Who created God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter coolduude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Charlemagne_II said:
Who created God?

God by definition is the uncreated One. The notion that God must have been created only comes to us because we see everything around us created and destroyed. But the Creator is not subject to the same process that He created. It is not as if God once did not existed and was then created by another God (ad infinitum). This is the absurd question (Who made God?) that Bertrand Russell posed to himself when he was a teenager (having gotten the question originally from John Stuart Mill.) Childlike minds use it to rebut the existence of God, never realizing how childish an argument it is.
Click to expand...
From whence did God come?
 
coolduude said:
God did not come from anywhere. He is the very act of existence itself: ‘I AM who AM.’
Click to expand...
And therin lies the very premise that assures me that my atheism is right and Blaise Pascal’s perfidy is wrong.

Infinite regression is the hallmark of an untenable and unsupportable idea…
 
Moonstruck888 said:
And therin lies the very premise that assures me that my atheism is right and Blaise Pascal’s perfidy is wrong.

Infinite regression is the hallmark of an untenable and unsupportable idea…
Click to expand...
Infinite regress?

My friend, you have much to learn.
 
coolduude said:
Infinite regress?

My friend, you have much to learn.
Click to expand...
Sadly, given that you’ve chosen to speak in riddle and vague unintelligible put downs, I doubt that you’ll be the one to teach me.

If God was not created, he must have been around for an infinite amount of time? Correct?

Infinte regression.
 
Yab_Yum said:
Why is an infinite duration an infinite regression?
Click to expand...
Because in order to explain where God came from, you’ve reintroduced the same problem that led to God Hypothesis being postualted in the first place.

Because it stands to reason that the Universe had to come from somewhere, early man postulated that Gods created the Universe. The question is still not answered because there is no explanation of the origin of the God’s. To circumvent this by saying that God has an infinite duration still leaves you facing the same lack of any explanation.

It is not a vicious infinite regress. A vicious infinite regress would be when one were to postulate another God to create God, and then another and another and another, so kudos to you for being too smart to walk into that one, but it is a non vicious infinite regress nonetheless.
 
No, saying God always is (or always was) is a suitable answer. Consider this analogy:

Suppose I tell you there is a book that explains everything you want explained. You want that book very much. You ask me whether I have it. I say no, I have to get it from my wife. Does she have it? No, she has to get it from a neighbor. Does he have it? No, he has to get it from his teacher, who has to get it. . . et cetera, etcetera, ad infinitum. No one actually has the book. In that case, you will never get it. However long or short the chain of book borrowers may be, you will get the book only if someone actually has it and does not have to borrow it. Well, existence is like that book. Existence is handed down the chain of causes, from cause to effect. If there is no first cause, no being who is eternal and self-sufficient, no being who has existence by his own nature and does not have to borrow it from someone else, then the gift of existence can never be passed down the chain to others, and no one will ever get it. But we did get it. We exist. We got the gift of existence from our causes, down the chain, and so did every actual being in the universe, from atoms to archangels. Therefore there must be a first cause of existence, a God.

It makes perfect logical sense and, I believe, is not a cop-out answer.
 
coolduude said:
No, saying God always is (or always was) is a suitable answer. Consider this analogy:

Suppose I tell you there is a book that explains everything you want explained. You want that book very much. You ask me whether I have it. I say no, I have to get it from my wife. Does she have it? No, she has to get it from a neighbor. Does he have it? No, he has to get it from his teacher, who has to get it. . . et cetera, etcetera, ad infinitum. No one actually has the book. In that case, you will never get it. However long or short the chain of book borrowers may be, you will get the book only if someone actually has it and does not have to borrow it. Well, existence is like that book. Existence is handed down the chain of causes, from cause to effect. If there is no first cause, no being who is eternal and self-sufficient, no being who has existence by his own nature and does not have to borrow it from someone else, then the gift of existence can never be passed down the chain to others, and no one will ever get it. But we did get it. We exist. We got the gift of existence from our causes, down the chain, and so did every actual being in the universe, from atoms to archangels. Therefore there must be a first cause of existence, a God.

It makes perfect logical sense and, I believe, is not a cop-out answer.
Click to expand...
It’s based on a number of assumptions,
  1. There has to be a first cause.
  2. The first cause has to be a “being” of some kind.
  3. The being has to be eternal and self sufficient.
That is all surmise.
 
The only premise I could see that would an assumption would be the first. I’ve heard it argued that time can be infinite. Check this out: squidoo.com/unfortunateevents

as for the other two, I think they make sense. If the first cause is not a being, what is it? And, like my analogy shows, the first cause must be self-sufficient, in other words, the first cause must be the very act of existence itself.
 
I have a question. If God is pure spirit, simple, not divisible by parts, does not have a body, then what is there to be created? How does one create something which contains no matter?

We only have experience of what is tangible. What can be experienced through the senses or measured like gravity, or electricity. Why would one think that something which has no matter, nor can be seen, or measured can be created? God is not pure energy because energy can be measured, and God can not be measure. God is pure spirit… unlimited intellect without matter or parts, and does not take up space. If anyone can tell me how that can be created? I will tell you who created God.

God has no need of a creator, because there are no constituent parts to be created.
 
Well angles are pure spirit yet they are created. So I don’t know how well your argument holds up :o
 
The difference between God and Angels is the difference between the infinite, and the finite. God is that which nothing greater can be conceived. If you can conceive of something greater then that is God. Since you can’t conceive of anything greater than the greatest thing that can be conceived, you can’t conceive of something greater than God. The greatest thing that can be conceived would require something greater to create the greatest thing that can be conceived. That is not possible. Angels are not the greatest thing that can be conceived, God is, besides no one can tell how to create an angel.

We can imagine creating a human. All you need is space, time, and a bunch of atoms strung together in a rather complex fashion. Since God needs none of those for His existence, it is impossible to conceive how to create such a being, therefore God can not be created.

I’m approaching this problem from left field… that’s where I spend most of my time.🤷
 
It’s based on a number of assumptions,
  1. There has to be a first cause.-Good, that is exactly the most logical explanation for the origin of the universe, whether natural or supernatural.
  2. The first cause has to be a “being” of some kind. Well, this can be deduced from a simple anaylsis of nature.
    a. nature has sets of data within it such as numerical sets,codes e.g. DNA, laws etc.
    b. codes and laws need a code/law giver
    c.a code/law giver has to have intelligence in order to make and enforce the laws
    d. intelligence is a predication of a being
    e. the first cause, law maker, therefore is a being
  3. The being has to be eternal and self sufficient.The first cause must indeed be outside the dimension of time and thus is eternal.
That is all surmise

surmise-to think or infer without certain or strong evidence; conjecture; guess.

Well, this is where I am afraid most people commit logical blunders.

There maybe evidence, but someone may just not like the evidence available.

There is evidence that we landed on the moon, but people still deny it and say that the evidence is fake. Thus, it is not evidence that is the problem, but the interpretation of the given evidence. Eviedence for God is there, just people tend to disaggree that God is the explanation of it.
 
coolduude said:
The only premise I could see that would an assumption would be the first. I’ve heard it argued that time can be infinite. Check this out: squidoo.com/unfortunateevents

as for the other two, I think they make sense. If the first cause is not a being, what is it? And, like my analogy shows, the first cause must be self-sufficient, in other words, the first cause must be the very act of existence itself.
Click to expand...
The question is not whether you think they make sense. The question is whether you can demonstrate that they make sense. I think a lot of things. It doesn’t mean all of them are the truth.
 
UnworthyApostle said:
It’s based on a number of assumptions,
  1. There has to be a first cause.-Good, that is exactly the most logical explanation for the origin of the universe, whether natural or supernatural.
  2. The first cause has to be a “being” of some kind. Well, this can be deduced from a simple anaylsis of nature.
    a. nature has sets of data within it such as numerical sets,codes e.g. DNA, laws etc.
    b. codes and laws need a code/law giver
    c.a code/law giver has to have intelligence in order to make and enforce the laws
    d. intelligence is a predication of a being
    e. the first cause, law maker, therefore is a being
  3. The being has to be eternal and self sufficient.The first cause must indeed be outside the dimension of time and thus is eternal.
That is all surmise

surmise-to think or infer without certain or strong evidence; conjecture; guess.

Well, this is where I am afraid most people commit logical blunders.

There maybe evidence, but someone may just not like the evidence available.

There is evidence that we landed on the moon, but people still deny it and say that the evidence is fake. Thus, it is not evidence that is the problem, but the interpretation of the given evidence. Eviedence for God is there, just people tend to disaggree that God is the explanation of it.
Click to expand...
Why does there have to be a first cause?
 
cranster said:
I have a question. If God is pure spirit, simple, not divisible by parts, does not have a body, then what is there to be created? How does one create something which contains no matter?

We only have experience of what is tangible. What can be experienced through the senses or measured like gravity, or electricity. Why would one think that something which has no matter, nor can be seen, or measured can be created? God is not pure energy because energy can be measured, and God can not be measure. God is pure spirit… unlimited intellect without matter or parts, and does not take up space. If anyone can tell me how that can be created? I will tell you who created God.

God has no need of a creator, because there are no constituent parts to be created.
Click to expand...
I think if something cannot be seen, measured, created, destroyed or detected in any way, that is very compelling evidence that there’s actually nothing there.

Intellect requires complexity. It also requires to be driven by energy. The human brain constitutes nearly a quarter of our total energy requirements and it is the most complex object in the known Universe.

Energy can be detected. Intellect cannot emerge from nothing.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
Why does there have to be a first cause?
Click to expand...
Why must there be a first cause? Because if there isn’t, then the whole universe is unexplained, and we have violated our Principle of Sufficient Reason for everything. If there is no first cause, each particular thing in the universe is explained in the short run, or proximately, by some other thing, but nothing is explained in the long run, or ultimately, and the universe as a whole is not explained. Everyone and everything says in turn, “Don’t look to me for the final explanation. I’m just an instrument. Something else caused me.” If that’s all there is, then we have an endless passing of the buck. God is the one who says, “The buck stops here.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top