Who created God, how did he come into existence?

[Aelred_Minor]

God was never created. He is meta-cosmic in the sense that He transcends the created order and so is termed uncreated. All things in creation, the archangels, the angels, the cosmos and humankind are created by God.

Meister Eckhart puts it this way: “God is a Word, an Unspoken Word. Where God is, He utters His Word. Where He is not, He does not speak. God is spoken and unspoken. The Father is a speaking work, and the Son is the speech at work.”

God “unspoken” is actually the Godhead or Divine Essence where “He does not speak” and where “He is not.” (According to Eckhart, “If I also say, God is a Being, it is not true; He is transcendent Being and superessential Nothingness.”) God “spoken” is where “God is” and refers to His Self-revelation in the Divine Persons, starting with the Father and then through the Son, Holy Spirit. The Father is Pure Being – the speaking work – and the Son is the Logos of Being – the speech at work.

So God, in His absolute essence, transcends even the polarities of being and non-being, of existence and non-existence. This would have to be so if God is truly above all opposition. Existence and non-existence are still human attributes which God is not subject to, hence He neither exists, nor does not-not exist. That is not to say those attributes are not real, they just do not apply to Him in His purest essence, but through Him they are manifest.

Again, according to Eckhart:

“The Godhead in itself is motionless unity and balanced stillness and is the source of all emanations. Hence I assume a passive welling-up. We call this first utterance Being, for the most intrinsic utterance, the first formal assumption in the Godhead is Being. Being as essential Word, God is being, but being is not God. Now the origin of the Father is necessarily involved in this assumption of a passive welling-up. In other words, the Deity being in Itself intelligence, therefore, the divine nature steps forth into relation of otherness: other, but not another, for this distinction is rational, not real. Thus, the first Person arises in the Godhead passively, not from any active beginning. Hence its beginning is without property. The question is, what is the Person of the Father. I answer that it is Being in the Godhead, not according to essence but according to paternity, which is the formal notion specifically determining the Father.”

I would not put it quite that way. We can deny the non-existence of God with confidence. This implies existence, but the existence of God is something very different from the existence of any creature. The existence of any creature is something distinct from its essence, whereas in God these concepts are indistinguishable. You could say that that since God transcends our concept of existence he transcends the existence/non-existence distinction, but to the average Joe this may seem to make God less really existent than creatures, when the reality is the opposite.

 

[dshix]

Excuse me here, how is saying that God has no creator, no beginning and no end, make it true without an absolute proof to believe that? What is that proof that God supposing he exists have no creator?

I’ll go far with you that there is a creator for the big bang; how can you be able to know the character of that creator and that he wasn’t created.

Saying he is the alpha and omega, isn’t enough.

You are speaking as if there is tangible, scientific proof for an intangible, non-scientific being. That is not the case. We have proof by reason, by logic, by revelation, and by faith.

It is logical that there must be a first mover. If we look at the universe around us, we know that it can’t possibly be infinite, (a universe with an infinite past should have died of entropy an infinite time ago) so there must have been a beginning, and that beginning must have been caused by something.

Logically, there must be an uncaused being to set off this chain of caused events, because without that being there could not be a beginning to the chain. (Please ask me to clarify this sentence if you do not understand.)

We call this uncaused, necessary, infinite being God.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Perhaps there is a higher god who created the god who created us, since our existence is useless without bringing a God as an explanation, why God’s existence isn’t useless without a higher creator? Specially in the case where the materialist world is measured unlike the supernatural world.

So anyone can bring up a supernatural story and consider it as an origin even without evidences to support it and an explaination for the “How”, just like Russell’s teapot which cannot be disproved.

What makes the Catholic god as a supernatural story more valuable?

To think of God as one creature among many, or the biggest and greatest creature of all creatures is a misunderstanding of who God is.

God is not one creature among many, he is not some super being

In fact God is being itself.

Without God there is no being.

What God looks like, what his nature is for the most part is mystery.

What we know is God is the first cause, he is the power that allows being to exist and he is all powerful, all loving and eternal.

This video might help you from viewing the Christian God as a “sky fairy” and more as the cause of existence.

Father Barron-What Christians mean by God
youtube.com/watch?v=W_Yjue8MXAI

 

[Bookcat]

No one created God. God was not created.

God IS.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Excuse me here, how is saying that God has no creator, no beginning and no end, make it true without an absolute proof to believe that? What is that proof that God supposing he exists have no creator?

I’ll go far with you that there is a creator for the big bang; how can you be able to know the character of that creator and that he wasn’t created.

Saying he is the alpha and omega, isn’t enough.

If he was created, then who created him, and him, and him.

Even if you hold such a position, you must understand there cannot be an infinite regress. At some point there was something from which all we see now came.

Our logical foundation does not allow us to believe we just "poof"came into existence.

It’s like pulling a rabbit from a hat in a magic trick requires a magician, and yet the atheist believes in the magic without the magician.

Similarly, Christian’s believe that there is an all powerful force that brought this amazing creation into existence from nothing.

The atheist in fact sets aside logic and says that from nothing sprouted this amazing creation of its own accord.

In essence saying from the empty hat, a rabbit appeared using nothing but the power if the hat and the rabbit.

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

The Kalam cosmological argument and The five arguments of Aquinas both are based on the belief that everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence; this can applied to God if he exists? How does Thomas Aquinas or ant other theological argument disprove the existence of a creator for God?

 

[Estevao]

Who created the first uncreated creator?

What caused the first uncaused cause?

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

If he was created, then who created him, and him, and him.

Even if you hold such a position, you must understand there cannot be an infinite regress. At some point there was something from which all we see now came.

Our logical foundation does not allow us to believe we just "poof"came into existence.

It’s like pulling a rabbit from a hat in a magic trick requires a magician, and yet the atheist believes in the magic without the magician.

Similarly, Christian’s believe that there is an all powerful force that brought this amazing creation into existence from nothing.

The atheist in fact sets aside logic and says that from nothing sprouted this amazing creation of its own accord.

In essence saying from the empty hat, a rabbit appeared using nothing but the power if the hat and the rabbit.

You are reflecting the same arguments atheists use to disprove a higher god; you are using them to disprove an upper god; saying the universe is superb there must be a creator is an equal argument to saying God is superb therefore he must be created; except that the universe is absolutely undeniable.

I’m not sure; if you say there is a possibity for the existence of a god who created this universe or other multiple universes; why saying the existence of many gods who are perhaps more powerful Gods isn’t possible?

 

[Jon_S_1]

The Kalam cosmological argument and The five arguments of Aquinas both are based on the belief that everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence; this can applied to God if he exists? How does Thomas Aquinas or ant other theological argument disprove the existence of a creator for God?

You don’t get it.

If I concede that the God of the Old Testament was created, all that would mean is that he was not God, he was a creature created by God.

God did not come into existence he IS existence.

God is the fabric of being that allows for creation to happen.

 

[R_C]

Neil deGrasse Tyson is an atheist, also explaining the scientific existence of a creator supposing that is equal to explaining the scientific existence of Big bang doesn’t leave out the possibity of having a higher god for both.

You know, mine was a joke. It’s the first time I see someone actually ask the question “who created the Creator”, and since I do not know how to respond to questions such as this one or such as “What happens when an unstoppable force encounters an immovable object”, or “how do I turn a square into a circle”, I simply posted a joke to ease the tension

I can barely understand some ridiculously simple human teachings, how can I possibly understand God and His nature? I would be flattering myself if I ever tried to answer such a question. Although I do admit that, as someone in love (for faith in God is just that), I do sometimes ask the Beloved such questions as an expression of affection, the most amusing one being: “I could not live without you”

 

[davidv]

The Kalam cosmological argument and The five arguments of Aquinas both are based on the belief that** everything that has a beginning **of its existence has a cause of its existence; this can applied to God if he exists?

Note the bold above. Since God does not have a begging this cannot be applied to God.

How does Thomas Aquinas or ant other theological argument disprove the existence of a creator for God?

They don’t need to. The have shown the an uncreated creator is a logical necessity.

 

[Jon_S_1]

You are reflecting the same arguments atheists use to disprove a higher god; you are using them to disprove an upper god; saying the universe is superb there must be a creator; God is superb and it cannot be but created.

None can deny the existence of universe but God and a personal one; I’m not sure; if you say there is a possibity for the existence of a god who created this universe or multiple universes; why saying the existence or many and more powerful Gods isn’t possible?

So it seems your problem is in a personal God not in the idea of a first cause.

It’s important to separate these things.

It is one thing to say God does not exist.

And another to say a Personal relational God does not exist.

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

You know, mine was a joke. It’s the first time I see someone actually ask the question “who created the Creator”, and since I do not know how to respond to questions such as this one or such as “What happens when an unstoppable force encounters an immovable object”, or “how do I turn a square into a circle”, I simply posted a joke to ease the tension

I can barely understand some ridiculously simple human teachings, how can I possibly understand God and His nature? I would be flattering myself if I ever tried to answer such a question. Although I do admit that, as someone in love (for faith in God is just that), I do sometimes ask the Beloved such questions as an expression of affection, the most amusing one being: “I could not live without you”

Please note that I’m not trying to make any tension or convert anyone; just my questions were clear and sincere.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Perhaps there is a higher god who created the god who created us, since our existence is useless without bringing a God as an explanation, why God’s existence isn’t useless without a higher creator? Specially in the case where the materialist world is measured unlike the supernatural world.

So anyone can bring up a supernatural story and consider it as an origin even without evidences to support it and an explaination for the “How”, just like Russell’s teapot which cannot be disproved.

What makes the Catholic god as a supernatural story more valuable?

If there is a higher ‘god’ who created the God Who created us… who created that one?

 

[Linux]

Excuse me here, how is saying that God has no creator, no beginning and no end, make it true without an absolute proof to believe that? What is that proof that God supposing he exists have no creator?

I’ll go far with you that there is a creator for the big bang; how can you be able to know the character of that creator and that he wasn’t created.

Saying he is the alpha and omega, isn’t enough.

You did not ask for a proof, you basically asked us why God does not need a cause.

Everything that begins to exist needs a cause, does not translate to “everything needs a cause”.

The idea that everything needs a cause is an unfounded assumption that leads to an infinite regress.

If you reject the idea of an infinite regress, then you have to agree that there is in fact an uncaused cause.

 

[meltzerboy]

Perhaps there is a higher god who created the god who created us, since our existence is useless without bringing a God as an explanation, why God’s existence isn’t useless without a higher creator? Specially in the case where the materialist world is measured unlike the supernatural world.

So anyone can bring up a supernatural story and consider it as an origin even without evidences to support it and an explaination for the “How”, just like Russell’s teapot which cannot be disproved.

What makes the Catholic god as a supernatural story more valuable?

There is no Catholic G-d, Protestant G-d, Jewish G-d, Muslim G-d, or Hindu G-d. There is only G-d and many religions which understand G-d in different ways. If there were a higher G-d that created a lower G-d, one could then argue there is an even higher G-d that created the higher G-d. Our idea of G-d transcends a hierarchy of gods as well as time and space: there is only one G-d Who created everything. How do I know this for certain? I do not, but I have faith in the existence of G-d and the infinite goodness, justice, and power of G-d.

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

There is no Catholic G-d, Protestant G-d, Jewish G-d, Muslim G-d, or Hindu G-d. There is only G-d and many religions which understand G-d in different ways. If there were a higher G-d that created a lower G-d, one could then argue there is an even higher G-d that created the higher G-d. Our idea of G-d transcends a hierarchy of gods: there is only one G-d who created everything. How do I know this for certain? I do not, but I have faith in the existence of G-d and the infinite goodness, justice, and power of G-d.

The many gods, are they a part of that God too because you mentioned the Hindu faith; you mean God is everything? Why the need to say about everything “God” when we can only say everything instead; it is more of an accurate word.

The personal dogmatic god that comes from multiple religions is more than just a higher power.

Are you a deist?

 

[georget]

There was never nothing. There was God.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

The many gods, are they a part of that God too because you mentioned the Hindu faith; you mean God is everything? Why the need to say about everything “God” when we can only say everything instead; it is more of an accurate word.

The personal dogmatic god that comes from multiple religions is more than just a higher power.

Are you a deist?

I don’t think it was his intent to say that there ARE ‘many gods,’ just many understandings.

 

[meltzerboy]

The many gods, are they a part of that God too because you mentioned the Hindu faith; you mean God is everything? Why the need to say about everything “God” when we can only say everything instead; it is more of an accurate word.

The personal dogmatic god that comes from multiple religions is more than just a higher power.

Are you a deist?

Although there are a number of deities or gods in Hinduism, most worshipers believe they are diverse forms of the one G-d. In this sense, Hinduism is not polytheistic. I do not believe that G-d is pantheistic but instead distinct from His creation. I also believe in a personal G-d who cares about His creation and interacts with it. I would not call myself a deist since all I have said conforms to the tenets of Judaism, which does not exclude non-Jews from either G-d’s love or His blessings.