General Question

EntitY's avatar

Was God Created?

Asked by EntitY (60points) July 12th, 2009

This is my first question here and I am using this particular question to try and get to know you a little better and I am interested in your views too…

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

64 Answers

eambos's avatar

Created by man’s imagination? Yes.

wundayatta's avatar

Man invented God, as man invents many things. God, believe it or not, plays a role in the scientific method. The urge for knowledge has become so strong, that many humans can not function when they don’t know something. God is a kind of placeholder, so that people can feel like the know something, even though they don’t, thus satiating the urgent need for knowledge and safety for a little bit.

DeanV's avatar

Didn’t we tell you not to ask questions? He just was, okay?

You’re not paid to think.

seekingwolf's avatar

I believe the idea of God was created by humans to fulfill a spiritual need…it’s an anthropomorphic way of looking at spirituality and feeling connected to something greater than ourselves, which is very imporant to many people. The idea of “God” makes this possible for many.

Grisaille's avatar

Yes, by men to explain why certain things happen when, at the time, we had no knowledge as to why they did.

Also, it gave us a false sense of security. In time, the concept of an omnipotent being that watches over us and throws down lightning bolts became distorted, twisted, increasingly perverted and misogynistic.

Going far off base and more into my own perspective of the world, the idea of religion and God – concepts that once gave people hope – have become tools to control the public. Again, that’s my own personal opinion, though.

tinyfaery's avatar

Man created god and then god created man.

Ivan's avatar

Looks like we have a consensus.

benjaminlevi's avatar

We made god in our image.

DominicX's avatar

I don’t know. Thinking about this kind of thing does nothing but boggle my mind. How can something come out of nothing? What existed before we existed?

There’s no way I can know the answer to those questions.

NaturalMineralWater's avatar

There will be no objective answer to this question. All we can say is what we believe. I believe God always was and always will be. The concept of His eternity need be pondered by a higher faculty than the one we were granted.

filmfann's avatar

God invented us. God always was. God always will be.
You’re human. You cannot get your mind around God. Accept it.

Ivan's avatar

My right pinkie fingernail invented us. My right pinkie fingernail always was. My right pinkie finger nail always will be. You’re human. You cannot get your mind around my right pinkie finger nail. Accept it.

dannyc's avatar

All answers are purely a guess…it is probably just important to go with your own gut on this will be as satisfying as anything you may receive here.

peyton_farquhar's avatar

God cannot be created or destroyed, He can only be transformed from one state to another.

tinyfaery's avatar

Then why is god a he?

peyton_farquhar's avatar

@tinyfaery I was mostly just tryin’ to be clever.

ratboy's avatar

He shows the hallmarks of intelligent design. I’d have to say He was created—probably for a purpose He doesn’t understand.

Ivan's avatar


Really, there’s no way we can come to any conclusion that is more logically supported than any other?

Thammuz's avatar

Yup, by us.

Bluefreedom's avatar

What exactly was this process that man used to create God? I’d like to find that out so I can create my own God to use it exclusively as I see fit. That’s wouldn’t be considered sacrilegious would it?

Ivan's avatar


It’s easy.

1) Find something you don’t understand.
2) Come up with some sort of being that explains it.
3) Kill everyone who doesn’t believe in it.

DominicX's avatar


Made me LOL.

Bluefreedom's avatar

@Ivan. Seems easy enough right up until I have to start taking lives. That might get a little dicey. I should carefully think this through. Or not. Thanks for the recipe too.

evelyns_pet_zebra's avatar

@Bluefreedom creating your own God is easy, just takes a little imagination and a tendency to look around for inspiration. Getting it to be as popular as some of the more well known gods takes some serious self-promotion and clever marketing skills. You need money, too. Lots of money and a way to get the people giving you money to be convinced that your god just can’t handle money, and always needs more. thank you, George Carlin.

L. Ron Hubbard did it, I did it, and you can too. Hell, there had to be at least 2,500 other people that figured out how to do it, and that’s not counting the millions of gods created by people that never made it in the history books.

You know if cows worshipped gods, their gods would look like cows, right?

Tink's avatar

So you are observing us?

Well I don’t get the whole “created” concept, but, (Ive been dying to know this answer) if he was “born” before us someone must have created him, and who created that person that created him? And so on…
Now I’m just confused

Bluefreedom's avatar

@evelyns_pet_zebra. Those are some righteous words, sir, and ones that I will take to heart. Thanks for your valuable insights into creating something so important yet so profoundly bewildering for so many the world over. If cows worshipped gods, their gods would look like cows…......that’s seriously deep. Like bottomless.

DarkScribe's avatar

Well, if he was, someone should find the receipt and warranty for him – he is obviously defective and in need of repair or replacement.

Jack_Haas's avatar

The men who create virtual worlds that increasingly resemble our own were created themselves, so it’s definitely a possibility.

nebule's avatar

no…but mother nature does

sap82's avatar

I have no idea if God was created or not. I wasn’t around in the beginning. Also, you ask a question about God on this site and you will be more than likely nailed a Troll. Why? Because most of the higher flutherites are atheist and have a real problem with Christians (specifically) and people that actually use there brain to know that the universe can’t just come in and out of existance without something causing it.

Grisaille's avatar

@sap82 Way to contradict yourself in less than two sentences.

Thammuz's avatar

@sap82 and people that actually use there brain to know that the universe can’t just come in and out of existance without something causing it.

And god could.

Makes perfect sense.

CMaz's avatar

Who God is was created. What God is has always been there.

lloydbird's avatar

@EntitY It depends on your definition of God.

bcstrummer's avatar

Okay, ugh, where do I start, let me give you the “If he was real” part:

In the beginning, god was concieved like everyone else, thru good good lovin. Apparently he did some crazy wackass cracker shit that made him famous, and when he died, he was idolized like michael Jackson. And apparently with marie, she cheated on Joseph, or caught him while he was sleepin, and had a baby, and people believed anything back then so she said god did it. Well Jesus was born, he did some crazy ass cracka shit too and was idolized like god, some people hated that, much like nowadays like michael jackson. So they killed him, he supposedly rose from the dead, but that’s impossible he probably was taken by some crazy buffalo bill freak

Now here’s the “if he’s not real” part:

Man created god beause he needed to know someone was out there, someone he could connect to, like a father of sorts, and man created god in his image, that’s why he’s white in some peoples eyes, he could be black or Asian or Hispanic…....or a hybrid hippo monkey that talks(LOL), and man worshipped god and spread the lie onto believers, because man was such a good liar and believer, it didn’t take long to form a society, so basically all religion is based on lies and all you have to believe in is yourself so stop idolizing someone you never see, that’s how the revolutionary war got started

VoodooLogic's avatar

Personally, I agree with the premise of the question, but I’ll offer that atheists tend to lean on evolution as a foundation for knowledge. And, to me, this sites a historical justification of might equals right (survival of the fittest). So an atheist can uphold great moral values, but it’s less than comforting when the source of morality is atheism/evolution – a description of human existence – rather than a subscribing to a wider socially accessible code of conduct.

Hope this helps

Ivan's avatar


It’s not enough to believe in something simply because it’s comfortable. Belief should stem from evidence.

VoodooLogic's avatar


Evidence does not equate to morality.

the bible is evidence that we humans have found certain ideas to be important enough to transcribe through generations. We even fight for these ideas. However, we both could argue that the morality is questionable, yet the evidence is still there to ponder.

under the premise of “might equals right,” Christianity could take over the world and an evolutionist would say, “as a people, their traits are strongest and therefore their ideas propagate.” there is no morality in evolution, but I find that atheists take offense to this sentiment.

Ivan's avatar

I honestly don’t see what you’re trying to say here. An “evolutionist” would say that our morality was derived from evolution. That is, traits such as empathy and altruism were favored by natural selection in the same manner that bigger brains and sharper teeth were.

VoodooLogic's avatar

Damn, multiple tabs! I was answering a different thread entirely. my bad everybody.

trying to answer somebodies question – on another thread – about atheism and morality.

- but I am saying that, survival of the fittest is the lowest common denominator aka might equals right. That doesn’t sit well with me.

Ivan's avatar

Even if evolution did imply that “might equals right” (which it doesn’t), the evidence doesn’t care whether or not it “sits well with you”. The evidence points to the truth whether you’re comfortable with it or not.

VoodooLogic's avatar

If we can agree that truth does not need evidence to exist and evidence does not equate to truth. Then, evidence may or may not point to truth. a person who believes in evidence is still taking it on a matter of belief.

evolution is convenient in that it describes the earthly phenomenon and is ultimately subject to reinterpretation as needed: it’s built into science. but it’s no doctrine on how to live morally.

I’m jumping on mah own thread. Peace to you all.

Ivan's avatar

Evidence does not equate truth, but evidence does point to truth. To say otherwise is plainly ridiculous. Beliefs based on evidence are, by definition, more justified than those without evidence.

“it’s no doctrine on how to live morally.”

Of course it isn’t. It was never intended to be so. You demand more out of evolution than what it provides. Evolution is merely an explanation for a natural phenomenon. It is not a belief system or something that we derive morality from. I don’t take my morality from the theory of evolution any more than I take it from the theory of relativity.

VoodooLogic's avatar

which is a great answer for another question.

mattbrowne's avatar

Was the universe created? Perhaps we should look at this question first.

nebule's avatar

…um…which Universe? :-p

Ron_C's avatar

God is a natural consequence of becoming self-aware. It was not possible for primitive man to conceive that life would end. Since life does end, god and the after-life were created to help people cope with their finite existence. It is awful to consider the miserable life primitive man faced for about 30 years then end. It was easier to cope if there was some reward for the misery and injustice that they faced until death. Religion makes it easier to rule a group that really has nothing to lose by dying. Therefore, if you say that you are appointed by god to be king, your job becomes much easier. Especially when you begin asking your people to die so that you can conquer your neighbors.

Religion has always been tied to the application of control. It is easier to rule people that fear eternal damnation or reward. Look at how suicide bombers are recruited.

Nullo's avatar

No, God simply is.

Ivan's avatar


An awfully convenient argument.

Nullo's avatar

Not as much as you’d think; eternal existence is one of the defining characteristics of Godhood.

Ivan's avatar


Right, you simply define it to be true right off the bat. It isn’t a conclusion based on evidence; you start with it, and then you go from there. I could just as easily do that with, well, anything, and it would be equally as valid. Let’s try it right now! I claim that a polka-dotted elephant created the universe. The polka-dotted elephant wasn’t created, it simply is. Eternal existence is one of the defining characteristics of polka-dotted elephanthood. I said so.

Nullo's avatar

You’re missing my point. Asking if God were created is functionally similar to asking if blueberries are red, or (in keeping with your jocular tone) if unicorns have two horns.

Ivan's avatar


Except we aren’t dealing with the existence of the color blue or the definition of the prefix “uni”, we are dealing with the supposed existence of a being. God either exists or he doesn’t, you can’t just a priori attribute characteristics to him.

Nullo's avatar

@Ivan No, the question isn’t about whether or not God exists, but about whether or not He was created. I am merely submitting that the concept of God implies a being that has always existed.

mattbrowne's avatar

@Ivan – The self-explanatory universe is an awfully convenient argument as well. And it isn’t a conclusion based on evidence. Why are there quantum fluctuations? Ah, because. Why are there physical laws in the first place? Well, we’ll soon find a law of all laws. Why is there a meta-law? Ah, because.

Atheists should not pretend that they got a better explanation for the orderly existence than theists. When it comes to the mother of all ‘why’ questions, we should all show humility. We simply don’t know. Does the universe have a purpose? A meaning? Reason can’t answer this question. Should we limit our knowledge to what is accessible through reason? I think this is where atheists and theists differ.

Thammuz's avatar

@mattbrowne Occam’s razor, matt. Why should we ADD another unexplained phenomenon to the already long list of unexplained phenomena? Why should we even consider adding a pseduo-answer that is instead pushing the question one step backwards without actually adding anything to the table?

How did the universe come to be? i don’t know. Does saying “it was god” solve anything? No, because how did god come to be?

Like it or not the line between these two question is simply this: we know the universe actually does exist, that’s why that actually IS a legitimate question, adding an unfalsifiable claim to the list doesn’t do anything worthwile to the question itself.

Furthermore it’s simply a double standard to accept the explaination that “god always existed” but saying that the universe needs to have a cause. If one needs it so does the other, if neither do then what’s the point of adding god to the equation?

Nobody’s saying that we KNOW how the universe came to be, or that we KNOW there is no god. Nobody with a brain anyway. What most atheists say however is that it’s evident to anyone that the gods humankind believes in are products of humankind itself ad, more importantly, that scietifically speaking god as a cause is an unnecessary and ultimately useless concept since it is based on the flawed double standard that aristotle used when inventing the idea of the demiurge: a cause that needs not be caused, because everything needs a cause but there can not be an infinite regression. Which is it then? does everything need a cause or not?

Scientifically speaking it’s far easier to accept that either one can be true and that we’ll find out sooner or later rather than going “Goddidit hurr durr” and barring out the other, just as reasonable, option.

Also: hi @Nullo, long time no see!

Nullo's avatar

Heya Thammuz!

mattbrowne's avatar

@Thammuz – When you say phenomenon you are basically projecting human limitation upon God. We have limits, so God has to be a (yet unexplained) phenomenon. Science is about explaining natural phenomena. Metaphysics or theology isn’t. We can’t apply scientific method to the question of God. Scientifically, as you said, we simply don’t know and this won’t change. This is why belief is called a belief.

CMaz's avatar

“This is why belief is called a belief.”

Except for the thousands of people that say they have seen God.
Up front and personal.

Thammuz's avatar

@mattbrowne Yeah, sure, that’s why there’s a shitload of people that claim that they have proof of god’s existence, that’s why holy books claim that their specific god interacted with people, that’s why there’s been (and there still is) people claiming to have MET gods, that’s why there even are people claiming to BE gods or close relatives to them and that’s why the only gods we “know” of are described as humanoid and all claim to be strictly anthropocentric.

Yeah, I must be the one projecting human limitations. Sure, why the fuck not.

And by the way, if something exists and has NO BEARING ON ANYTHING then it might as well not exist. All you’re saying, in essence, is that god can’t be verified empirically. And if it can’t be verified empirically it means there is no discernible effect of his actions, and if that’s the case then who the fuck cares?

If his existence is inconsequential it’s like saying “look, there’s an invisible ethereal quadriplegic mute lying around in my living room!” Pretty useless information, don’t you think?

CMaz's avatar

“that’s why there even are people claiming to BE gods ”

That is me. :-)

“there’s an invisible ethereal quadriplegic mute lying around in my living room!”

And I wish he would learn to wipe his feet!

mattbrowne's avatar

@ChazMaz – Well, as an example, when the Berlin Wall came down peacefully I felt that Jesus’ spirit was alive and kicking.

“During the first months of 1989 the East German authorities, especially the Stasi, imposed more and more pressure to stop the “Peace Prayers” in Leipzig. They controlled access roads and arrested random “suspects” inside and outside the church. However, they were unsuccessful: the Monday prayers continued with an increasing number of attendees.

On 9 October troups of the army, police and Stasi officers arrived in front of the church. About 1,000 members of the SED were ordered into the church. Nearly to the end of the Peace Prayers a manifest was read out, written by Kurt Masur, Bernd-Lutz Lange, Peter Zimmermann and three low-rank leaders of the SED (later called the The Leipzig Six, (Die Leipziger Sechs)), appealing to all attendees not to use force and to stay peaceful. The demonstration of about 70,000 people right after the prayers was in fact peaceful.

The slogan “No Violence!” (Keine Gewalt!) was used by more than 300,000 people during the following demonstrations. The whole East German revolution remained peaceful.”

I’m sure a few US evangelicals see things more literally and think it’s real despite the fact their digital cameras can’t take live pictures as proof. Other people think they were abducted by aliens. The human psyche is a cauldron of creativity.

mattbrowne's avatar

@Thammuz – Your profanity-laden comment doesn’t sound very credible. If you are interested in a more meaningful debate, there’s a lot of good food for thought showing the theist and atheist side of all the arguments here

Thammuz's avatar

@mattbrowne why don’t YOU reply, while we’re here, instead of pointing out how much fucking profanity i use, as if i didn’t know already, and directing me to a database of canned, old as fuck responses that have been debunked to hell and back? If that’s the way you wanna play it just let me know me so i can point you to my database of canned debunkings and we can call it a day.

And for the record, the use of profanity doesn’t make my post any less sound in its logic, nor it makes it “less credible”, whatever the fuck that means (i mean, the comment is there, you can see it and you can’t believe it’s there? seriously, man, any other attribute i could’ve accepted: rude, snarky, sarcastic, ridiculing, whatever, but one thing’s for sure: the post is fucking there, and if i didn’t care i wouldn’t have posted it). Also, if you don’t like profanity, that’s your own fucking problem. /rant

Here’s a profanity free version for your apparently-still-not-ready-to-face-a-little-emphasis eyes:

What’s the point of considering the existence of something that, being completely untestable, and therefore having NO visible (visible, audible, etc… obviously) effect on reality, has no improtance at all as far as reality is concerned?

On a more constructive note your link in the post to chazmaz gives an error

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther