What do you mean?
Discussion
I am partially agreeing with you, but you omitted or seem confused about the nature of God (”the Maker”).
> People have created gods everywhere there have been people.
Yes, some people create gods, that is, idols: pagan gods and goddesses, money, power, pleasure, fame, the self, the state, etc.
> The makers are people that have created thousands of gods.
The makers can't be the people because they were made. Who is the ultimate maker of the makers? That is what is meant by God: the uncreated creator or unmoved mover.
There is no objective "nature of god" outside of human consciousness to be confused by.
How the universe came to exist is unknown, but you don't need god to explain any of it for the past 13 + billion years. How life began on Earth is unknown, but you don't need a god to explain any of it post life emerging. There are unknowns, but god filling in those gaps has proven to be historically silly.
What made god, what made that, and the rest of the turtles all the way down. Hand waves of supernatural this or that beginings or eternity is just a cop out IMHO.
I'm not sure if you're trying to make an argument or if you're still confused by what I'm saying.
“What made god” is nonsensical. It’s like asking which car on the train pulls the locomotive. It misunderstands the subject.
I'm not making a gap in knowledge argument. I’m making a philosophical argument based on contingency.
If you're interested in better understanding the arguments, this is a good video: https://youtu.be/t2VbTvZfKXw
God is contingent on people creating gods. There is no other place god exists. Something like the speed of light through a vacuum is not at all contingent on people. I am confused by your statements, the motion of the train is contingent on the locomotive pulling it, but not so much about god as far as I can reason.
Yes, exactly: the train's motion is caused by the locomotive. We are the train, and God is the locomotive. There needs to be a locomotive to move the train. The train cars by themselves can't move. Yet it is an error to look at the moving train cars linked together and ask what car is causing the locomotive to move.
Similarly, we don't cause our existence. We are contingent on our parents, on the oxygen we breathe, and on the food we eat. All those things are contingent on other things. There can't be infinite contingent things because nothing would have sufficient reason to exist; therefore, nothing would exist. But we do exist, so there must be something that exists necessarily, which does not depend on anything else for its existence. That's God.
By definition, God is not contingent on people creating gods. God would still exist if there were no people because he is sheer existence itself.
I tried to adapt St. Thomas Aquinas’s third-way argument to our context. Still, these classical arguments probably have better standalone explanations elsewhere than I can summarize here if you want to understand the rationale for believing in God.
The flaw in your 2nd sentence is making up a thing called god that is not there, detectable, nor necessary for humans or anything else to exist.
We are not passive rail cars, we are one of the millions of branches of evolutionary biochemistry that survived over billions of years that became conscious and can notice that we are "here". We're trying to figure out what here is and have created gods to help make sense of this amazing universe we find ourselves in.
As we build on each other's work, we found that we are not the center of that universe, but rather we are on a spec of dust hurtling through space around an average star in an average galaxy.
That reality is AWESOME! We only get 122 trips around that star at most, that is the preciousness of time in space.
Stay humble, stack Sats!
So you don't know why we exist, but you know it's not God?
What you're saying isn't entirely wrong, but you're asserting God doesn't exist without arguments.
I’ve tried to show you that our existence is contingent and infinite contingency is a contradiction; therefore, there must be something that is existence itself. In a goodwill, rational discussion, go after the arguments.
You don't have to assent to belief in God, but at least make good arguments against it.
Correct, I don't fill unknown gaps with "god", that is a cop out, I just don't know yet and that's fine.
There is plenty of stuff we know for sure to work on.
It's on the god is real crowd to show there is a reason to listen to what they say. With thousands of geographically and philososphically incompatible god stories around, it seems obvious that humans created all the gods. Ya can't have an all powerful god that can't even get a consensus on one spec in the universe.
The Church was the State, but used god as their stick to hold power over the Plebs. Right this very moment there is a young girl somewhere being forcibly mutilated in the name of a god.
I say they either prove they are right, or leave everyone else alone.
I did tell you. Again, this isn't a “god of the gaps” argument. You clearly didn't listen to or read any of the content I provided. There can be good theistic and atheistic dialogue, but you're not representing your side well. Now, respond to my arguments, or you will lose my attention.