That's where I would draw the line. We all can struggle with facts, data, misleading versions of both, and too many opinions to count. But when it come to what is from God, I expect that to be a higher standard then the sliding scale of "this is what the data shows today, we'll twick it as we go."