If everything that exists needs a God to create it, who created God?

I’m going out on a limb here but I’m going to say Albert Hofmann.

Be god.

It's mythology created by humans to explain things they can't comprehend. Just eat healthy, have fun in life, and don't cause misery to innocent people.

I did. You did. We all did. We created God, not God created us...

God is all that was, all that is, and all that will be. He was always there since time began, since before we came into exsistence. It's very difficult to understand but there are things such as this that God does not want to give us an explanation for until we die. When we die and reach Him, the answers for all of our questions will be revealed.

Who tagged this ontology 101?

What makes you aver that the one known as "He who causes to become" needs a creator?

The problem with that is the dyin' part

That was a good one . . . so far, nobody gets a passing grade . . .

**** needs dog to exist, because dog must make ****...

Who can answer this question genuinely? If someone had an answer (assuming there was one), their brains may physically turn into a gigantic blackhole (exaggeration may not be real).

And if there is no God how did this world come to be? Did it appear out of thin air? If you think it makes no sense to believe in God then it makes no sense to believe what the scientists are telling you about evolution.

So if our world was not created it just came to be out of thin air? If you believe an intelligent being created the computer how can you not believe an intelligent being created this universe and humans? You find it hard to believe because then it would mean you have a purpose just like the computer and your creator will have expectations of you just like you have expectations of your computer.

The arrogance of a painting, if it could talk, to say of its painter; “He does not exist”, to say, “I evolved from a fell tree.” or worse yet, "I created you".

Well, experience tells us that paintings usually don't spawn out of thin air.

That does not mean you can transfer that experience to the issue of god and say that "since paintings don't spawn out of thin air, humans don't either, so there must be a god".

Well I think u are missing the point. Truthofgod is not using the statement as proof that God exist, but rather as an analogy to show that, to us, the very thought or idea that God does not exist is very like a painting saying to its painter that he/she does not exist. Now follow the analogy with me, assuming that the painting can talk and think, then that painting having never met his maker and wanting to find out what and why it exists might very well use for e.g. science as a means to gain that knowledge. Researching his physical self (paper) and possibly finding similarities to wood/trees, the painting might very well develop a theory that it some how evolved from a tree, without someone actually putting thought into his design and adding colors to it, making it somewhat unique and different from other paintings.

I know u might not believe in God but I want u to imagine for a second that he does exist and i want u to imagine that he is that painter, how do u think he would feel? If u were the painter how would u feel to hear your painting say u do not exist? I know u might not agree with me but i believe in God (creator, architect, designer, etc) and I believe he loves us all even those who don't believe in him. Also because I want to emulate the one I believe created me I try with all my heart to love those who do not agree with me. I don't claim to be perfect (no one is) but when i fall I brush my self off and start again. If love is the order of the day the world would be a lot better. Well that is how I see it any way.

So, I'm supposed to imagine that God exists, and I am supposed to imagine how he might feel? A little anthropomorphic perhaps? I think it's rather funny how those who want to believe ascribe human characteristics to their creator.
If that works for you, then that's fine by me, but I prefer beliefs that do not insult my intelligence.
And I don't think that asking me how a figment of your imagination might feel about anything is a very persuasive argument.

You are right in that I don't believe in God. That is to say, I don't believe in what Christians want to tell me about God. What I do believe is that at the very core of reality there is only "oneness". A single "force" that expresses itself in the incredible diversity we experience. This force is part of us, it's what we are made up of, and it is what everything else is made up of. This force is not bound by human restrictions such as the perception of linear time, concepts such as endings of beginnings or before and after. It is not physical, it has no will of it's own, it merely is. It is omnipotent because everything that may happen may only happen with this force, and it is omniscient because anything that can be known can only be known within it. To me, that sounds a lot like what all the religions teach, without ascribing human characteristics to something that is infinitely more vast and incomprehensible to us.

Exactly...what you believe. We are after all both humans, sharing our beliefs. Using experiences and terms that we understand. We could not very well use what we do not know to explain what we do not know. The very terms u are now using are terms and expressions that are formed by human mind. You say force I say God. You say it merely is, I believe that the force is constructive (creating) and intelligent. You don't know what the 'force' is or if it is really a force. It exists outside of the words we used to describe it. It must be respected because of its awesome power.

All words are symbols explaining/representing some physical thing or idea, the words used do not change one bit what we are talking about. 'A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.' We are both sharing ideas of what we think exists. You do not know what this force is bound by, so please add 'I believe' to every statement you make and I will do the same. Any ways, I think arguing about what existed before us is very much like arguing in circles. But I will continue:)

The funny thing is I do believe there is a constructive force(love) and a destructive force (hate). But the qualities for example (love) that I use to describe it is not really meant as an emotion, let me explain. All attributes of love are attributes that are constructive that will build others rather than destroy. When u love you are working with the constructive force to carry on creation. All the attributes of hatred are destructive and are opposing to the constructive force that is at the center of the Universe. If u destroy the things created by the force you are in essence destroying a part of yourself and messing with the order of things. When I say God' loves', u take it to mean that to work in tandem with the constructive force and with the 'tide' of life you must also be constructive like the constructive force through which everything was formed. It is within us to create because that constructive force resides within us. It is within us to destroy because that destructive force has crept into us.

Many times in arguments people really believe the same thing but are just using different terms as means of expression. No one can define God!!!! We just try too understand, EVERY single human wants to understand how they came to be. Lets not use religion or science (different beliefs about what existed before) to start wars and destroy each other.

Love and hate are two sides of the same coin. I think that view is far too simplistic and fundamentally flawed.
People say God is all good, and for the rest they have their devil. But good and bad are human distinctions. In reality there is only one distinction; what works and what doesn't. What works exists, what doesn't work doesn't exist.
The thing is, I am pretty sure that there isn't anyone on this planet who acts with a motivation to do "evil". Regardless of the quality of their actions, the motivation is always to do some good. Even Hitler thought he was doing the world a service when he did what he did. I do not agree with him, but that doesn't change the fact that he believed it.

That brings a question to mind:
If the experiences and terms you understand and use to explain the origin of the world to yourself were proven to be outdated and invalid, what would you do?
In the old days, when science started revealing discoveries that undermined the beliefs of the church, they raised all hell to preserve their way of thinking. They burned books, they even burned the writers of those books. They tortured, persecuted and oppressed in the name of God, all the while claiming that "God is good".
No offense intended, but in my opinion it takes a special kind of idiot not to question the faith inherited by such men...