The Loch Ness Monster, the Yowie Man, and God

[Mr. Snrub]

If I told you *anything* you didn't know, would you believe or reject me out of hand or would you ask for evidence before making a decision? Hopefully that's answered your flying octopus and guy on Lygon St questions, but if it hasn't....

Let's say Johnny claims the flying octopus ate his homework, but he also has video footage of the squid, a dozen credible eyewitnesses, a squid-shaped hole in the wall of his house and a bit of tentacle caught in the wreckage. Unbelievable as it sounds, that's evidence worth investigating. Or what if there's a hundred witnesses media report on the guy on Lygon St feeding all those people? That's good evidence, but certainly not proof.

Maybe that's a bit over the top, but various religions claim to have evidence for God, so the issue becomes: "Do I believe this evidence? Why/why not?" rather than "This can't possibly be true so I won't even bother investigating the allegedly substantiated claims". I always prefer to make an informed decision if at all possible...

And my point earlier is that your "simple logic" only works if you make a certain, very important initial assumption. Logic is a process you use to progress from facts to conclusions, and I'm not sure you can claim "God doesn't exist" as a fact (rather than a deeply held belief) in the way that you are. And I'm at a bit of a loss to exactly where the gaping holes in my argument are...

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by Mr. Snrub
If I told you *anything* you didn't know, would you believe or reject me out of hand or would you ask for evidence before making a decision? Hopefully that's answered your flying octopus and guy on Lygon St questions, but if it hasn't....

I'll take the evidence please (or endeavor to find it)

Let's say Johnny claims the flying octopus ate his homework, but he also has video footage of the squid, a dozen credible eyewitnesses, a squid-shaped hole in the wall of his house and a bit of tentacle caught in the wreckage. Unbelievable as it sounds, that's evidence worth investigating. Or what if there's a hundred witnesses media report on the guy on Lygon St feeding all those people? That's good evidence, but certainly not proof.

Worth investigating yes. In the 21st century we have forensic experts and all sorts of people who would be able to investigate this. Chances are that the squid would be a hoax and the baker would in fact be a magician.

We didn't have access to this knowledge or these resources back when God was made up.

Maybe that's a bit over the top, but various religions claim to have evidence for God, so the issue becomes: "Do I believe this evidence? Why/why not?" rather than "This can't possibly be true so I won't even bother investigating the allegedly substantiated claims". I always prefer to make an informed decision if at all possible...

There is no evidence to investigate. Word of mouth isn't evidence.

Or do you mean evidence from our resident expert frodo: "Something had to create life. If there was a big bang, then someone had to create that big bang. It must have been God and therefore God exists"

Sorry, that isn't evidence. That is stupidity.

And my point earlier is that your "simple logic" only works if you make a certain, very important initial assumption. Logic is a process you use to progress from facts to conclusions, and I'm not sure you can claim "God doesn't exist" as a fact (rather than a deeply held belief) in the way that you are. And I'm at a bit of a loss to exactly where the gaping holes in my argument are...

You're still not listening to what I'm saying. Do you have reading problems? I've never stated that it is impossible for God to exist. I have simply stated that there is just as much evidence that the One-eyed Squid with wings exists.

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
Sorry, couldn't help it. Your name just lends itself. I couldn't resist. It seems heaps of people have nicknames that lend themselves to word play. I never thought of this when I chose mine. I was just lucky that it is hard to play on. Bumsen Burner? Bumsen Batterer? There's a few there, but you have to admit, Sh*t Carter is preety good. My apologies, no offence intended - I was more interested in playing on your name. I take it back.

what would mine be?? Ms.Storm calls me "nicho" when she tries to be condescending but thats rather lame.

how about bum burner or bunsen dud? i rate Mr. Shrub though

 

[skilts]

If the concept of god was not MADE UP by us humans, where did it come from? I think everyone is agreed that god is not a perceivable thing.

If this be so, where else could the IDEA have come from? Could it only have come from a being, or thing which shares our notion of language?

Is god so hopeless that he/she/they is only able to continue a discourse on this subject, in a language devised by us? Or are we suggesting god is also responsible for language? All of them?

How schizophrenic and unnecessarily complex of it.

 

[Mr. Snrub]

Okay, BB. So your position is:

1. You don't know for certain if God exists or not (because you agree we can never know that).
2. But you think he almost certainly doesn't exist (about as likely as a flying squid existing, to be exact).
3. You find the evidence and accounts the various world religions present for the existence of God not even worth investigating.

Right?

I suspect the differences that we've seen on this thread have come about because we both have quite different thresholds of what evidence we consider worth investigating.

And "Mr Shrub"? Bit disappointed - thought you could do better than that...

In conclusion, there's a famous quotation (which I can't quite remember at the moment...don't you hate that?) that I personally find helpful: basically it's about always taking any opportunity to test your opinions or beliefs, because if it's proved right then that just affirms its validity, but if it's proved wrong then you've been saved from believing in a lie.

 

[skilts]

Originally posted by Mr. Snrub
Okay, BB. So your position is:

1. You don't know for certain if God exists or not (because you agree we can never know that).
2. But you think he almost certainly doesn't exist (about as likely as a flying squid existing, to be exact).
3. You find the evidence and accounts the various world religions present for the existence of God not even worth investigating.

Right?

I suspect the differences that we've seen on this thread have come about because we both have quite different thresholds of what evidence we consider worth investigating.

And "Mr Shrub"? Bit disappointed - thought you could do better than that...

In conclusion, there's a famous quotation (which I can't quite remember at the moment...don't you hate that?) that I personally find helpful: basically it's about always taking any opportunity to test your opinions or beliefs, because if it's proved right then that just affirms its validity, but if it's proved wrong then you've been saved from believing in a lie.

Karl Popper, an unjustfiably famous philosopher of science, asserted that the measure of a scientific posit was that it had the tendency, equally, to be disproven. A slightly different requisite of proof.

IMHO, the philosophy of science is 100 years out of date. This reflects deeply in the quality of thinking of scientists.

This is to say that the argument is not between science and religion, just that religion's argument is so devoid of credibility, it's not worth talking about. Hasn't been for a couple of hundred years.

The credibilty of science depends, even more, upon an incestuous examination of its references.

They're both wrong.

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by Mr. Snrub

In conclusion, there's a famous quotation (which I can't quite remember at the moment...don't you hate that?) that I personally find helpful: basically it's about always taking any opportunity to test your opinions or beliefs, because if it's proved right then that just affirms its validity, but if it's proved wrong then you've been saved from believing in a lie.

Don't worry Shrubby, that quote is something I live by. I think out every opinion I have by weighing up all the different options and scenarios. There isn't much I say on here that I haven't at some previous stage reasoned out. You'll noticed that there are thousands of threads on BF and I only choose a few at a time. The ones that I don't have anything to say on are the ones that I'm either not interested in, or I don't know enough about to make a reasonable contribution. I do read some of the threads however - so I can learn about things that I either don't know or are unsure of all the available points of view. I am very open to different opinions, it's just that in a lot of threads on BF I have already investigated and disregarded some people's views.

Please enlighten me to any feasible (even half baked if you like) proof that God exists. I wait with anticipation.

 

[Mobbs]

Half-baked evidence I'm sure abounds re the many amazing things mentioned in the bible. At the very least, it seems that the flood was real.

They did find alien (to that region) timbers on Mt Ararat (in Turkey, I think) that date back to the flood time, in one small spot, that is suggested by some to perhaps be the remains of the ark.

I have a book called "The Bible ANd Science" but unfortunately its packed away in storage. It compared the two though unfortunately it had a pro-creation stance. I would love to see similar comparisons by a totally unbiased compiler.

Lemme see what can be found on the web (though I'm sure they'll be biased either one way or the other).

 

[Mr. Snrub]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
Don't worry Shrubby, that quote is something I live by. I think out every opinion I have by weighing up all the different options and scenarios. There isn't much I say on here that I haven't at some previous stage reasoned out. You'll noticed that there are thousands of threads on BF and I only choose a few at a time. The ones that I don't have anything to say on are the ones that I'm either not interested in, or I don't know enough about to make a reasonable contribution. I do read some of the threads however - so I can learn about things that I either don't know or are unsure of all the available points of view. I am very open to different opinions, it's just that in a lot of threads on BF I have already investigated and disregarded some people's views.[QUOTE/]

Genuinely glad to hear it, BB. I'm always worried by people who take a position they haven't thought through and stubbornly stick to it even if later evidence contradicts them. Glad to find you're not one of them. We need more people who are willing to keep an open mind and keep examining their opinions in this world of ours...

Please enlighten me to any feasible (even half baked if you like) proof that God exists. I wait with anticipation.

And I can't offer you any *proof* that God exists. All I can do is point you towards what people claim and believe as evidence for God. And that, as we've discussed, always comes down to someone's claims (either of God talking to them or of being God). And we've established that's not evidence you're willing to accept as it stands.

And "Shrubby"? Better....

 

[bunsen burner]

I buy the bit about the flood - but Noah rounding up two of every animal? I'd like to see how he managed to get 2 Indian Tigers and two American Bison on the Ark. These two animals' habitats are thousands of miles away. Or did he sail around in his Ark and pick them up at pre-arranged rendezvous like it was the f*@king Love Boat?

I buy the bit about the parting of the sea - but not some guy coming out with 'abracadabra' and suddenly the sea parted. I would believe that the sea dried up and these people thought it was a miracle because they didn't have an informed explanation.

But what all this has to do with God is anyone's guess.

PS that must have been a dirty big Ark to fit all those animals on.

 

[Mobbs]

This first one is biased towards creationism : http://home.att.net/~jamspsu84/ttocartic.html ... a lot of references there.

This one says creationism and evolutionism are BOTH right : http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/faqs.shtml?main#creation_vs_evolution

Pi was evaluated way back then! But the Bible only has a stab at it : http://www.tektonics.org/piwrong.html

A quite aggressive disdain shown for the bible here : http://www.churchofreality.org/opinion/evolve.htm

Arguing the authenticity of the Turin shroud : http://www11.brinkster.com/code10v2/bible/main/shroud/dating_wrong.html

Was the ark found on Mt Ararat? Why haven't sceptics even looked? http://www11.brinkster.com/code10v2/bible/main/noahark/index.html

 

[Mobbs]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
PS that must have been a dirty big Ark to fit all those animals on.

I know!

Anyways, apparently it was ocean liner size.

 

[Asgardian]

There are many theologies

Hindu
Christianity
Muslim
Buddist
Druids
plus 100's more

all of them teach you to suspend the need for physical proof
all of them rely on a person to have faith
all of them demand of you to spread "the" word

Personally I have NO faith
Personally I believe ALL "faiths" are emotional crutches for those who are unwilling, or unable, to exist without believing in a higher purpose.
Personally I believe MAN created GOD (whichever form you like) in his own image, to satisfy his need to subjugate his feelings of limitation.

for example, monarchs throughout time have fretted on producing a male heir, all in the name of perpetuating his lineage, an abstract form of immortality if you like.

In less enlightened times monarchs were said to be devine - Gods if you please.

Then as a species we got smarter, and put the burden of divinity on mythical, cannot be proven, nor dis-proven, "GODS".

It makes everything so much easier, we can fight to our hearts content, all in the name of my god is better than your god. Blame is removed from mankind, we aren't fighting for ourselves, we are fighting for a higher purpose, we are fighting to spread the word of GOD, coz like I said, our god is better and truer than their god.

Aren't we clever, we are a society without blame, everything we do, we do in god's name.

We kill prostitutes coz they are wicked, god said so
We kill blasphemers coz they say stuff we don't like, and oh yeah, I nearly forgot, coz god said to do so
We invade and kill people from another country, coz they are wicked, they are worshipping a false god, we know this is the case coz our god is the one true god, we said it is so, so he said it is so too, so god said to wipe out that false religion, and if they don't like it, tough, coz our god is true.

I could go on ad infinitum

Suffice to say, I have no religion, I don't need one, I am me, and that's all I need.





Now about Yeti's, Bigfoot's and Loch Ness Monsters etc.

No, I do not believe they exist

BUT, I also do not believe people made them up just for the sake of something to do.

I believe people see things, many. many things which is beyond their knowledge, beyond their understanding.
So they try to make sense of what they saw with words and images, bingo, a legend is created, we see something unknown, we exaggerate, a fish or an eel becomes the Loch Ness Monster.
A big scruffy unshaven mountain bloke becomes Bigfoot, etc.

My guess is that mankind has done this sort of thing many times throughout the ages, some legends die out, some, like god and christianity, live on.

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by Asgardian

Suffice to say, I have no religion, I don't need one, I am me, and that's all I need.

Ditto.

 

[Luddite]

one thing i would really like to know is this:

why do you feel the way you do? I mean, why do you feel you have to believe/disbelieve in a god?

I dont want to know why you believe/disbelieve, but why you feel there is a need to (dis)believe


I am of the opinion that to believe is a pyschological crutch, much as Asgardian does. But i want to know what other people think.

 

[eagleskickass]

Ok, just for the sake of argument i am going to TRY and give some evidence for God or some pointers about possible evidence and i will TRY do this from an unbiased view NOT just blindly saying "well the bible says". I will warn i dont think i will do this very well but will give it a shot. Just give it a read, ill be happy to try and answer any questions u have on what i say. Remember i aint an expert in this area but have some knowledge.

Firstly i will however discuss the bible. The bible was not written by one person at one time (incase some of you think that). It was indeed written by many authors, writing various scripts of what they had seen/been told to write/whatever. For example the first 4 books of the new Testament are believed to be (by both christian and NON christian historians) written by the very people they are named after, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They did not get together one day and all write their accounts together, more so over time (yes not right when Jesus died but before they died) they wrote down their account of the Life of Jesus. he gospels share many of the same stories, while you could say the 4 of them just "made it up" historical evidence points towards firstly Jesus existing and secondly some of the things which evidence can be found for(so for example turning water into wine cant be proved by historians) what the Gospels say having actually occured. Unfortunately i cannot give you exact examples but if you can find anything on the net by Paul Barnett, a New Testament historian it might help you. To my knowledge(i could be wrong here) he started exploring New Testament History BEFORE he was a christian, but due to what he found later became one.

Also just taking an example of yours Bunsen how the parting of the river you can believe but you cant believe someone caused it to part(ie Moses in the old testament). You said it may have dried up and as they didnt have an explanation for it they called it a miracle this does not account for the archaeological remains found at the river floor and buried in the sand(over time) of woods believed to be from egyptian chariots and other artefacts such as this, found in the middle of where the river would have run(based on archaeological evidence again) when it happened, how did they come to be there if the river wasnt parted and then fell on them? Of course exact dates cannot be pinpointed but these remains have been dated to approximately when it is thought israelites left Egypt (accounted for in some egyptian scrolls and the like.)

I know im jumping around a lot but i just want to briefly go over the evidence, Christian, Jewish etc for Jesus existence. Not only does the bible talk of a man who lived about 2000 years ago, known to us as Jesus, who performed some unexplainable things but some ancient Jewish Scrolls, dated at about the time Jesus supposebly existed, talk of a man such as jesus performing acts not ever seen before and unexplainable for the Jewish leaders of the time.

Many of the things discussed in the bible as ive previously mentioned, also come up in drawings, writings and things such as this from people who definately didnt believe in God. Also as mentioned there is the alien wood found on Mount Arrarat.

Another sidenote is you say no-one has seen or heard or smelt etc "God". The bible has many instances, but BECAUSE its in the bible you immediately dismiss it. Remember at the time of these writings they werent found in neat little copies of the New International version bibles, no, they were sinlge scripts of an individual book ie Genesis, Psalms etc, no different in appearence to other scripts of the time, yet you dismiss the scriptures JUST because they talk of a God, are the others true just because they DONT talk of a God? Also how do you know the many battles of the Medievil times took place? Because they were written down. Not all were written down right as the battle occured, some were written down later, yet they are still believed. why not the ancient scriptures(old testament i speak of here) which it cannot of course due to age and orignal documents etc be proved whether or not they were written after the events occured or as they did, like a running account. It is not known exactly when they were (which i admit does cast doubt on who actually DID write them, this we just have to go by ancient record keeping).

Im waffling, il going to stop, dont think much of that made sense but i feel better for at least TRYING to show the other side onto this. No i dont BLINDLY believe in the bible but i have seen/heard just as much evidence for what it says being true and against, and many other factors lead me to simply believe it unlikely everything came about due to some mysterious big bang. If i told you a coke appeared out of thin air you wouldnt believe me, just as u dont believe me saying God exists. Both ways have their problems, i simply fall on the side believing God made the world, not some mysterious big bang.

 

[eagleskickass]

Please ask specifics/show me where i am wrong (obviously not just saying it as its just word against word) on what i have written above. Whether you take it aboard or dismiss it i dont mind, im happy to debate this as i dont just blindly believe something, i do like to put it to the test its just as we are coming from different view points i may take something contrary to how you do.

 

[Mr Q]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
The Loch Ness Monster and the Yowie Man

....

God

....

Ah, but there is one big difference - it would be possible to totally prove or disprove the Loch Ness Monster - all you would have to do is spend billions draining Loch Ness, then getting a large team of people to carefully look over the empty loch and prove once and for all if there is or isn't a Loch Ness Monster.

If you can come up with a similar method by which the existance of God can be proven or disproven then I'll grant credibility to the argument that belief in God is similar to belief in the Loch Ness Monster. You're extrapolating from the tangible (Loch Ness Monster) to the intangible (God).

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by eagleskickass
Waffle

The first part of your post is just plain waffle. There is no substantial proof here, so I'll just move right along.

are the others true just because they DONT talk of a God?

Nope. Some things can quite reasonably be dismissed straight away if they are far-fetched. i.e The one-eyed flying squid and Jesus turning water into wine.

Also how do you know the many battles of the Medievil times took place? Because they were written down. Not all were written down right as the battle occured, some were written down later, yet they are still believed.

We don't know the exact details. The winners always write the history, so common sense tells us that what we hear and read about these battles is not necessarily accurate.

The difference that you don't realise is that there isn't anything that is really unbelieveable written about these battles - unless it is in the Bible. The occurences of the say the Battle of Hastings (although not necessarily accurate) is a lot more credible compared to Ali Baba and his "Close Sesame forever".

why not the ancient scriptures(old testament i speak of here) which it cannot of course due to age and orignal documents etc be proved whether or not they were written after the events occured or as they did, like a running account. It is not known exactly when they were (which i admit does cast doubt on who actually DID write them, this we just have to go by ancient record keeping).

These feats that supposedly happened all these years ago do not happen in todays world. It would be fair to suggest that they didn't happen back then either.

Im waffling

No sh*t. Will I still get into heaven for saying that? Maybe there's a bug in Gods database and it will get missed?

No i dont BLINDLY believe in the bible

Well you think you don't at least. You haven't produced a skerreck of reasonable evidence yet.

and many other factors lead me to simply believe it unlikely everything came about due to some mysterious big bang.

So you believe there are only two possibilities for the creation of life? The big bang theory holds no more water than the God/creator theory. There could be a million other theories about how our universe was created - you don't seem to be able to think past the two that have been planted in your head.

How do you know that we aren't the equivalent size of an atom (or smaller) in some larger universe? There's could a million other theories and you limit yourself to choosing between two?

If i told you a coke appeared out of thin air you wouldnt believe me

No but if the Bible told you that Jesus made it happen, you'd probably believe it.

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by eagleskickass
Please ask specifics/show me where i am wrong

You infer that the big bang theory is unlikely, therefore God must have created the universe? This is not proof. The logic just doesn't add up.

I just want you to answer these two questions which blows your theory out of the water:

1) There's plenty of stuff out there that we are yet to know about. But how can we know about it when we haven't seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelt?

It's no more than a theory that someone made up. Scientests have also made up theories (relativity, round earth, electricity) and then gone out and proved them. After thousands of years, no one has proven the God theory.

2) If God was the creator, who created God?

 

[Generalissimo]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
1) There's plenty of stuff out there that we are yet to know about. But how can we know about it when we haven't seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelt?

It's no more than a theory that someone made up. Scientests have also made up theories (relativity, round earth, electricity) and then gone out and proved them. After thousands of years, no one has proven the God theory.

Neither has anyone proven the Atheist theory.

It is a fact that there are some things that are true that cannot be proven to be true. A guy called Godel showed that, if you build up a system of mathematics or logic using very basic assumptions (axioms), that there are statements in that system that cannot be proven or disproven using those axioms.

Since we can safely say that the universe is governed by rules, it follows that there are certain question that cannot be answered merely by referring to these rules. The question of whether or not there is a God could be, and I think most probably is, one of those questions.

2) If God was the creator, who created God?

If the universe is just a sequence of puposeless events, what cause set those events in motion? And what caused that cause? Etc, etc. Like it or not, you are stuck with a Prime Mover paradox, same as the non-Atheists. At least the God model explains the perfection in the design of the universe.


The Atheist model is thus 'blown out of the water' by your own arguments.

 

[Weaver]

The Jesus story is a myth. It is a direct copy of the Egyptian story of Osiris. Throughout the Med this story was copied and localised as Dynosis, Mithras and 100s of others. Only the names were changed.

All the miracles of Jesus were performed by others earlier. The earliest Greek scholars heard the Jesus story and thought, "ho-hum, heard it all before". They didn't even think Jesus a good miracle worker because he was performing all the old favourites.

Osiris was born to a God and a Virgin in a cave. He was killed by his enemy and resurected after 3 days. Mythras and Jesus share a birthday. All these stories are based on the cycle of nature and the seasons, and encapsulate the fundamental nature of living a life on the land.

John the Baptist was born on the Winter Solstice, Jesus on the summer solstice. One dies so that the other may reign.

Baptism is being above the water (alive), immersed in the water (in the grave) and then being above the water again (reborn). Its all about man-woman-child; passing of seasons; air, water and fire.

These stories were not intended to be literal truth, but metaphors and fables to help people live well.

God is not (IMHO) a thing or a being. God is the concept that you should live your life with a higher purpose in mind. That you should not live a selfish and materialistic life, but live as though you had to answer to an enlightened being. The story says that if you can do that you we will be reborn (not physically) but in a different way. To me that says that if you live well you will be reborn in people's memories as a good person, if you live badly you will live on as a despised person.

Large parts of the Gospels are encoding ancient geometry and mysticism. For example the ancients like Pythagorous though it strange that if you draw a circle, and then surround it with the same size circles, there will be 12 surrounding circles. They noticed that the world was round and had 12 months. Could it be a coincedence they wondered? Therefore all the godmen are one person surrounded by 12 followers.

All this fuss about the literal truth of creation and the bible gets in the way of realising that dozens and dozens of cultures have taught their people that you should live a life of kindness, compassion, selflessness and forgiveness. If you do this you will be rewarded, not materially and not in your lifetime, but rewarded. This is about the only lesson in these bloody books that the Christians, Moslems and Jews all seem to gloss over.

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by Mr Q
Ah, but there is one big difference - it would be possible to totally prove or disprove the Loch Ness Monster - all you would have to do is spend billions draining Loch Ness, then getting a large team of people to carefully look over the empty loch and prove once and for all if there is or isn't a Loch Ness Monster.

If you can come up with a similar method by which the existance of God can be proven or disproven then I'll grant credibility to the argument that belief in God is similar to belief in the Loch Ness Monster. You're extrapolating from the tangible (Loch Ness Monster) to the intangible (God).

This point is inconsequential. How are you going to prove the One-Eyed Squid with wings doesn't exist?

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by Generalissimo
Neither has anyone proven the Atheist theory.

Let's just go back to the crux of the post then:

No one's ever proven the one-eyed flying squid theory. There's no more proof that God exists than the one-eyed flying squid. But I don't think many God believers believe in the One-eyed flying squid.

This isn't really about Atheism, it's about believing something that we don't know is there, and how someone ever came up with the idea of God in the first place.

At least the God model explains the perfection in the design of the universe.

So could a multitude of other unexplored theories.

The Atheist model is thus 'blown out of the water' by your own arguments.

Once again, you've missed the whole context of thread. I've never stated that God doesn't exist. He could - and so could the one-eyed flying squid.

 

[eagleskickass]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
You infer that the big bang theory is unlikely, therefore God must have created the universe? This is not proof. The logic just doesn't add up.

No, i didnt mean that, i meant it as the big bang theory is just Like God in a sense, SOMETHING was just there. IE people argue "where did God come from" yet when u ask them about the big bang because science suggested it they say "it must have happened". I believe due to various reasons it is God that was just there.

I just want you to answer these two questions which blows your theory out of the water:

1) There's plenty of stuff out there that we are yet to know about. But how can we know about it when we haven't seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelt?

It's no more than a theory that someone made up. Scientests have also made up theories (relativity, round earth, electricity) and then gone out and proved them. After thousands of years, no one has proven the God theory.

What exactly are u asking me here? How we know about stuff we are yet to know about? what? Sorry i just dont get your question.

2) If God was the creator, who created God?

See Generalissmo's comment, no matter how u see the earths creation SOMETHING was either just there or just formed.