Does God make us or do we make God?

[b_dubb]

"my belief that not everything is the result of the result of a Supreme Being"

Pretty much

[Yorkshire pud]

I'm curious

is this it? is that all of it?

"my belief that not everything is the result of the result of a Supreme Being"

At the risk of being accused of answering on behalf of b-dubb, I'll give my view. Religions (with the exception of Paganism) is based on the premis of a deity. It isn't logical to call this rational and point to whichever fairy tale as the reference to support it. If it gives comfort to those to use religion as a crutch to explain what they need explaining fair enough, but I baulk at the hypocrisy, the elevation of 'the faithful' and the indoctrination as some superiority over others. When was the last openly atheist President or Prime Minister elected?

[FightTheFuture]

If you listen to that episode of Fresh Air you'll realize that you're very wrong

From Bart Ehrman's, Jesus to Constantine: lecture 4

   '' we also have solid traditions to indicate that women found this tomb empty three days later”


His argument then turns to methodology

[George Drooly]

Even rocks feel love

[onan]

What difference does it make?

I have never understood the need for others to buy into a belief system, unless it is a ponzi scheme.

[McPhallus]

Who created Noory?

How can humanity exist independent of the Universe

[Kelt]

No

God and the Universe are one as I have demonstrated and I believe made a valid argument for , feel free to refute the actual argument.

You have demonstrated no such thing.

I make no claims about the validity of God in any doctrinal sense.

The simple fact of the matter is , we cannot account for creation.

We must address the creation of the Universe if we are to account for our own existence. The two are inexorable.

You cannot separate humanity from the Universe.

Nor can you account for the creation of either , separately.

Either The Universe was created by a motive force that is beyond our understanding , a force we can only term God.

or

The Universe itself IS the creator and therefore is GOD.

Either way , God Created US

This is my argument , feel free to address is

Your own personal construct of god asserts that the Universe is god, since the Universe is responsible for creating the Universe.

However you have not demonstrated how the Universe created the Universe, all you have done is assert that the Universe created the Universe.

What you have done is present an assertion, not a demonstration, so there's no actual argument for me to refute.

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

Bart Ehrman is one of the -- if not the -- foremost scholars on the resurrection. He's also an agnostic. Even he concedes the empty tomb. His explanation just gets a little lost in the weeds after that. I think I will go with a more logical conclusion.

if you want to see an interesting debate, I suggest people Google YouTube video of Gary Habermas debating Bart Ehrman.

Bart Ehrman didn't become an agnostic until he began comparing early versions of the Gospels in the original languages and discovered numerous discrepancies and alternate versions, which he details in his book, "Misquoting Jesus."  He actually was an evangelical Christian before that and attended Moody Bible College and Wheaton College.  He began studying ancient documents to reaffirm his belief and wound up questioning it instead because he couldn't reconcile it with the historical records.  Not saying he's right or wrong, but it's important to understand how he came to his conclusion.

[Birdie]

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

[Bart Ell]

Humans have always come up with a God (in one form or another (or forms)) to explain things that they can't quite comprehend.

Unless you are a scientist, then you just slap the good ole "theory" tag on it.
Or, if you are feeling extra frisky, you go for "missing link", which sure takes quite a bit of faith, don't it?
You are believing something you have never seen does exist and has just been misplaced.
Missing links and misplaced car keys, things that slightly bother scientists.

[Bart Ell]

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

I’m not religious. I don’t know if there’s a God. That’s all I can say, honestly, is “I don’t know.” Some people think that they know that there isn’t. That’s a weird thing to think you can know. “Yeah, there’s no God.” Are you sure? “Yeah, no, there’s no God.” How do you know? “Cause I didn’t see Him.” There’s a vast universe! You can see for about 100 yards â€" when there’s not a building in the way. How could you possibly… Did you look everywhere? Did you look in the downstairs bathroom? Where did you look so far? “No, I didn’t see Him yet.” I haven’t seen 12 Years a Slave yet; it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I’m just waiting until it comes on cable.
- Louis CK, SNL

[Tarbaby]

The assertion that it is pointless to argue such abstract or unprovale issues isn't entirely true. Man has progressed remarkably by the use of deductive and inductive logic and made many discoveries that are then validated once the hypothesis is tested. But it never undergoes the rigorous testing or analysis if it doesn't get introduced. Or is rejected a priori as unrovable.  But the benefit needn't be pragmatic in that it resolved the issue, it can also be beneficial in that it added to philosophical methodologies themself. Kant, Schopenhauer, Descarte, et al, contributed greatly to man's ability to solve pragmatic issues with reason.

The thread question is ontological as well as epistemological. (What is real, what is knowable and how can we determine what is knowable. Which, BTW, are excellent benefits of pursuing such a question rather than to shrug it off as moot). Yet the thread question has the huge  problem of clarification of terms: What do we mean by "God". Are we talking anthropomorphic? Or 'real' but ineffable? Non-material? And the word "create". Did It create us or did we create It? What if "we" are simply 'cells' of It? Literally or metaphorically.

We certainly couldn't have created a godlike entity with our collective subconscious mind if IT is being credited as the creator of the universe we are relatively new to. Unless, perhaps, we created this time/space ever-expanding bubble that burst into being at the Big Bang and everything inside it is a holographic-like projection INCLUDING time itself inside the bubble.

Nor does this imply that we and material existence was created by a supreme being, either anthropomorphic or not.

There is evidence IMO however to show some sort of nebulous deus ex machina in and around the evolutionary process. (for early prototype see Pierre de Chardin's work, born 1881)

Greatly enjoyed the quality of posts in this thread.

[onan]

I'm sorry if my first post in this thread suggested the pointlessness of the discussion.

I just find the academic pursuit of the existence of god to be worse than pointless. The assertion that this type of discussion has furthered the nobility of man is somewhat misleading. The pursuit and certainty of god has lead to the pursuit of just the opposite. People pursuing knowledge have been imprisoned and killed all in the name of certain god.

And all of the gilding of the discourse with terms of ontological and epistemological along with anthropomorphic just to elevate the discussion to some higher level to suggest some amount of credibility. And it is by and large lost on most those that subscribe to religion due to their lack of ability to accept the world is full of uncertainties and it may all be for nothing more than to procreate for the sake of evolution.

I believe in having beliefs, I believe in faith, I don't see the need to take those matters of faith and make them into a magic man in the sky.

[FightTheFuture]

Bart Ehrman didn't become an agnostic until he began comparing early versions of the Gospels in the original languages and discovered numerous discrepancies and alternate versions, which he details in his book, "Misquoting Jesus."  He actually was an evangelical Christian before that and attended Moody Bible College and Wheaton College.  He began studying ancient documents to reaffirm his belief and wound up questioning it instead because he couldn't reconcile it with the historical records.  Not saying he's right or wrong, but it's important to understand how he came to his conclusion.

Yeah, I`m very familiar with Ehrman. I`ve read a couple of his books (not his latest). I`ve noticed over the years, his position on certain issues tends to evolve a bit, according to his latest book. The fact that he "lost his faith" isn`t at all surprising to me. Happens all the time. There`s also a pretty impressive list of former atheist scholars that -- upon studying the evidence of the resurrection -- became believers.

With regard to the "numerous discrepancies" in the various Gospels, I don`t have a major problem with that. Most the differences are minor and very easily harmonized. What is not in dispute among virtually every biblical scholar, is the fact that Jesus appeared to the disciples (or, a person they believed to be Jesus), Paul and others, post-mortem. Now, Ehrman, as well as a handful of other notable scholars explains that away as...hallucinations, which amounts to desperation in order to explain the subsequent behavior of those to whom  Jesus appeared.

Regardless, it`s an interesting subject of debate.

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

Yeah, I`m very familiar with Ehrman. I`ve read a couple of his books (not his latest). I`ve noticed over the years, his position on certain issues tends to evolve a bit, according to his latest book. The fact that he "lost his faith" isn`t at all surprising to me. Happens all the time. There`s also a pretty impressive list of former atheist scholars that -- upon studying the evidence of the resurrection -- became believers.

With regard to the "numerous discrepancies" in the various Gospels, I don`t have a major problem with that. Most the differences are minor and very easily harmonized. What is not in dispute among virtually every biblical scholar, is the fact that Jesus appeared to the disciples (or, a person they believed to be Jesus), Paul and others, post-mortem. Now, Ehrman, as well as a handful of other notable scholars explains that away as...hallucinations, which amounts to desperation in order to explain the subsequent behavior of those to whom  Jesus appeared.

Regardless, it`s an interesting subject of debate.

Fair enough. I thought you were dismissing Erhman for being an agnostic and just wanted to point out how he got there. 

The Resurrection does make for an interesting debate, but I'm more interested in what Jesus was doing during His "missing" years.  I remember there was a regular C2C guest who claimed He spent much of that time in England with Joseph of Arimathea.  Can't remember his name, but I thought he was interesting.  BTW, I'm an agnostic, which for me means I don't believe in any particular diety(ies), but I don't disbelieve, either.  As far as I'm concerned, the possibilities are pretty much endless. 

[b_dubb]

Yeah, I`m very familiar with Ehrman. I`ve read a couple of his books (not his latest). I`ve noticed over the years, his position on certain issues tends to evolve a bit, according to his latest book. The fact that he "lost his faith" isn`t at all surprising to me. Happens all the time. There`s also a pretty impressive list of former atheist scholars that -- upon studying the evidence of the resurrection -- became believers.

With regard to the "numerous discrepancies" in the various Gospels, I don`t have a major problem with that. Most the differences are minor and very easily harmonized. What is not in dispute among virtually every biblical scholar, is the fact that Jesus appeared to the disciples (or, a person they believed to be Jesus), Paul and others, post-mortem. Now, Ehrman, as well as a handful of other notable scholars explains that away as...hallucinations, which amounts to desperation in order to explain the subsequent behavior of those to whom  Jesus appeared.

Regardless, it`s an interesting subject of debate.

30-40 years pass after crucifixion before the first stories of Christ's Resurrection.  You can create a lot of myth in that time.

[Zoo]

I think it really comes to which god does one believe in. I think, men in power made up gods to control the population. As for the whole Universe thing well that is a whole other subject. Big Bang is tries to explain this by saying in simple terms. Universe was hot and dense also expanding rapidly. Cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons. Then Bang everything came to life. My problem with this is, is not heat energy? So the question is where did this energy come from? God or what!!1

[FightTheFuture]

30-40 years pass after crucifixion before the first stories of Christ's Resurrection.  You can create a lot of myth in that time.

That's a blink of an eye, relatively speaking. However, you have to keep in mind that  Paul was in Jerusalem approximately four years after the crucifixion and met with the eye witnesses of the Resurrection, chiefly, Peter and James (James, as you may know, was the brother of Jesus, & a non believer prior to seeing Jesus after his resurrection).

Those are historical facts not in dispute among modern day biblical scholars. That's pretty tough to beat.

[b_dubb]

That's a blink of an eye, relatively speaking. However, you have to keep in mind that  Paul was in Jerusalem approximately four years after the crucifixion and met with the eye witnesses of the Resurrection, chiefly, Peter and James (James, as you may know, was the brother of Jesus, & a non believer prior to seeing Jesus after his resurrection).

Those are historical facts not in dispute among modern day biblical scholars. That's pretty tough to beat.

30-40 years is not a blink of an eye. Back then that was a lifetime. 

Erhman disputes those facts based on the interview he granted to NPR's Fresh Air. Have you listened to the audio on the linked page that I posted above?

[FightTheFuture]

30-40 years is not a blink of an eye. Back then that was a lifetime. 

Erhman disputes those facts based on the interview he granted to NPR's Fresh Air. Have you listened to the audio on the linked page that I posted above?

Ehrman is selling another book.  He is one -- albeit, a good one -- scholar. Even Ehrman doesn't dispute the fact that the disciples believe they witnessed the bodily resurrection  of Jesus. This is confirmed by the writings of Paul, whom nobody disputes.

Did you hear Ehrman wiggle in his seat and grasp at straws when it came to trying to explain  Jesus appearing to the disciples?

[b_dubb]

Ehrman is selling another book.  He is one -- albeit, a good one -- scholar. Even Ehrman doesn't dispute the fact that the disciples believe they witnessed the bodily resurrection  of Jesus. This is confirmed by the writings of Paul, whom nobody disputes.

Did you hear Ehrman wiggle in his seat and grasp at straws when it came to trying to explain  Jesus appearing to the disciples?

The writings of Paul happen 40 years after Christ's death.

I didn't hear any squirming. I did hear Erhman try to find a diplomatic way to make his point without stirring the pot. Don't want to piss off the Evangelicals. They're vocal and when sufficiently irritated blow up abortion clinics and shoot doctors.

[FightTheFuture]

The writings of Paul happen 40 years after Christ's death.

I didn't hear any squirming. I did hear Erhman try to find a diplomatic way to make his point without stirring the pot. Don't want to piss off the Evangelicals. They're vocal and when sufficiently irritated blow up abortion clinics and shoot doctors.

That's incorrect. Paul is about 25 years after the cross. A lot of scholars place his writings 20 to 21 years after the cross.  Also, Paul was in Jerusalem meeting with James and Peter approximately four years after the cross.  Show me one scholar with a terminal degree that disputes that.

I have watched Ehrman debate  Liconna, Habermas, Craig, and others. He always flounders around and looks foolish when trying to explain the events after the death of Jesus. I mean...mass hallucinations?? Really? Jesus had a twin?? Really?

[b_dubb]

That's incorrect. Paul is about 25 years after the cross. A lot of scholars place his writings 20 to 21 years after the cross.  Also, Paul was in Jerusalem meeting with James and Peter approximately four years after the cross.  Show me one scholar with a terminal degree that disputes that.

I have watched Ehrman debate  Liconna, Habermas, Craig, and others. He always flounders around and looks foolish when trying to explain the events after the death of Jesus. I mean...mass hallucinations?? Really? Jesus had a twin?? Really?

Dates for the Pauline Epistles vary. 55CE to 70CE.

Can you post links to these debates so we can decide for ourselves?

[FightTheFuture]

Dates for the Pauline Epistles vary. 55CE to 70CE.

Can you post links to these debates so we can decide for ourselves?

If we start with the cross, approximately 30 AD and call that ground zero, 1 Corinthians 15 checks in at about 55 AD. Whatever the writer, conservative or not conservative, we have 25 years. In ancient historiography this is incredible in a time when the best known biography of Alexander the Great is that of Plutarch almost 400 years after Plutarch. When we learn about the early Caesars from Tacitus to Suetonius ''a good gap'' is 100 years; 25 is incredible (for Jesus).

Just Google ''Ehrman debates resurrection”. There's an abundance of good stuff out there.

[Catsmile]

30-40 years is not a blink of an eye. Back then that was a lifetime. 

Erhman disputes those facts based on the interview he granted to NPR's Fresh Air. Have you listened to the audio on the linked page that I posted above?

30-40 years was even equal to 2 lifetimes for a lot of the population then. Agreed it was not just a blink in those days.

As far as resurrections goes, it's nothing new in all of myth and religion.
Many resurrection myths abounded before, during, and after the time of Jesus. The Christ story just struck a cord with the people, and was adopted by the powers that be. Hence has lived on today, such as it is. The resurrection was necessary to turn a martyr into a messiah. Imagine the wrath of Jesus today... to find out what has been done in his name. Cleansing the temple of money changers doesn't even begin to hold a candle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying-and-rising_god

The majority of writings fact and fiction have faded faster than the medium they were written on, throughout our written history.
How much is available today, even from a few centuries ago?
How much of that is still in print today, for the masses to read?
Whats been lost in editing and translation throughout time?
It's like the saying goes. "Throw a bunch of shit at the wall and see what sticks", it's almost that random.
The bard, William Shakespeare was writing soap operas of his day. He probably had no idea his stories would still be thriving 400 years later.

[FightTheFuture]

30-40 years was even equal to 2 lifetimes for a lot of the population then. Agreed it was not just a blink in those days.

As far as resurrections goes, it's nothing new in all of myth and religion.
Many resurrection myths abounded before, during, and after the time of Jesus. The Christ story just struck a cord with the people, and was adopted by the powers that be. Hence has lived on today, such as it is. The resurrection was necessary to turn a martyr into a messiah. Imagine the wrath of Jesus today... to find out what has been done in his name. Cleansing the temple of money changers doesn't even begin to hold a candle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying-and-rising_god

The majority of writings fact and fiction have faded faster than the medium they were written on, throughout our written history.
How much is available today, even from a few centuries ago?
How much of that is still in print today, for the masses to read?
Whats been lost in editing and translation throughout time?
It's like the saying goes. "Throw a bunch of shit at the wall and see what sticks", it's almost that random.
The bard, William Shakespeare was writing soap operas of his day. He probably had no idea his stories would still be thriving 400 years later.

Keep in mind, I`m speaking in relative terms as it pertains to antiquity. Any historian would regard a source 30 years removed as an extremely valuable commodity.

The rest of your post deals with something that is/was fairly popular on internet blogs in the past: Pagan mythology,  and it`s influence on Christianity. That argument has long since been abandoned by the vast majority of critical scholars today.

[b_dubb]

[UnscreenedCaller]

I am an agnostic when it comes to organized religion, because what they all seem to do is try to define and own god, as if such a thing were possible. How many religions have there been throughout history, and how many versions of god? In my opinion, what they all do is try to limit god to human terms, human emotions and responses. Yesterday I read a post somewhere that god's heart is hurting because Jodie Foster married her girlfriend. Really? This is my problem with organized religion: it's the poster who is upset/uncomfortable and is buoying up her response by dragging god in, and so many people use the concept of god to do the same with anything that rattles their cages, from abortion to slavery, in the past.

If there is a god, and I am very open to the possibility that there is, one look at the Hubble pictures of the vastness of the universe might remind us that we aren't the be-all and end-all of creation, that maybe, to paraphrase Mark Twain, God might not be sitting up nights admiring us. Or, that god might not be helping the Jets win one for the gipper. Maybe if we'd stop the ass end way we have of projecting our emotions on something we can't possibly imagine with our limited minds, we'd begin to grasp at the transcendent, however imperfectly.

[Tarbaby]

Exactly. I was about to say when people ask about whether there is a God or not there immediately ensues a conversation about religion. But inquiries about the concept of a God wouldn't have to include discussions of religion, they just do. And you address that issue.

Some sort of a "God" could exist in someway yet all religions could still be false.

[onan]

Exactly. I was about to say when people ask about whether there is a God or not there immediately ensues a conversation about religion. But inquiries about the concept of a God wouldn't have to include discussions of religion, they just do. And you address that issue.

Some sort of a "God" could exist in someway yet all religions could still be false.

Perhaps the original post should have been does god create religion or does religion...

I scratch my head and ask what is god? Please give me a definition. Is god a sky being that talks to a select few and shoots lightning from his fingers?

Sorry but I find the whole god conundrum to have less value than do we really exist? If one finds comfort in that, fine. But don't expect it to comfort me.