Legitimate question or no?

Even this question can be gotten around if you narrow the parameters.

What do you mean "gotten around"? It's a truth-seeking question. No one's trying to cheat here.

(Don't tell me you actually think that non-believers look for excuses not to believe and their disbelief isn't founded on anything.)

I'm different from other posters on here. My logic is primitive so I have to make do.

I make things fit. I always start with Jesus as the center piece and then I try to determine where the next thing fits. Sometimes I can't fit it for a while.

Scripture is like that. A big metaphysical puzzle given to us in bits by individual verses. You have to be able to jump around in the bible to find the connections and that takes practice though a good memory helps.

Your logic isn't primitive because you're not smart, it's primitive because you actively take steps to suppress it.

Just look:

This EPFR (Ex Post Facto Reasoning) sucks.

Think about what you're doing for a second. You've set yourself up to never ever be wrong, even if you are! You can't just assert a conclusion and get everything else to fit it afterwards. Otherwise...

"I make things fit. I always start with Allah as the center piece and then I try to determine where the next thing fits. Sometimes I can't fit it for a while."

See? Now I can't be wrong either!

I haven't taken a course in logic so I know I'm not good at logic but I don't agree with this "logical testing" approach people take to the faith or bible.

Logic doesn't supplant revelation.

Look at all the problems people get into on here by superficial contradictions. They never research below the surface to resolve the contradiction. They just assert it as authoritative.

Faith can not be blind if its based on God's word hence my approach is practical. I just have to fit the pieces together.

Some Beings exist through their own justification. Are you one of them?

if we can say this...then we can just say "the universe exists by its own accord."

Can you explain further?

read aristotle.

God is called "the god of the universe" in the bible. So the question then becomes what the bible means by "universe". You'd have to do an exhaustive study of the bible to determine this unless you have someone else's research on it but the bible seems curiously silent on it.

As for your second question I think it depends on the individual. Some people reason their way to disbelief and some people may have an unconscious motivation and some could have both. There's never a single answer when you're dealing with people. People's psyches and life experiences and environments are too diverse and complex.

Splendour, why don't you answer the question in the op like you ask of everyone in all of your posts. Was god created? Where did he come from? How did he come into existence? Those are the questions the op is asking and if you don't feel like answering them, why are you participating in this thread?

Don't be hypocritical now.

Because to tell the truth I haven't thought a lot about this question to give an answer.

I'm just trying to suggest another line of thinking on the problem. It would be interesting to compare all the biblical ideas with scientific ones.

Just wiking the word "universe" comes up with an enormous amount of ideas on what it means. Checking them against what the bible claims is an enormous task and the metaphysical interpretation is pretty daunting. I don't think Einstein would be equal to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

After all even Einstein claimed to make mistakes. His "fudge factor" being his greatest one according to him.

Why are you bringing up the universe? This is a thread about where god came from, not about the universe and any arguments you want to pick regarding that concept.

And how have you never thought about where god came from? Isn't that like one of the top 3 issues surrounding any religion?

Outside of 2+2 I've never heard anyone ask where God came from. It doesn't mean people don't think it but its a question asked more by science and philosophy.

I'd say this is too general for the idea of the "universe" doesn't give nature to individual beings. It's an abstraction, logically used during our time, but is meaningless if one sees the world as a cacophony of spiritual beings of different natures.

Intellectually the question can be asked but the answer never forthcoming for obviously both sides of the "debate" can be construed as correct. But there is one consideration that philosophers have spoken to and that is the idea of nothingness. They ask how one can recognize "nothing" for in the recognition itself is obviously "something". Our intellect does see ourselves as "something" otherwise the question becomes moot and we have "nothing cognizing nothing".

OK, so now you know that you're "something" but the original question is still there and into this contradictory avenue comes thinking and knowledge. From this it may become evident that one must ask whether "I exist through my own justification". Intellectually I can again step on two sides of the parlay of yea and nay but there's no substance to these answers. The heart has been taken out of the answers.

I KNOW ONE THING, I EXIST.....My intellect may posit my non existence but inner facts denies the negative no matter how cute I get with my logic. For the intellect to posit my existence in the past from nothingness is a return to the original question and has already been answered in the negative.

Intellectually as follow up to the last sentence we have gone beyond the bonds of "time" and have entered into the world of "duration". If one attempts to see into the living concept of "duration" the "experience" is that of timelessness. There is no beginning and no end in "duration" for the Alpha and Omega of earthly existence is manifest through "time" which demands a beginning and end point.

But there is more for if the human being wishes to live in "duration" how does one know oneself if there is not a punctuation of individuality within this timeless sphere? The answer appears to be that of an individual history which is obtained by the human being within the sphere of "time". Man obtains his individuality by working within 'time" but in order for him to work "individually" he must have something that gives him an individuality and can work within this sphere of "time" and that is known as the "Ego" or "I" that Drop of the Divine in which the souls of men obtain self creation within the eternal.

So has the question been answered? Realistically it's not a good question for it obviously implies a zero or nothingness but as the above hopefully displays the idea of "nothingness" is meaningless in so far as the individual man is concerned. Of note is the issue of "self creation" to which mankind has some issue and relegated to his individual sphere. Is this the "creation" related to in the original question? Absolutely not, for the question of "nothingness" arises and as displayed its a red herring in which intellectually speaking we can go no further.

Splendour, my answer gave credence to beings existing through their own justification. the above is a start in which we attempt to bring forth the being of Man and in this the "I" becomes manifest. So it's a start in the direction of self knowledge of Man which proceeds from knowledge of the world and cosmos. The "I" is one of the bodies of Man. Intermediate between his physical nature and the "I"is the etheric body (not the ether of science) which can be appreciated as plant like and his astral body in which the joys and sufferings of man can be found. All, except the physical body are supersensible.

I have to stop for there obviously is more but perhaps the above will give some direction to the relevant questions of man and his being.

Then you have a small group of friends who are as close and narrow minded as you. I have heard this question asked at least 100 times in my church and many other churches ive visited, both in this country and in many others.

The obvious Christian answer is "nobody", and for lots of people that makes sense because to them it seems more likely that a sentient being would more likely to be uncreated than a lifeless universe. Obviously this is illogical for many reasons.

The obvious fallacy in your post is: my experience isn't yours.

Now the real question is what makes you feel you should indulge this passion to belittle other people's experience?

But the question is whether "Who designed the designer?" is a legitimate question, not whether it is a popular, disrespectful, or awkward one.

Is there anything logically wrong with questioning where God came from? I think it's 100% natural to ask, and hasn't been adequately/reasonably answered yet (to my knowledge).

Its a natural question but at this time probably unanswerable.

If I had said this about you (or any other Christian), I'd have felt like I was being insulting. While I'm glad to hear you admit this, I'm sad that you consider such ignorance as a badge of honor. But let me get this straight...

Have you just admitted that you have a fixed belief about Jesus and Christianity that is not subject to change under any circumstances? When presented with any contrary evidence, you'll just twist, cram, and jam things around until they fit what you want to believe?

A good pair of blinders wouldn't hurt either, huh?

Ignorance is not a badge of honor but my IQ is set. It was set at birth. I could learn logic but it wouldn't necessarily serve me any better than revelation because with revelation I'm more apt to lean on the spirit and less on myself which is an aim of any Christian.

As for my belief in Jesus Christ it is fixed like a ship at anchor. Its a fixed point but it drifts around as I consider him from time, space, history, etc. So its fixed but flexible at the same time. If it were fixed as fanatically as you are implying I couldn't even entertain the idea that Buddha was Christlike.

You are trying to convert me to atheism. I'm just trying to understand all spiritual truths and if it takes a huge comparative religious study then I'm willing to do it.

Lol, so you believe in god because you lack the intellectual and mental capacity to think otherwise. Pure gold.

An aim of Christianity is to learn by revelation and "lean on the spirit" as opposed to logic and thought? I for one am shocked.

Yes. The natural question to "the universe needs a creator" is, does the creator need a creator? The question is no more unfair then the assertion that leads to it imo.

Nonsense.

"Where did the universe come from?" is like the number one main head honcho argument above all else that followers use to justify revealed religion.

Who/what created God is thus by implication a perfectly legitimate question, and merely intellectual dishonesty would stop it from being asked in theology.

The argument of the first mover dispels itself in a blinding display of paradoxal logic. It can not logically be used as an argument for god.