• Who was God's God?

    How did God portray his (it's) beliefs on the creation of himself (it'self)? The bible made it very clear that God made the world, but it never said what made God. So are Atheists supporting an Atheist? Yes. Because they support an all might and all knowing being that does not even express any opinion of his own, however let's people believe in him. That's like letting people leave their trust in me, yet I never trust anyone. It doesn't make sense.

  • Yes, by definition.

    An atheist is one who does not believe in a higher power, so, by definition, since the god of the bible (not sure why past tense was used in the question) does not hold to a higher power, god is an atheist. Theists are just like atheists. They dismiss many thousands of gods, and yet atheists are crazy, because they go one god further.

  • Designer fallacy in action.

    Many Christians use the "Designer fallacy". Similar to how a computer consists of intricate components and is "intelligent", the human contains organs and a soul. Since a computer didn't design itself, neither did the human who built it. But who built the human's builder?

    Some say that God exists outside time, making him infinite, but isn't that the same as not existing at all? Existing outside time yet still being able to communicate to humans? Impossible.

    God doesn't mention his creator if he had one, making him an Atheist.

  • Yes he was

    No where or anywhere did it say that he believed in a reiligion, did it? No. If a god existed, perhaps he IS Atheist. And he doesn't call him self or think he is "god". Maybe he or e even she might think that their powers and abilities are normal, and it is normal to be alone in the universe. (alone because he/she would most likely see us as nothing but animals.)

  • I don't think human self-labeling weighs much to him.

    We've been living to divide ourselves in society for quite some time now, and labeling ourselves as one thing or another followed by combating those who disagree with our label, or attacking those with different labels, has become a pastime that rivals the great war games of the Romans. We seemingly live to argue with one another these days. Gone are nationalism, imperialism, and other forms of war. We instead belittle our own countrymen based on differences, and we insult those with similar ideals or other shared views because we no longer care who we are as a people, where we come from, or what our parents hoped we'd care about.

    Do you really think that God would stoop to giving himself an inferior label such as "Atheist" or "Jewish" or "Christian" or "Muslim"? This is what you've done with your free will?

  • God was not an atheist.

    Atheist are people who do not believe in any specific religion or the thought that there is a God. They also do not try to preach to other their beliefs, which is exactly the opposite of what God supposedly does. Christians, in a sense, preach the word of God and his beliefs so he probably is more leaning towards that religion.

  • It's tricky but no

    Ok so the definition of an Atheist is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. From my understanding it seems that the argument to suggest that he is an atheist could take several different approaches. The first being God is not a member of any religion, he does not worship himself so he cannot be, so we rule him out of any of those ideas, but It's certainly a stretch to jump to suggest that he is therefore an atheist as it is not the neccesary alternative to religion. Agnostic is defined as a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God if this means that agnostics believe that humans cannot know the existence or nature of God then you could argue that this is would God thinks and thus he is agnostic, however most religious ideas of God would argue that God does not think this way. Another argument could be made that God might be under similar circumstances as Descartes who questioned his own existence, Descartes believed that the question of his own existence could be solved by the idea of "I think therefore I am" I'm not going to go into detail about why but the simple truth is that Descartes was wrong, he could not determine his own existence. In the case of God however if it was possible for him to truly not exist yet have consciousness as Hume suggests is possible, then he would, by definition, know that he did not exist. This is due to God being all knowing, thus If God was conscious but did not exist as we ourselves might not, then he would fully know this and thus be able to be refereed to as an atheist. However that idea is very abstract and not exactly proof that God would be an atheist simply a circumstance where he might be able to be called one. However there is a greater issue here as faith, atheism, and agnosticism are all matters of thought, the keyword here is thought meaning that for someone to be labeled under any of these categories they must first be a thinking being. "Think" is defined as to have a particular belief or idea, meaning that the main point of a thought is that it is not known, as soon as it is known that thought becomes knowledge. God is by definition all knowing, meaning that he cannot have any beliefs as they are already known to be true to him, furthermore any idea God has, such as the universe, becomes real as that is what God does, he creates, God does not have the idea of the earth because his idea of earth simply is earth. With this it could be said that God does not think he simply knows, thus he cannot be classed under any categories which by definition are matters of thought. God cannot be Atheist.

  • My guess is that God probably recognizes that He is the higher power!

    Amusing thought. No, by definition provided you define God as an all powerful, all-knowing creator. For Him to be God and not believe in existence of a higher power (Himself) would ridiculous as it would imply a lack of self awareness. He would not be all-knowing. It boils down to this, the "higher" in higher power refers to a state of being not a relative position in a hierarchy. You can limit God to the human experience. If your definition of God differs from the above you might be able to come up with a different stance, but then your god becomes a little less god-like,

  • God was not an atheist

    God is not an Atheist because he is the one that Christianity is based on. How can somebody on who a whole religion is based be atheist? Here is an example to support my claim.
    Just being born onto a genuine starship (which is exactly what the earth is, moving through space with the sun at 55,000 mph) with radiation and meteor shields that are NOT Hollywood imagination, with its own completely safe, self-maintaining, FREE and non-polluting nuclear fusion-powered power source, perfectly recycling oxygen and water supplies, plenty of good food and space to move around and completely transparent walls so as to be able to view space from anywhere, is enough to convince many that it was designed and "built" by Somebody who knew and cared what they were doing.

    And, while not defending fundamentalist "Creationism" with it's unscientific and unscriptural "7,000-year-old universe", you should know that there is plenty of evidence of an intelligent Creator in the world of living things.

    For instance, ever tried to swat a fly? Not necessarily easy, right? Know why? It has to do with the fly's navigational system. It has a single vibrating rod in its abdomen, and as it changes direction in flight, it senses the changes in the vibrations of that rod and is able to dodge you, fly and land upside down and backwards. What would the Air Force pay to have flying and navigational systems that good?

    How did the fly manage to evolve such a system? Even if it evolved a flopping rod, what good would it be without the muscles to vibrate it? And the unusual vibrating motion? And the nerves to send the signals from the rod to the brain? And the section of the brain to interpret the signals? And the correct instructions to interpret them? And the correct instructions to the part of the brain that controlled the wings as to what to DO about those signals? All AT THE SAME TIME. ALL USELESS UNTIL COMPLETE, giving natural selection no advantage to select during all the early "developmental stages". Wouldn't that be a remarkable coincidence? I ask people, "Could YOU sit down, right now, and write the code for such a set of instructions? And if your ten billion well trained and coordinated neurons put together can't do it with an education and a computer, is it really sensible to think that flies did it by themselves?"

  • What a non-sequitur

    It suggests that God is a strictly self aware entity, akin to a big man in the sky or even an alien. The closest definition we have of God is a omniscient, omnipresent, all knowing being. Multi-dimensional, all powerful and all knowing. To question this essentially shows that you have a flawed concept of what he is, based on a very human outlook.

  • Did god believe in him self?

    Amusing question, but really not one that makes all too much sense.
    Unless you consider the "creator" to be a natural phenomena or some sort of unconscious "intelligent" energy walking the fence between religion and science, this question does not really make any sense.

    You could also argue that the creator did not view himself as "god" or his version of "god" did not match that of the concept created by humanity.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.