If we are made in Gods image, who made God?

Post Reply New Topic

If we are made in God's image, then who made God?
Is this the same as the Chicken and the Egg paradox?
(with God being the chicken and us being the Egg)

No one made God.

You've got it backwards, man made god in his image.

With some men yes.

But those are the ones who have wierd interpretations of Gods Word.

The only meaningful question that I think could be embedded in this is something like 'Is there some secret/lost book of the bible that only eggheads, nerds, and Vatican insiders know about that most of the population doesn't' - not really. The only place you'll find attempts at answering these kinds of questions is in places like the Gnostic texts, and even there you really come in contact where their complex cosmologies still sit on an ultimate unknowing no matter how fancy the array of objects, hierarchies, or deities gets. This and, IMHO, by the time you're looking at Gnostic texts you're probably ready to look at pretty much everything else as well.

The bible is incredibly collapsed on this point, and you're really not given much of anything to go on aside from the notion that there are metaphysical complexities hinted at (such as in Ezekiel or Isaiah) but that it's machinery we wouldn't understand, it's not our species' stomping grounds, and so it's a moot point.

I'm not sure which approach is better - ie. pelting someone with the complexities of the Tripartite Tractate, Pistis Sophia, or things like Rudolph Steiner's strapping cosmologies to prove to people that it's turtles all the way down (or up) or whether it's better to just say 'don't waste your time unless something 'up there' solicits your involvement'.

As for 'who made god', if you're not okay with 'humans did - God is a repository for governance that we want off-limits to human tampering' then it's like asking 'what made fields'.

It isn't just Christians although Christians are a good example.

The traditional Indo-European pantheon is also an example of gods that are clearly reflective of the people who invented them.

They're little more than communal imaginary friends. Certain contemporary Christian sects take this to it's logical conclusion by fixating on the relationship aspect of their faith, but that's just an extreme interpretation of something that's been around for thousands of years.

Christian philosophers claim that god is necessary, but non-tautological necessity doesn't really make sense. They'll compare God's non-existence to the existence of contradictory things like square circles, as if there isn't more of a contradiction in the latter than the former.

Sigmund Freud didn't believe that religion was "necessary"----but he did believe that it was inevitable because people wanted to make sense of the inevitable phenomena of the world.

Last edited by kraftiekortie on 18 Mar 2021, 10:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

Love the response, everyone has there own interpretations. I used to question who made god as you can’t be created without a creator and a creator needs a creator before them. Like family , you need parents to exist and for your parents to exist, there parents did. God is everything

---

Story Rules; Some Folks Let Other Folks Create God For Them;

Other Folks Write Their Story As A Co-Creator With Nature

And Actually Act The Plays They Co-Create

And Shed Leaves Of Other Trees

Including

Letters

Leaves

Words

Like God

While They (me) Are

Creating Breath of Free Now;

If It Gets too Confusing Listen

to AC/DC And Forget All the Words

And Just BREaTHE Be God Be i am Same

Advice Given Before And Still NoW iN 'Autotelic Flow' For

Those Who Simply BREaTHE God Free This Nature Now

HAhahahahahahahaha It IS Like Being In Heaven

AsKinG WHeRe it CaMe From...

It's Not Something

Ya Waste Ya Days

In Heaven On As

THere is ALWaYS New Heaven to Create Eternally Living Now;

It's Like Wondering who Created Windows 95 (Hint: Microsoft);

Meh, At Least for 'Those' Who Go With a Simulated Created Holographic Reality...

i Found/Find the 'Power-Ups'; Yes, Meanwhile Other Folks Just Can't Figure 'em out...

As they are Still Stuck Wondering Who Made Who as i continue to Create me for real...

Who Am i

i Am Who

Who Am i

i BREaTHE Free Complete

Enough Is Enough for now i am....Now

Honestly If More Folks AREWhole NoW And

Complete They'd They Will Understand Who God even is

GenerAlly SPeaKinG THE Other Animals Are So Much More Advanced

They Never Have to

Ask Why as No

One Ever

Tells them

They Aren't God...

Humans And All Their Pieces;

Eggs And All The Broken Shells...

So Many Humpty Dumpties; So Many Humpty Dumpties...

Nothing Personal; Just A Poem; Just 'Word Salad' As

'They Say', While Others (They) Get Lost in 'the Dressing'...

That's Truly

Sad and 'Blind'...

'Salad' So Covered With Dressing...

---

It is not a logical necessity that God had to be created. It’s impossible for an eternal, infinite being to have been created because anything or anyone that could be said to have begun to exist inherently cannot be eternal. The soul could be created immortal, meaning that it doesn’t cease to exist, but it cannot be said to be eternal because at some point it had a beginning. Anything that ever BEGAN to exist must by logical necessity have been created. The opposite is not true. God always was, always is, always will be. That such a being required a creator is not merely logically unnecessary, but absurd.

Does god poop?
And if he does, does he still need to use toilet paper?

Haha! Why. You want to find out the hard way?

Is that a threat?

No. It is my humour.

Of course necessity would imply eternity. That doesn't explain why God is necessary. And defining God as necessary doesn't solve anything. It's like if someone asked why Stonehenge is a circle, and you responded by saying that it would be absurd for a circle not to be circular. People don't start with definitions; we invent them to describe and categorize concepts we already have.
I've studied the cosmological and contingency arguments and I understand that the three options are:
1. A brute contingency
2. An infinite regress
3. Something necessary
All of those options seem absurd but one must be true. What I'm not convinced of is that option three is more plausible than the others.