Is morality objective or subjective?

[Atla]

Don't forget to give him something he likes, accompanied by a thank-you letter. Why choose IC of all people as the introductory guide to religion and morality?

[Walker]

Question: Because God created man, what is the evidence of that creation?
Answer: Man

Question: If Man created God, what is the evidence?
Answer: Some writings by Man.

[Lacewing]

Question: Because God created man, what is the evidence of that creation?
Answer: Man

Question: If Man created God, what is the evidence?
Answer: Some writings by Man.

Do you seriously think you're being clever? Do you drink or take drugs or have some sort of diagnosed brain disorder?

Your first question says "Because", not "If" like your second question... which clearly shows your bias and skewing.

In regard to your second question... are you really so delusional as to be unable to acknowledge the glaring physical evidence of all of humankind's visible creations depicting their notions of God... in a MAN'S image... and NOT just 'some writings', but MANY they've created of varying ideas and fairytales and horrors... and churches for many different religions in which each system insists its creations are the most true. Such inconsistent and nonsensical claims are meant to perpetuate self-serving stories about an entity that cares about THEM, but that does not respond to the suffering and destruction of innocents who are crying out for help. Humans also use their god-creations to justify and wage wars, and to be forgiven for committing other horrific deeds. Their God creations are for themselves... and everyone else can go to hell.

There is far more evidence for Man creating God, than a god creating man.

[Age]

I hope you can work with that.

I can. Thank you for being so honest. I sense there's no evasion in your answer.

But you can sense the difficulty, can't you? Despite the fact that your subjective feeling about incest may be equivocal, your sense that it's wrong to allow a situation to issue in a genetically-damaged offspring, when the means to prevent it were obvious, feels "wrong" to you.

But why? What makes some actions feel "bad," and others feel "good"? Why shouldn't we just say, "C'mon, Harbal...your reservations about incest or your antipathy to creating genetically damaged children are just tastes. You can get over them"?

And perhaps you could respond, "I don't WANT to get over them." And that might be how it is. But even in these extreme cases, you'd not be able to explain to anybody else why they shouldn't do those things,..assuming they don't share your distate for incest and its risks, of course.

But what if incest is objectively wrong? What if your subjective distaste for the incest-genetic damage situation is not just a taste, but is reflective of a much deeper moral truth, one written into nature itself by the Creator? What if the reason you feel it's unnatural is that it IS unnatural. Do you have any reason to suppose that a taboo so general couldn't be of that sort?

And if it could be, perhaps it is. It would be worth considering. And if it were a universal natural law, that incest is wrong, then is there any reason to suppose that a Creator powerful and intelligent enough to create the whole universe in the first place would be somehow incapable of telling us so?

WHY does 'this one' PERSIST WITH the PRESUMPTION that there was some so-called 'Creator' BEFORE 'this one' has ACTUAL PROVED IRREFUTABLY True that 'morality', itself, IS 'objective'.

Just about EVERY 'thing' that 'this one' 'tries to' argue FOR is BASED upon 'its' OWN 'subjective' BELIEF that some 'male gendered thing', which 'this one' has LABELED and CALLS God, CREATED ALL of which 'this one' so DESPERATELY WANTS TO argue FOR.

How about 'this one' BEGINS arguing that God, thee Creator ACTUALLY exists, FIRST, BEFORE 'it' STARTS CLAIMING 'things' like, 'moral truth is one written into nature itself by the Creator'.

WHY DID SO MANY of these 'posters' here GET FOOLED and TRICKED INTO "immanuel can's" OBVIOUSLY VERY DECEPTIVE and DECEIVING WAYS, which are EXACTLY like how and what the 'devil' IS portrayed to 'behave'?

[Age]

I hope you can work with that.

I can. Thank you for being so honest. I sense there's no evasion in your answer.

Thank you, and I will continue to be honest, even if it puts me in a position of weakness, because I am a man of integrity.

Although I can't unequivocally say that incest, per se, is morally wrong, I suspect that in most instances of it I would be able to say it.

What IS, ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY, 'morally Wrong' here is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.

WHY does it take human beings SO LONG TO SEE, and KNOW?

BECAUSE WHEN 'they' are LIVING IN BELIEF and/or ASSUMPTION, then 'they' END UP TO BLIND, TO SEE.

VERY SIMPLE, REALLY.

The 'MOST INSTANCES', which 'you' SUSPECT ARE IRREFUTABLY 'morally Wrong', ARE BLINDINGLY OBVIOUSLY Wrong, morally.

I somehow doubt there are many cases that don't include some element of abuse.

But you can sense the difficulty, can't you? Despite the fact that your subjective feeling about incest may be equivocal, your sense that it's wrong to allow a situation to issue in a genetically-damaged offspring, when the means to prevent it were obvious, feels "wrong" to you.

I can think of two ways of preventing it. One way, and the one I imagine you are alluding to, is simply to not commit it, the other would be by means of contraception. If the situation carried no risk of producing children, my attitude towards it would then depend on the family relationship of the participants, and the circumstances under which it occurred. I suppose my yardstick would be, is anyone being damaged or hurt by it, but that is my main yardstick for most, if not all, moral issues.

But why? What makes some actions feel "bad," and others feel "good"? Why shouldn't we just say, "C'mon, Harbal...your reservations about incest or your antipathy to creating genetically damaged children are just tastes. You can get over them"?

Well unless I were in a position to prevent the creation of genetically damaged children, which I usually am not, it wouldn't make any difference what you say to me. If I were in a position to do something about it, I honestly don't know if I would intervene or not, and if I found your reasons for suggesting I just get over it convincing, I may well try; I don't know. But it isn't all that unusual to find yourself wrestling with your conscience and to be told by someone that you are making a mountain out of a molehill and it really isn't such a big deal. If you are making the point that I do not have the power to enforce my moral verdicts, you are right, I very often don't.

And perhaps you could respond, "I don't WANT to get over them." And that might be how it is. But even in these extreme cases, you'd not be able to explain to anybody else why they shouldn't do those things,..assuming they don't share your distate for incest and its risks, of course.

There is nothing to prevent me from explaining why I think somebody shouldn't do something, it's just that I can't force them to agree with me.

But what if incest is objectively wrong? What if your subjective distaste for the incest-genetic damage situation is not just a taste, but is reflective of a much deeper moral truth, one written into nature itself by the Creator? What if the reason you feel it's unnatural is that it IS unnatural. Do you have any reason to suppose that a taboo so general couldn't be of that sort?

If our distaste for incest turned out to be innate, rather than just cultural, I would, indeed, conclude that nature had a hand in it.

There is NO a SINGLE 'thing' in the WHOLE of the, infinite AND eternal, Universe that Nature, Itself, has NOT had 'a hand in it', as some might call 'this'.

ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing' HAPPENS and OCCURS Naturally.

However, EVERY and ALL 'thought', itself, which is WHERE ALL of 'morality' EXISTS, IS LEARNED, or 'nurture' if one likes, and which is NOT 'affected' by 'genes', themselves, AT ALL.

The VERY OLD and VERY SILLY 'nature' verse 'nurture' 'debate' or discussion IS ALREADY SOLVED.

Visibly SEEN bodies are ALL caused or created through and by 'genes' or 'dna' if one likes. Whereas, the UNSEEN 'thoughts' and 'emotions' are ALL caused and created through and by a LEARNED process, due to factors like, WHERE the human body was born, and exists, and, WHEN the human body was born, and exists. In other words WHAT 'culture' or 'society' one is 'brought up/raised in' CAUSES, CREATES, or INFLUENCES ALL 'thought' and 'emotion'.

The 'subject' of 'morality' exists SOLELY and ONLY IN 'thought' and 'thinking'.

Now, BECAUSE ABSOLUTELY NONE of 'you', posters, here HAVE INQUIRED ABOUT what ACTUAL MAKES 'morality', itself, or ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' ELSE 'objective' OR 'subjective', then 'this' IS WHY 'you' ARE ALL STUCK in 'your' OWN views, assumptions, and beliefs, and STILL even AFTER thousands upon thousands of years ARE STILL bickering and fighting OVER the EXACT SAME 'things' here.

What MAKES absolutely ANY 'thing' ACTUALLY 'objective' and 'subjective' IS VERY, VERY EASY and SIMPLE to FIND OUT, and KNOW. And, WHEN 'you' have COME TO THIS UNDERSTANDING, then, and ONLY THEN, 'you' CAN and WILL DISCOVER HOW 'morality' CAN BE and IS BOTH 'objective' AND 'subjective'

Genetically damaged individuals would not be conducive to the survival our species, so incest would be a prime candidate for elimination by the processes of natural selection. Even so, I don't see nature as a moral agent. If I did have reason to think there were a creator, such as God, then I may well go along with the rest of your reasoning in this instance.

What ARE 'your ACTUAL reasons' for THINKING that there IS NO Creator, such as God?

And if it could be, perhaps it is. It would be worth considering. And if it were a universal natural law, that incest is wrong, then is there any reason to suppose that a Creator powerful and intelligent enough to create the whole universe in the first place would be somehow incapable of telling us so?

If it could be, then you might be right about the rest, but I really don't think it could be.

My lack of belief in God is not my main stumbling block here; because even if I believed in God, I still wouldn't recognise his commandments regarding our behaviour as morality; I would just see them as a set of rules issued by my superior. No matter how much authority is behind those rules, and no matter how much we believe them to take precedence over our personal views, it does not constitute morality to my mind, because morality is founded purely on our own sense of right and wrong, and what God does is something else.

WHY have 'you' ALREADY CONCLUDED that God, Itself, does IS something ELSE?

And no matter how wrong you think I am, and no matter how wrong I might actually be, that is truly and honestly how I see it.

[Walker]

There is far more evidence for Man creating God, than a god creating man.

Nuh uh. You haven't considered this ...

Man cannot create even one Man in his image, let alone create The God of All men in his image.

Man cannot create.

Man can only fashion what God has made.

[Age]

1) Doesn't one typically only test for what they think might exist? Generally, if someone goes looking for something, they are already motivated to find it.

God fits that. We have no particular reason to think He doesn't exist...

So you're skewing this to focus on your beliefs, rather than answering the simple and straight-forward question that was posed. We're talking about atheists, who don't believe in God -- and your suggestion was that they seek God and find out. Why would someone seek something they don't believe in? Not only might they see no reason to believe in it, but they might see reasons not to.

Here we HAVE the PRIMEST of examples of two human beings being ABSOLUTELY RIGID and FIXED due to being ABSOLUTELY STUCK in their OWN personally OBTAINED and MADE UP BELIEF of 'things'.

These two ARE MISBEHAVING IN the EXACT SAME WAY, based SOLELY ON ABSOLUTELY NOTHING MORE than their OWN, personal and OPPOSING, BELIEF/S here.

2) Life is continually full of proof and revelations that human beings do not expect or test for, so why would proof for an all-powerful, ever-present god rely on individual human belief and tests, such that an unproven god is the fault of a human being?

The meaning of the wording here is not clear to me. God doesn't "rely" on things, nor does His existence require the assent of "human beings." So maybe you can reword?

The wording is about "the proof". I've highlighted the phrase above. Here are some more ways of wording:

Why wouldn't an all-powerful, ever-present god clarify the singular truth for all, providing proof that is witnessed by everyone?

But thee Truth IS ALWAYS BEING PRESENTED FOR ALL of 'you' TO SEE, and HEAR, It.

The VERY REASON WHY 'you', older human beings, can NOT and DO NOT SEE AND HEAR the ALWAYS PRESENTED Truth IS BECAUSE 'you' have ALL BECOME TO BLIND, TO SEE, and TO DEAF, TO HEAR. And 'this' WAS and IS BECAUSE 'you' have come to RELY ON 'your' OWN personal, and opposing, BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT what is true and right, in Life.

God, Itself, IS 'ever-presently' PROVIDING the IRREFUTABLE Truth, which IS being WITNESSED BY EACH and EVERY one, and which WAS SEEN, RECOGNIZED, and KNOWN BY ALL of 'you', WHEN 'you' WERE YOUNG and Truly OPEN, and CURIOS.

The SINGULAR Truth IS ALSO STILL RESIDING WITHIN ALL older human bodies, although RESIDING UNCONSCIOUSLY. BUT, STILL WAITING, PATIENTLY, to be HEARD, RECOGNIZED, UNDERSTOOD, and KNOWN.

Why is it left up to humans to see and agree despite so many diverse paths that claim to be the ONE path?

BECAUSE SO MANY OF 'you', individual human beings, CLAIM TO HAVE and KNOW the 'one path', EXACTLY, like WHAT 'you' are CLAIMING here "yourself", "lacewing", in ABSOLUTELY NO WAY AT ALL MEANS then that is NOT One Path IN COMING-TO-KNOW, in which EVERY one would NOT be IN AGREEMENT WITH.

Why would any archaic book be the guide book for all time?

JUST MAYBE 'older books' CONTAIN, and/or HIDING, CLUES, which THROUGH and WITH NEW DISCOVERIES may will REVEAL the ANSWERS, and/or DE-MYSTIFY the MYSTERIES, to what has been PUZZLING 'you', older human beings, for countless centuries, now.

Just MAYBE 'going BACK', to 'the past', HELPS IN FINDING 'the WAY' through 'the LABYRINTH', OF Life, and GUIDES or SHINES-A-LIGHT, on WHERE TO GO, and on HOW TO MOVE FORWARD and PROCEED FROM here, now.

3) Again, many atheists were previously theists,

This is true in some cases. But statistically, there aren't "many" Atheists.

Again, you are skewing this and ignoring the question that was posed (repeated here):

I do NOT recall A 'time' WHEN "immanuel can" has NOT SKEWED, TWISTED, DISTORTED, DETRACTED, DEFLECTED, DECEIVED, and/or 'TRIED TO' IGNORE when been QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED.

Many atheists were previously theists, believing in and talking to a god, and receiving answers from that god, only to eventually recognize the hypnotizing power of human belief and potential that can tie one to a theist framework and create one's dependency on it. Can you perceive such a thing (underlined) when you look at other theist belief systems than your own?

AND, let 'us' NOT FORGET the power of human DISBELIEF of God, or the power of human BELIEF as an "atheist" can be JUST AS STRONG, and OPPOSING.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True here throughout this forum.

Many atheists have demonstrated heartfelt desire and commitment to explore theism

This is the opposite of what you said above. You said Atheists "were previously theists," and then that they had a "heartfelt desire to explore theism."

It's not the opposite at all. I'm referring to atheists who were previously theists and who had a heartfelt desire to explore theism when they were theists. This is in response to your claim that atheists have no test results because they haven't tested theism for themselves. You do not know what people have tested for themselves -- or what they are able to perceive beyond the scope of your particular beliefs.

[Age]

Once you begin to notice that everyone's God hates what they hate, and loves what they love, it becomes obvious that man created God, not the other way around.

Yes, pretty funny.

God is what each human mind thinks.

But there is NO human mind.

There IS, however, 'thoughts', and 'thinking' going on, WITHIN human bodies.

And, WITHIN older human bodies there can be a HUGE RANGE of DIFFERENT 'thoughts' and LOTS of DIFFERENT 'thinking' ARISING WHEN the 'God' word is SEEN and/or HEARD.

Now, HOW to DECIPHER the ACTUALLY True, Right, AND Correct 'thoughts' and 'thinking' FROM the ACTUAL False, Wrong, AND Incorrect 'thoughts' and 'thinking' REALLY IS A VERY Truly SIMPLE and EASY exercise or process. Although VERY CONTRADICTORY SO to the CURRENT POPULAR BELIEF, in the days when this is being written.

[Age]

Once you begin to notice that everyone's God hates what they hate, and loves what they love, it becomes obvious that man created God, not the other way around.

Yes, pretty funny.

God is what each human mind thinks.

If man created God, where is the evidence of this creation?

IN and AT the very FIRST mentioning and/or writing of the word God. Where ELSE would 'the evidence' BE?

[Walker]

Indeed.

[Age]

The important point is rather that the Atheist claims to have no evidence for God, while refusing to set any test for evidence.

The test has already been ongoing since the first humans invented the first gods; "invented" because there was no sign of a real one existing.

AGAIN, one's OWN personal BELIEF COMES-TO the FOREFRONT, BLINDINGLY.

We have long ceased to invent gods though many may still believe in them which, of course, all derive from ancient times when customs and beliefs due to lack of knowledge, were very different from ours.

What do 'you' MEAN by 'very different from ours'?

Some of the VERY 'customs' AND 'beliefs', in the days when this is being written, ARE EXACTLY the SAME as IN 'the past'.

Of which, by the way, ALL of the ones in the days when this WAS being written, WERE ALL STILL DUE TO A LACK OF REAL, or True, KNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTANDING.

Nevertheless, theistic beliefs remain as throwbacks to those times.

SO TO do "atheistic" BELIEFS remain as throwbacks to 'days long gone'.

The one thing theists and atheists have in common is the impossibility of knowing whether any such entity actually exists.

ONCE AGAIN, 'this one' DISPLAYS, EVER SO BRIGHTLY, 'its' OWN VERY STRONGLY HELD ONTO, personal, BELIEF.

Which MAKES and KEEPS 'this one' just AS COMMON as the "other ones" WITH 'their' ALSO VERY STRONGLY HELD ONTO, personal, BELIEFS.

It lies beyond the confines of formal logic to prove either way without asking the ultimate absurd question, where did god come from!

This QUESTION, like MANY OTHERS IN philosophical discussions, HAS ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED, and thus RESOLVED.

But, AGAIN, CONTRARY TO the POPULAR BELIEF, back in those days when this was being written.

BECAUSE OF 'what' the word God IS ACTUALLY MEANING and REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, ASKING, 'Where did God come from?' IS/WAS just ABSURD, RIDICULOUS, ILLOGICAL and/or NONSENSICAL. But the REASON WHY 'this is so' BECOMES FULLY UNDERSTOOD WHEN one ALSO LEARNS, or DISCOVERS, and UNDERSTANDS WHO and WHAT the God word IS REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

The only thing we know for certain is that history contains ONLY the gods WE invented and that no other agency external to nature ever manifested throughout history or gave the slightest indication for its requirement.

If ABSOLUTELY ANY one even THINKS that there IS, or even COULD BE, ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' ABOVE, BEYOND, and/or OUTSIDE OF 'Nature', Itself, then this SHOWS and PROVES just how TWISTED and DISTORTED the 'thinking' WITHIN human bodies CAN BECOME.

Also, and by the way, the INDICATION that God EXISTS IS as OBVIOUS as 'the nose on front of the face', or as OBVIOUS as 'these words' ARE here.

There is nothing in the universe which demands the services of a divine captain at its helm guiding it to its final shore.

VERY True. BUT 'this' IN NO WAY MEANS nor IMPLIES that there is NO so-called 'divine captain' here, so-called 'piloting the ship', nor 'mastering the course'.

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING 'demanding the services of a divine captain', therefore does NOT mean that there is NO 'divine captain' HERE.

'you' are just SAYING 'things' here that are OBVIOUSLY True and which NO one could REFUTE, but which IN NO WAY is backing up and supporting 'your' OWN personal BELIEFS here.

It offers no insight and explains nothing. The universe is self-functional and guided accordingly, where its incipience already contains all the conditions for its ending making any type of superintendence superfluous.

Would 'you' like to DELVE DEEPER here?

Also, WHAT could be A WORD here be that could be USED to DESCRIBE A 'Self-functioning, Self-guiding, and/or Self-creating Thing', such AS thee Universe, Itself?

It's psychology, not physics, which have created its multitude of gods throughout history.

AGAIN, OF COURSE.

ABSOLUTELY EVERY CONCEPTUALLY MADE UP word or 'thing' IS so-called 'psychology' and NOT 'physical'.

However, what 'psychological made up words' ARE REFERRING TO, or POINTING AT, is what IS being QUESTIONED, and/or CHALLENGED, here.

If there were a god all the other ones would have disappeared long ago; a single fact burying all the imaginary artifacts of there being such.

BELIEF, itself, may well be the STRONGEST and/or MOST UNMOVABLE 'thing', itself, besides, OF COURSE, the Universe, itself. That is; WHILE a BELIEF is being HELD ONTO, and MAINTAINED, even ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE, opposing, Truth can NOT WEAKEN A BELIEF, NOR MAKE A BELIEF MOVE and/nor CHANGE.

So, 'your CLAIM' that if there were A God, then ALL of the other ones would have disappeared, long ago, is just NOT correct.

It seems this was already understood and made fundamental and precedent by the ancient Jews in the First Commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods before me. This was Yahweh's way of rubbing out the competition in order to reify an abstraction into existence by mandating itself into a state of unconditional belief...a prime directive in which even belief is forced to retreat and surrender to Yahweh's absolute acceptance and authority...that being the story of the gods in general but especially so in the Judaic derived ones.

But 'this' is ONLY true IF and WHEN one is BELIEVING, absolutely, 'the words' in 'that one book' ONLY.

[Age]

Question: Because God created man, what is the evidence of that creation?
Answer: Man

Question: If Man created God, what is the evidence?
Answer: Some writings by Man.

Do you seriously think you're being clever? Do you drink or take drugs or have some sort of diagnosed brain disorder?

Your first question says "Because", not "If" like your second question... which clearly shows your bias and skewing.

In regard to your second question... are you really so delusional as to be unable to acknowledge the glaring physical evidence of all of humankind's visible creations depicting their notions of God... in a MAN'S image...

If one 'points', in words, to 'the sun' and says or claims that 'the sun' does 'this' or 'that', then 'this' is NOT necessarily 'in a man's nor in a human's IMAGE'.

And, the EXACT SAME can apply when 'you', human beings, have been trying to 'point', in words, the VERY 'Thing', which is being suggested, or claimed, IS 'thee Creator' OF ALL 'things'.

and NOT just 'some writings', but MANY they've created of varying ideas and fairytales and horrors... and churches for many different religions in which each system insists its creations are the most true.

This CLAIMING TO HAVE, and OF TELLING, the 'most true' WAS, STILL OCCURRING in the days when this was being written. At the START of way to many non-fiction writings, television documentaries, and/or internet shows 'they' BEGIN WORDS like, 'This is the 'true story' of ...'.

And, what was Truly HILARIOUS to WATCH and OBSERVE was that when 'that story' ALIGNED WITH what 'they' were ACTUALLY 'thinking' or BELIEVING was true, then 'they' would refer back to that writing and/or show and USE 'it' as though 'it' WAS THE ACTUAL 'true story'.

The adult population, in the days when this was being written, COULD BE and WAS being SO EASILY and SO SIMPLY MANIPULATED and INDOCTRINATED INTO BELIEVING SOME of the MOST False, Wrong, AND Incorrect 'things', IMAGINABLE.

Such inconsistent and nonsensical claims are meant to perpetuate self-serving stories about an entity that cares about THEM, but that does not respond to the suffering and destruction of innocents who are crying out for help.

Which is more or less, EXACTLY, how ALL of 'you', adult human beings, ARE MISBEHAVING, in the days when this is being written.

There are True INNOCENTS/children ALL of 'that world' called 'earth' SUFFERING and being DESTROYED mentally, physically, sexually, AND emotionally, but ALL of 'you', adult human beings, are just IGNORING and NOT RESPONDING in one way or another.

'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, have BECOME SO 'self-centered', GREEDY, and SELFISH, WITH 'your' CONTINUAL inconsistent and nonsensical claims and 'self-serving stories', that the ONLY ones 'you' Truly care ABOUT are 'you', and a VERY SELECT FEW ONLY.

Humans also use their god-creations to justify and wage wars, and to be forgiven for committing other horrific deeds. Their God creations are for themselves... and everyone else can go to hell.

There is far more evidence for Man creating God, than a god creating man.

WHY did 'you' USE a capital 'm' and a capital 'g' in one part of your sentence here, and NOT in the other one "lacewing"?

Does 'you' doing 'this' clearly show your bias and skewing, ALSO, as 'you' ACCUSED "another" OF?

[Dontaskme]

Once you begin to notice that everyone's God hates what they hate, and loves what they love, it becomes obvious that man created God, not the other way around.

Yes, pretty funny.

God is what each human mind thinks.

But then even this 'human mind', this 'human thinking mechanism' cannot be known to have a begining or an end to it, so even the 'human mind' is ultimately uncreated.

All known concepts are creations of the uncreated. They are known as they are imaged, but are in fact images of the imageless.
Like the known concept GOD and MAN for example..these concepts are images of the imageless, creations of the mind, which is imageless.

The 'human mind' can only exist in the dimension of time, where reason demands that all 'things' of the mind have a beginning or an end, in other words, where 'things of the mind' are known conceptually to be created and destroyed. But, the uncreated everything that is was and ever will be is neither created nor destroyed.
So even this 'mind' must be uncreated, only appearing to exist as a creator within it's own self creation of time, within what is ultimately this immediate uncreated timeless everything...aka the eternal now. So what I am trying to say is that the EVERYTHING aka the uncreated can only be a placeholder for it's own content, and that the contents of the uncreated are only the temporal finite time bound appearances of what is ultimately timeless and uncreated...iows, the created things, aka creation, are only the contents of the uncreated everything, in that 'created things' that appear in time, are also uncreated, because of the infinite regress problem of an original creator.

When we are trying to reach an 'original creator' of everything, that is known as God, in it's mental conception, so even God is an appearance of the uncreated, an image of the imageless. We can never touch the source of all that is was and ever will be directly, because of the infinite regress problem. The answer to the infinite regress problem is just to conclude that the creator of everything is timeless and uncreated. So it appears that a created thing is in actual fact an uncreated thing, anything that appears to be created must be an appearance of what is ultimately timeless and uncreated, in other words, an illusory image of what is ultimately imageless/uncreated

Only created things can have a creator. But the creator is uncreated, meaning all creation is an illusion, insofar as there's simply just EVERYTHING ALL AT ONCE.. that has always and forever existed, uncreated. That's what ONENESS means, it means everything, one without a second uncreated and imageless, appearing to itself as created images in the dimension of time... an illusory duality.

[Lacewing]

You haven't considered this ...

Man cannot create even one Man in his image

Are you not aware that humans procreate in their image all the time?

let alone create The God of All men in his image.

Man creates this 'God of all men' with his mind/beliefs as is demonstrated by the broad spectrum of inconsistent and conflicting religions and versions of God.

Existence of man does not prove existence of the God that man imagines.

[Gary Childress]

There is far more evidence for Man creating God, than a god creating man.

Nuh uh. You haven't considered this ...

Man cannot create even one Man in his image, let alone create The God of All men in his image.

Man cannot create.

Man can only fashion what God has made.

Of course, man can create other men in his image. Every child that is born bears the image of his human father. And science is broaching the possibility of genetic engineering which could create babies made to order that are more viable and have fewer health problems unless someone gets hold of the process and decides to produce a species of personal slaves.

Any more stupid questions, Walker?