That's the best title I can come up with... I checked the rules and couldn't see any problems, but there might be some... It's been a while since I've posted here. Hope the way I used my words don't offend. XD
I am attempting to deny the preceding paradox that non-Christians (this includes atheists, agnostics, even Buddhists and Pantheists) often make against Christians. As such, I will deny it from a Christian perspective. I do not intend to take any other approach toward the matter, though others are invited to do so.
The intention (that I see) of the God/Creation Paradox is to rhetorically discredit the Christian, or Chris's, claims that God exists, uncreated, and also created the Universe. This means that the answer is expected to be "Well, since the Universe has been created, that must mean God is created as well. But Chris thinks that God isn't created, and he won't give an answer as to what created God. He must be wrong about the existence of God."
However, this is a wrong assumption to make.
Chris's meaning of God creating the Universe depends on one fundamental concept: the beginning of Creation. This concept illustrates that God started Creation. No other being(s) before God's Creation period (illustrated as 7 days in Genesis) were created beings. This is because there was no such thing as being created.
Let me draw an analogy. Radioactivity is based upon the instability of atoms of elements, and radioactive decay forms atoms of lighter elements than the previous decayed atoms. But if there was a period where all atoms were stable and not radioactive, there would be no atoms derived from radioactive decay. Such a thing would be insane or ignorant to suggest.
As the people who make its assertion usually don't want to be associated with any religious teaching (due to their choice), they lack extensive knowledge of what they talk about. This is commonly defined as ignorance, and it's what I propose this paradox is based upon when dealing with Chris's ideas.
That's it. Any comments/questions/arguments?
If God created the Universe, how was God created?
If you want to post for the sake of getting your point stated, just sit for a while and think. HARD.
If you can't come up with an original post or anything which corresponds adequately to this topic or the posts on this first page which concern the paradox directly and solely, don't post it. It doesn't matter.
If you want to post for the sake of getting your point stated, just sit for a while and think. HARD.
If you can't come up with an original post or anything which corresponds adequately to this topic or the posts on this first page which concern the paradox directly and solely, don't post it. It doesn't matter.
I am attempting to deny the preceding paradox that non-Christians (this includes atheists, agnostics, even Buddhists and Pantheists) often make against Christians. As such, I will deny it from a Christian perspective. I do not intend to take any other approach toward the matter, though others are invited to do so.
The intention (that I see) of the God/Creation Paradox is to rhetorically discredit the Christian, or Chris's, claims that God exists, uncreated, and also created the Universe. This means that the answer is expected to be "Well, since the Universe has been created, that must mean God is created as well. But Chris thinks that God isn't created, and he won't give an answer as to what created God. He must be wrong about the existence of God."
However, this is a wrong assumption to make.
Chris's meaning of God creating the Universe depends on one fundamental concept: the beginning of Creation. This concept illustrates that God started Creation. No other being(s) before God's Creation period (illustrated as 7 days in Genesis) were created beings. This is because there was no such thing as being created.
Let me draw an analogy. Radioactivity is based upon the instability of atoms of elements, and radioactive decay forms atoms of lighter elements than the previous decayed atoms. But if there was a period where all atoms were stable and not radioactive, there would be no atoms derived from radioactive decay. Such a thing would be insane or ignorant to suggest.
As the people who make its assertion usually don't want to be associated with any religious teaching (due to their choice), they lack extensive knowledge of what they talk about. This is commonly defined as ignorance, and it's what I propose this paradox is based upon when dealing with Chris's ideas.
That's it. Any comments/questions/arguments?
Last edited: