Man or God?

Any god which we can comprehend is simply an invention of man, so if you're talking about the greek, norse, abramic, etc gods then I'd have to say man came first, but if you believe as I do in that a "creator" of sorts does exists then I'd have to go with God. All depends on your beliefs I suppose, not that it matters seeing as we're all wrong. :)

yeah, sorry I had to re-post.

What I meant to say was,

Can both truly exist, or is one simply an invention of the other?

yeah, sorry I had to re-post.

What I meant to say was,

Can both truly exist, or is one simply an invention of the other?
Next time you see god, why don't you ask him?

Would you have known of God unless you were taught of God?
No. Therefore man came first.

Would you have known of God unless you were taught of God?
No. Therefore man came first.

Can you show me that unless you're taught about God you cannot know him?

If we were to reply man, then we still have the question of where man/life/existence came from.

If we were to reply God, then we still have the question where this God came from.

Unless God were meant to mean everything, the infinite, and that there is no "before" or "after" God.

For what reasons could both not exist? It is possible for a man to imagine a variety of theories concerning God while at the same time himself being a creation of God.

Personally I think its a bit of a two-way street. I believe that while the finite would logically come from within the infinite, the infinite also comes from within the finite: how big is an inch? How long is a second? Does one drop of water plus one drop of water equal two drops, or just one? How large is a "drop"?

My mind is like an open field to be explored, an endless forest of ideas and positions. My mind can understand math, and geometrical concepts such as a "point" or a "perfect circle" or a "straight line in the first dimension", all of which appear to exist only in our heads and not in nature. How does such an infinite thing flow from finite matter?

Stupid question.


Which came first the creator or the creation? What the fuck do you think?

Stupid question.


Which came first the creator or the creation? What the fuck do you think?

Well which one is the creator and which is the creation?

Well which one is the creator and which is the creation?
Whichever one came first, obviously. :rolleyes:

Whichever one came first, obviously. :rolleyes:

Yea I'm done w/ this thread.

Well which one is the creator and which is the creation?

God. Thats the definition of god.

This is a trick question. Eve would have came first if Adam was really a man of God.

Stupid question.

What the fuck do you think?
I believe that man created god to explain things he could not understand, as do a lot of people. It's not a stupid question you just gave a stupid answer.

I believe that man created god to explain things he could not understand, as do a lot of people. It's not a stupid question you just gave a stupid answer.
Also conceivable that a "God" create man (and the rest of the universe) to explain things he could not understand. ;)

This probably belongs in the theology forum.

This is a trick question. Eve would have came first if Adam was really a man of God.

[LOL. I c wat u did thar.

This probably belongs in the theology forum.

Please no.....it will just turn into a big hateful rant.

Heres a question though.

If there was men before our men and they created us.....what does that make them?

This is a trick question. Eve would have came first if Adam was really a man of God.

I see what you did there

Also conceivable that a "God" create man (and the rest of the universe) to explain things he could not understand. ;)

Thank you Douglas Adams!

Stupid question.


Which came first the creator or the creation? What the fuck do you think?

I'll whipe my ass with the shroud of Turing before I remove you from my ignore list you stupid piece of human failure!

With our current knowledge it's impossible to actually ANSWER this question. It's all based on what your religious beliefs are.

And people need to fucking stop using "god" as a general term for universe and/or everything. Even though I know you're just comparing it I'm sure there are some ass holes at their computer thinking "oh this guy is religious!"

And people need to fucking stop using "god" as a general term for universe and/or everything.

Why? Thats what I believe God is. I believe other 'Gods' are inadequate.

Why? Thats what I believe God is. I believe other 'Gods' are inadequate.

I don't understand what's so difficult about calling the universe....universe. Why attribute a word that is widely known as something else when there is already a perfectly good word just waiting to be used.

I don't understand what's so difficult about calling the universe....universe. Why attribute a word that is widely known as something else when there is already a perfectly good word just waiting to be used.

I don't believe the universe is everything. I don't believe it is an adequate replacement for God.

What 'God' is widely know as depends on what part of the world you're occupying. And perhaps whatever it happens to be widely known as is objectively inaccurate; beliefs are subjective.

Languages are not static, they are constantly changing. Words reflect the beliefs and intentions of the countless human beings who have contributed their subjective opinion to the meaning of the word over thousands and thousands of years. I am doing just that. Maybe in a thousand years people won't be so particular of the anthropomorphic conceptions of God.

BTW, what do you think pantheists mean when they say God? They certainly don't mean an anthropomorphized entity.

Would you have known of God unless you were taught of God?
No. Therefore man came first.
For the sake of argument, God' (God prime) in this case is some sort of force, perhaps consciousness itself. Substitute any mystical and non-interventionist form of God you prefer.

I think you can know God' without knowing God. Odds are that in a society that is unfamiliar with God but knows God', the idea of God will appear.

Lewis wrote about this "God'" incessantly and deduced God from it; which could have been the right or the wrong conclusion, it just depends on what you define as God and who you ask. God is a social entity, God' is not (though one could make the argument that it is a "mental entity", not in the sense that it is imaginary [though it very well could be and it would have been argued that it is had this thread left Humanities], but in that it is a concept held only in the mind). However at the same time, God' may not be the creator either, even if it does exist outside of the mind.

I don't understand what's so difficult about calling the universe....universe. Why attribute a word that is widely known as something else when there is already a perfectly good word just waiting to be used.

Universe: everything that is
universe: the sum of all galaxies and all intergalactic space

This distinction has fucked me in several debates. :( Don't fall for the same trap.

Universe: everything that is

Does this just refer to the geometrical dimensions of space? Does it include time, or other dimensions we may be unaware of such as alternative Universes with slight variations in the basic forces which hold matter together, resulting in existences and expressions of matter unimaginable by you and me?

If it does, thats great. But if it doesn't, I still find it inadequate compared to more basic words like 'existence', 'absolute', 'perfect', 'reality'.

And even then those words are also inadequate for what I personally try to describe. This is why I use the word God. I think the words existence and reality imply separation from the observer and the observed. Absolute and perfect are pretty good, but they are descriptive words used to refer to 'something' and I think they also imply separation of the observer and the observed and assign value to this 'something' while devaluing whatever that something doesn't include.

I use God to imply union between the observer and the observed, that both are one and both are infinite. That there is no real division between the two, there is only the infinite. That the division is an order attempting to be born out of the chaos that is actual reality. The division, the limitation, the apparent finiteness of existence are all in the mind, an order appearing out of the chaos like constructive interference.

That is all 'the observer' is in my opinion. 'My' existence including my perception of the reality around me is constructive interference created by the absolute, perfect, chaotic, infinite all. What I mean by God.

In my opinion logic, order, reason and the finite are born like constructive interference out of the illogical, chaotic, irrational infinite existence which really is.

Man or God?
What I am going to tell you is false.
We will start on the general path and come around to the deeper truth later.

Nothingness is an easy way to think of it. Before there were things, before they vibrated and span, before the water in which they were born and die began. Before the Yin, before the Yang, before the sudden Bang.

But how can Nothingness cause somethingness? Exactly the reason why Nothingness is an inadequate definition.

The step before the unsullied, undefined, Nothingness is what the Norse called Ginnungagap, or magically charged void. What they probably mean by magically charged void is the infinite creative potential of the Runes latent within the void.

The Runes are basically a description of the pure being within All of Creation*, they are esoteric concepts each linking together and complementing each other, ultimately apophatically describing the same entity.

*the void/fireice/vibration/unmanifest/manifest/ect. . .
As well as the Nothingness itself. . . tho Nothingness is not limited to that.


The charge of the creative power caused the manifestation* of the first two antipodal worlds. In the south appeared Muspellsheimr (fire/expansion) and in the north arose Niflheimr (icy mist/contraction). Niflheimr spewed forth icy waves as the Muspellsheimr shot out sparks and glowing particles. But the center remained "mild as windless air."

*A different level of manifestation than our frequency understands the word.
As above so below
it happens on every level of the tree.

When these two forces met the ice was melted and the and agitation was quickened. From this arises Ymir (the roarer) indicating primal vibration, which is cyclicar, eukaryotic cells are an example of this. But nevermind, we need not go in to this now.

Anything that you can define is Being/Consciousness/Bliss* insofar as it cannot be separate from the non-transcendent aspects of Being/Consciousness/Bliss, however anything you define is not Being/Consciousness/Bliss as such.

*Transcendent Absolute

Pure Being, or the transcendent aspects of Being/Consciousness/Bliss eventually led to the mind/body/spirit complex we experience today.

This experience will end and it will again be like it was before everything began. So this is really just a bemusing brummagem.

Personally, I'm not religious, I just saw this on Hot Topics and thought I might reply. But I think that man would have came first, and I agree with a post here saying that god is just a creation of man, and was created to explain things that can't be explained. Like back in the stone-age the neanderthals(sp?) would have used god to explain things, and did hings to appease this god, coincidently(sp again?) something happened. Stick with these ideas for about 100,000,000 years and you have the basic concept of religion. That's my idea anyway.

http://images.teamsugar.com/files/users/1/13254/30_2007/eggdid.jpg

Kudos to whoever edits that into a man and "god" in bed

Which came first, the chicken mcnugget or the egg mcmuffin?

Which came first, the chicken mcnugget or the egg mcmuffin?

The latter, according to the Wiki.

The latter, according to the Wiki.

Lulz. I wish I was as smart as wikipedia.

The way/tao/god/g-d/allah came before anything.