Zone1 Who created all things?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Isaiah 44:24=This is what Jehovah has said, your repurchaser and the former of you from the belly. I Jehovah am doing everything, stretching out the heavens by myself, laying out the Earth, who was with me?
Myself ( 1 single being) is meaning-The only power source and designer of all creation.--How do we know this?
Gen 1:26--Let US make man in our image--Us = we, But in verse Gen 1:27 it says-HE created, Prov 8:27-28-HE created HE = a single being--So then what does US mean?
US = Jehovah and his master worker( Jesus)(Prov 8:30= The one who was beside God during creating, the one whom God grew especially fond of= his son. At John 1:3 and Col 1:16-created-THROUGH Jesus= means another did the creating= HE=Jehovah THROUGH his master worker.
This is the reality of how creation worked.
Jesus is the FIRSTBORN of all creation--All creation occurred at the beginning, is there proof Jesus is created= yes-Prov 8:22-Possessed me as the beginning of your way( creating) The Hebrew word for Possessed= created--Thus Gods master worker( Jesus) was created first=direct=Monogenes( unique) which is the translation of only begotten son.
These are bible facts. There are certain errors in altered translations that make it seem like Jesus created all things, but the facts i have presented are bible truth=Gods truth.

Maybe nobody.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Donald H:

Since you obviously are not a Christian, you need to keep quiet about what "Christianity" believes.


FYI: Everything written in all 66 books of the Judeo-Christian Bible was written by inspiration of Almighty God Jehovah. The entire book of Genesis is literally true.

No, that's false.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

My belief is influenced by the child-like stories said to be God’s literal word and by the fossil record. These things combine to tell me that what the Bible is could hardly be the literal word of God.

That being so, I still believe in a Creator because all of everything just popping into existence out of nothing strikes me as being absurd.

Then a creator popping into existence out of nothing would have to seem even more absurd, since the creator would be greater than his creation.

 

[BothWings]

It's difficult for most people to conceive of a neverending eternal paradoxical universe, which itself IS the "supreme being"... and we are a part of it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's difficult for most people to conceive of a neverending eternal paradoxical universe, which itself IS the "supreme being"... and we are a part of it.

Seems like something that would impossible for ANYONE to conceive . We can't even really conceive of the number 1000.

We can describe it, sure.

 

[BackAgain]

Then a creator popping into existence out of nothing would have to seem even more absurd, since the creator would be greater than his creation.

For once you make a somewhat reasonable point.

But one answer is this: there is — necessarily — one thing or entity which exists which wasn’t created by a creator.

I suppose you could flip a coin. But I still believe that the remarkable laws of science including physics (which are still being discovered, daily) demonstrate planning and intelligence. But, on that basis, as I alluded to, previously, I feel compelled to come down on the side of God.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But one answer is this: there is — necessarily — one thing or entity which exists which wasn’t created by a creator.

I find that to be a dubious claim. That's just a reiteration of the conclusion of the regressive "first mover" argument.

Maybe it is true, maybe it is not.

For once you make a somewhat reasonable point.

But one answer is this: there is — necessarily — one thing or entity which exists which wasn’t created by a creator.

I suppose you could flip a coin. But I still believe that the remarkable laws of science including physics (which are still being discovered, daily) demonstrate planning and intelligence. But, on that basis, as I alluded to, previously, I feel compelled to come down on the side of God.

And I believe lots of things seem that way, because our intelligence has limits.

This belief is tangential to the watchmaker fallacy.

Maybe true, maybe not.

 

[BothWings]

Seems like something that would impossible for ANYONE to conceive . We can't even really conceive of the number 1000.

We can describe it, sure.

I think there's quite a dichotomy and spectrum of ability within the human race where that is concerned.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I think there's quite a dichotomy and spectrum of ability within the human race where that is concerned.

No, there isn't. No human can conceive of the number 1000, for example. There are limits to our hardware. A savant may be able to count 1000 toothpicks quickly, but that isn't understanding or conception. That's mechanical.

 

[BackAgain]

I find that to be a dubious claim. That's just a reiteration of the conclusion of the regressive "first mover" argument.

Maybe it is true, maybe it is not.



And I believe lots of things seem that way, because our intelligence has limits.

This belief is tangential to the watchmaker fallacy.

Maybe true, maybe not.

That’s ok. I’m not looking to persuade you or anyone else.

In my estimation, the question itself is unanswerable. I also doubt that it matters very much whether any of us ever live to get a solid answer.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That’s ok. I’m not looking to persuade you or anyone else.

Well,likewise. Discussion for the sake of discussion.

 

[BackAgain]

Well,likewise. Discussion for the sake of discussion.

Agreed.

 

[BothWings]

No, there isn't. No human can conceive of the number 1000, for example. There are limits to our hardware. A savant may be able to count 1000 toothpicks quickly, but that isn't understanding or conception. That's mechanical.

Really? You can't conceive of the # 1000? Damn, homey....that's sad. Where do you get lost? It's very easy for me to envision.

 

[BreezeWood]

In my estimation, the question itself is unanswerable. I also doubt that it matters very much whether any of us ever live to get a solid answer.

a question asked has an answer ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Really? You can't conceive of the # 1000?

No, and neither can you. You can describe it. But you cannot truly conceive of 1000 separate objects at once, and you never will.

And forget about 1,000,000.

 

[Alter2Ego]

I was really only interested in whether or not you believe in evolution? Clearly you don't! Your rudeness and anger toward me shows that it's an issue for you that you haven't been able to deal with.

Donald H:

What rudeness and anger? Don't tell me you're sensitive.

 

[Alter2Ego]

Thats not true.

According to the creation account the earth was already a planet before light was SPOKEN into existence.

The world was without shape or form (lawless) and void (exceedingly pointless) and darkness (ignorance) covered the face of the deep (the unknown) and the Spirit of God HOVERED over the waters and said, "Let there be light."

What credible scientific evidence agrees with that?

Take your time.....

Actually hobelim:

It's quite true that credible science agrees with the Genesis creation account. I was referring to Darwin's macroevolution myth and the fact that the fossils record says it never happened while, on the other hand, credible science agrees with the creation account of living creatures.

But since you want to go all the way back to where Jehovah said: "Let there be light," and you expect me to find puny scientists to confirm those events, keep waiting. Meanwhile, suppose you present evidence within this thread that the account at Genesis chapter 1 is NOT correct.

Don't waste my time with Big Bang theory aka Fairytale #1 in which space supposedly expands for reasons unknown. I've heard that nonsense at the dozens of websites where I've debated over the years, and not one single atheist has been able to tell me where the material came from that was part of the expanding space.


Proceed.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Actually hobelim:

It's quite true that credible science agrees with the Genesis creation account. I was referring to Darwin's macroevolution myth and the fact that the fossils record says it never happened while, on the other hand, credible science agrees with the creation account of living creatures.

But since you want to go all the way back to where Jehovah said: "Let there be light," and you expect me to find puny scientists to confirm those events, keep waiting. Meanwhile, suppose you present evidence within this thread that the account at Genesis chapter 1 is NOT correct.

Don't waste my time with Big Bang theory aka Fairytale #1 in which space supposedly expands for reasons unknown. I've heard that nonsense at the dozens of websites where I've debated over the years, and not one single atheist has been able to tell me where the material came from that was part of the expanding space.


Proceed.

What a bunch of embarrassing nonsense.

 

[BackAgain]

a question asked has an answer ...

That sound poetic. But, sadly, it aint true.

 

[BreezeWood]

and not one single atheist has been able to tell me where the material came from that was part of the expanding space.

bb is a cyclical event - energy to matter to energy ...