Who created God?

[Vico]

I see the immaterial as something. If nothing exists, then there is nothing, neither material nor immaterial. That is the meaning of “nothing”.

If God exists, then there is one thing existing – God. Hence, if God exists then there is not “nothing” but instead “something”, with that something being God.

rossum

CreationIn technically theological and philosophical use it [the term creation] expresses the act whereby God brings the entire substance of a thing into existence from a state of non-existence — productio totius substantiâ ex nihilo sui et subjecti. In every kind of production the specific effect had as such no previous existence, and may therefore be said to have been educed ex nihilo sui — from a state of non-existence — so far as its specific character is concerned (e.g. a statue out of crude marble); but what is peculiar to creation is the entire absence of any prior subject-matter — ex nihilo subjecti. It is therefore likewise the production totius substantiæ — of the entire substance. The preposition ex, “out of”, in the above definition does not, of course, imply that nihil, “nothing”, is to be conceived as the material out of which a thing is made — materia ex quâ — a misconception which has given rise to the puerile objection against the possibility of creation conveyed by the phrase, *ex nihilo nihil fit *— “nothing comes of nothing”. The ex means * (a) the negation of prejacent material, out of which the product might otherwise be conceived to proceed, and * (b) the order of succession, viz., existence after non-existence.

Siegfried, F. (1908). Creation. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/04470a.htm

 

[Aloysium]

Traditionally, in greek, there’s a distinction between zoe, psuche, and bios . . .

Bios is our physiology, all the processes involved in maintaining homeostasis so we can stay alive. That is Bios; our physical life.

Psyche is our selves, who we are, our personality. Our being, Psyche, is our soul.

Finally, Zoe is our spirit, the part of us that is quickened when our soul reaches out to God. Zoe is our in God’s Image-ness and is the part of us that can’t live without God.

Theology has used three concepts:

1. 
   *]creation out of nothing,
   *]creation out of the being of God.
   *]creation out of pre-existent eternal matter,
   
   So ex nihilo is the first.

1. 
   The three categories described in these posts seem inversely related. This is to say that materialism would hold that the universe unfolds as a consequence of pre-existing eternal physical principles. Everything is understood to be a manifestation of Energy, which in its totality is unchanging and which takes a variety of forms governed by immutable laws, such as that of Thermodynamics which is responsible for time. The second, a psychological view would be that of a Supreme Identity on whom we are all centred. In this case there would be one eternal being who seeks perfection and/or awakens to himself through us. The last spiritual view i understand to be ultimately relational in character, involving knowledge about and action upon something other, perfect as Love, the reality that is the Godhead. Creation is brought into existence and connected to by an act of Divine compassion. The existence of myself and others, along with, especially the possibility and reality of developing the relationship with the Ground of our being validates this third view as rationally having the best explanatory value.

 

[goout]

However the theologians want to articulate it,
creation is the “going out” of God’s something (or God’s everything) to bring into being things that were not. At one time I was not. Now, I am.

Creation is a reckless outpouring of love that is not self concerned and does not care to “stay still” and hold onto itself. Love is creative. The atheist is invited to look around himself and observe that this is a reality, and is easily observable.
The atheist is invited to look even at himself and think about his own existence, and how it is not self contained and is not fully explainable by natural causes (yes…we know, your parents had sex which is a partial and inadequate answer).

Atheism, for all it’s pretense at rationality, avoids the really substantial and difficult questions.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I see the immaterial as something. If nothing exists, then there is nothing, neither material nor immaterial. That is the meaning of “nothing”.

If God exists, then there is one thing existing – God. Hence, if God exists then there is not “nothing” but instead “something”, with that something being God.

rossum

Noone disagrees with that.
God always was.

Creation ex nihilo means all other creatures, spiritual or material, came to be from no prior substance or co-principle (eg prime matter) pre existing or semi existing apart from God.

Yes they somehow were in the mind of God beforehand as ideas. But that sort of talk is quite esoteric and the words start failing because they are of course anthrpromorphisms.
It can be said I suppose that all creatures in some way derive even their ongoing act of existence directly from God as plants from the forest floor.
I have never really understood this aspect of ongoing acts of existence myself to be frank.

 

[STT]

If everything came out of something then who created God?

God by definition is the creator and uncaused-cause.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If everything came out of something then who created God?

The flaw of course is that your starting principle is mistaken.
Who actually said “everything came from something?”

What Aristotle and Aquinas actually contended was that “whatever is moved is moved by another.”

Now even this simple translation has ambiguities but if we go for the meanings that makes more sense (why create illogical paper tigers from the worst possible interpretation of our protagonists )…then it is clear that their can still be a being who moves others without being moved by an agency outside itself in doing so.

Such is the Christian natural understanding of God as “Unmoved Mover”.
Or as Aquinas would say, He is pure Movement, there is nothing potential in God that can yet be moved because all is in motion.

Obviously “motion” is an analogous term - its a material locomotion notion that we are meant to abstract from…as in an active cause of something else.

Hence we can go from unmoved Mover to uncaused Cause.

Is the above philosophic proposition/truth denied by Newton’s Laws of local motion?
And if so, does that mean the analogical principle (which is not about local motion) is proven flawed? That has been argued to death at least twice a year for the last 10 years on CAF.

My own position is that both Aristotle and Aquinas did not have the well defined measureable, empiric understanding of distance/velocity/acceleration that most of us were taught at school from a young age. It seems “local motion” can mean either speed or acceleration when the ancients speak of it.

So if by “is moved” the ancients meant “accelerated from rest” then their proposition is perfectly in accord with Newton. Even he would agree that if we see something suddenly accelerated then it must be moved by another agent - whether that other be without or within (a soul).

The problem is the ancients seem to be inconsistent in their use of the word “motion”. Sometimes they mean speed, sometimes they seem to mean acceleration. Which is why I think the proof of god’s existence from the motion of the heavenly spheres (which hold the planets and stars) falls over somewhat - even if consistent with Newton.

 

[mkoopman]

No, I am not implying that. I also was not accusing you of going off topic. Re-reading your post, I may have misunderstood, as I had at the time thought you were stating that the Father and the Word were not the same essence, which would be heretical, which is why I responded at length, thinking it important to correct but stating that I did not wish to derail the thread entirely from “Who created God” into a tangent discussion on Trinitarianism.

Keep in mind that Catholics are to accept de fide divine simplicity:

Ecumenical Council Lateran IV [1215] stated:
. . . unchangeable . . . Father and Son and Holy Spirit: indeed three persons but one essence, substance, or nature entirely simple. (Denzinger [D] 428)

Pope Paul IV denied the following teaching, on 7 August 1555:
. . . that Almighty God was not three in persons and of an entirely uncomposed and undivided unity of substance and one single simple essence of divinity . . . (D 993)

And the First Vatican Council in 1870:
. . . He is one, singular, altogether simple and unchangeable spiritual substance . . . (D 1782)

This doesn’t make Aquinas’ own explanation of divine simplicity itself dogma, but as great a doctor as he was, it should be noted that in his explanation of divine simplicity God’s will is His essence, as is God’s intellect and knowledge and power. That within God, His essence and these are one and there’s no distinction between them, so I take issue with declaring that God’s eternal Word (which is eternal and was before and after the Incarnation) is not the same essence as His:thumbsup: will. Certainly the assumed human nature is not of the same essence, though it is united to the same essence.

Thanks,
and, right on.

 

[rossum]

God by definition is the creator and uncaused-cause.

God cannot be the creator without a creation also existing. A ‘creator’ who has not created anything is not actually a creator. I am not “rossum, creator of universes” because I have not created any universes. That designation would be false.

A designation like “creator” is contingent on there being a creation. Hence God was not “creator” before about 13.5 billion years ago. He may have been “creator-to-be” but He was not then a creator.

rossum

 

[IWantGod]

God cannot be the creator without a creation also existing. A ‘creator’ who has not created anything is not actually a creator. I am not “rossum, creator of universes” because I have not created any universes. That designation would be false.

A designation like “creator” is contingent on there being a creation. Hence God was not “creator” before about 13.5 billion years ago. He may have been “creator-to-be” but He was not then a creator.

rossum

Rossum, why are you a Buddhist? What is it about Buddhism that does it for?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

God by definition is the creator and uncaused-cause.

I am not so sure.
The world could have been eternal which means there could be an uncaused cause who did not create.

Even Aquinas accepts that Aristotle was consistent on that point.

Christians only know this god is also Creator through revelation not reason.

 

[phil19034]

God is ever existing.

According to Thomas Aquinas, God’s existent is NOT self-evident, but can be explained via Philosophy.

Thomas Aquinas has 5 main arguments for the existence of God

1. The Argument from Motion - Which states that everything in this universe is in a state of motion. Therefore, if this universe (or multiverse) had to have a beginning, it must have had an unmoved mover. That unmoved mover is God.
2. The Argument from Efficient Cause - This universe operates within law of cause and effect. Therefore, there must have been a first cause. That first cause is God.
3. The Argument from Possibility - everything in this universe come and goes, is born and dies. Everything is contingent on something else. Therefore, there must be something responsible for the existence of all contingent things. Something must always remain the same in this universe to maintain order. That is God. (NOTE: I can’t argue this one as well as Thomas)
4. The Argument from Degrees of Being - in this universe, there are always “the best in class” and we always find someone or something that wind up being better. For example, world records are contingently broken and we are always finding things that are better then what we had before. We also keep finding some one who is wiser or smarter than someone before. Therefore, there must be a level of perfection. A point where nothing can become better, smarter, wiser, more powerful, etc. Pure and perfect perfection. This is God.
5. The Argument from Design - we see evidence of mathematical perfection and precision all over nature. Seashells are not random, but rather have a mathematical symmetry to them. There are patters that occur over and over again in nature, the way microbes work to clean our oceans, the way we have a magnetic field to protect us from the Sun’s harmful rays, the way our planet is placed just in the right location, the fact that we have an abnormally large satellite (the moon) which controls our tides, allowing the oceans to move currents around to break up waist and pollution. The way our cells work, the way procreation happens, the wondrous workings of our eyes, etc. All of these things imply an intelligent designer. That designer is God.

NOTE: in regards to the intelligent designer, I’ve heard some of the most ridiculous ideas from some atheist/agnostic scientists who claim that perhaps we are all in a computer simulation and simply programmed by another raise of intelligent life. That our whole universe is simply in their computers. It amazes me how some people can believe it’s more possible for us to be part of some computer game, but it’s impossible for God to exist.

NOTE2: as I mentioned above, I cannot explain these as well as Thomas Aquinas.

So read St. Thomas for yourselves

Here is his argument that knowing the existence of God is not self-evident, but one can come to an understanding of God’s existence on their own.

newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article1
Here St. Thomas argues that it is possible to demonstrate that God exists though philosophy.
newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article2

And here are his 5 arguments for the demonstration of the Existence of God.
newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3

God bless

 

[tonyrey]

I am not so sure.
The world could have been eternal which means there could be an uncaused cause who did not create.

Even Aquinas accepts that Aristotle was consistent on that point.

Christians only know this god is also Creator through revelation not reason.

A transcendent first cause is a more reasonable explanation than “an uncaused cause who did not create” because the latter is in the same category as all the other causes.

 

[tonyrey]

God cannot be the creator without a creation also existing. A ‘creator’ who has not created anything is not actually a creator. I am not “rossum, creator of universes” because I have not created any universes. That designation would be false.

A designation like “creator” is contingent on there being a creation. Hence God was not “creator” before about 13.5 billion years ago. He may have been “creator-to-be” but He was not then a creator.

A creature with finite insight and knowledge is hardly entitled to impose temporal or spatial limits on an infinite Creator - which is a far more adequate and intelligible explanation than a finite “creator-to-be”. The Supreme Being cannot possibly be in the same (human) category as everything else…

 

[Blue_Horizon]

A transcendent first cause is a more reasonable explanation than “an uncaused cause who did not create” because the latter is in the same category as all the other causes.

Poor old Aristotle was so unreasonable!
And even Aquinas only disagreed because of Revelation.

 

[tonyrey]

Poor old Aristotle was so unreasonable!
And even Aquinas only disagreed because of Revelation.

Only scientists can give us the correct explanations.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Only scientists can give us the correct explanations.

Well there’s a complete non sequiter from out of left field .

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Aquinas only disagreed because of Revelation.

Aquinas would disagree by the grace of the Holy Spirit. Without faith we are lost. What has been revealed quite clearly does not make sense to every one. We are given sufficient grace to take the first step towards God. Taking that step is a decision we make. And, the more we proceed, the deeper our faith, our knowledge, understanding and wisdom.

 

[rossum]

Rossum, why are you a Buddhist? What is it about Buddhism that does it for?

The short answer is that Buddhism works.

The long answer is the same but takes more words. I was brought up as a Christian. When I hit my teens I dropped religion and switched to atheism. That was mainly because I objected to the rather too common, “anyone who does not agree exactly with us is damned for eternity,” attitude I found. After a few years I moved away from atheism, I felt that while it did avoid many of the problems with Christianity it was not itself a solution. I looked at different religions to find something that would work for me. None of the Abrahamic religions attracted me. The best of the bunch was Quakerism, but as a hangover from my atheism I still had a problem with the concepts of God and soul. Next I looked at Hinduism. The background of Indian religion provides a very different world view: less exclusive – everyone achieves liberation eventually, the concept of karma and a much more relaxed attitude to other religions and to alternative variants of the same religion. Of the Hindu texts the Bhagavad Gita and Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras were the ones that attracted me most. In particular there is hardly any mention of gods in the Yoga Sutras. That seemed to be an interesting direction to explore.

Reading round Hinduism I inevitably came across Jainism and Buddhism. Jainism has souls but no gods, or at least no important gods. Buddhism has no souls and its attitude to gods is very casual – like any other living being they need to become enlightened. A mere god is far inferior to a Bodhisattva, let alone to a fully enlightened Buddha. Buddhism seemed to have the elements I was looking for: non-exclusivity, no soul, morality and while it did have gods, they were unimportant and could easily be ignored. So I tried Buddhism. I studied more on it, went to groups and to meditation classes and found that everything fitted together well and it suited the way I wanted to go.

A frequently quoted Buddhist text is the Kalama sutta which says that if we are to accept something then we have to try it first to check that it is correct:

[The Buddha said:] “Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blameable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.”

This advice applies to the Buddha’s own words just as much as to anything else. I followed the Buddha’s advice. I tried Buddhism, found that it worked and I have followed it ever since.

There is even some scientific evidence that Buddhism works: see Buddhists ‘really are happier’.

Buddhism is a very practical religion. It is a sustained attempt to alleviate the suffering of a less than perfect world. Generally it succeeds. Buddhism works.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The Supreme Being cannot possibly be in the same (human) category as everything else…

There have to be some common categories. If there are no common categories then man is not in the image of God, as the Bible says.

That does not get you away from the problem of a “creator” who has not created anything. That is of the same logical order as making a square circle, which is generally agreed to be beyond the power of God.

The designation “creator” is contingent on something having been created. It is a contingent designation.

rossum

 

[Bradski]

Buddhism is a very practical religion. It is a sustained attempt to alleviate the suffering of a less than perfect world. Generally it succeeds. Buddhism works.

Is it not the case that you could have taken the best from each rather than limit yourself to that which one single religion (or perhaps philosophy in the case of Buddhism) has to offer?

I can see many pluses and minuses in all religions. After all, they are, as I see it, a reflection of the human condition. Each of us is far from perfect and our institutions reflect that.