If God created the universe, then who created God?

Post Reply New Topic

Many people, religious and otherwise, have deep psychological traumas from the time they were exposed to whatever religion they might have experienced but I have had almost no direct contact with religion of any kind and so the only emotion I have is a sense of curiosity as to why people have it at all if they think clearly. I am sorry for people who have suffered for no reason I can perceive and only hope it may someday all just go away.

No stay have fun, you have to realize that keet believes the earth to be around 6 thousand years old, that the bible is an accurate depiction of creation, that the biblical flood and the Ark were real, that the vast majority of palaeontologists and geologists have read their data wrong, that dinosaurs and people co-existed, and Jonathan Savarti is a credible foil to Evolutionary Science,

Just remember the rules and don't directly insult anyone.

Sorry, but strip the cosmological argument down to basics and it is just an over inflated god of the gaps. The truth of the matter is we have no idea about the universe, how it was created, if there is only one etc. etc. We don't know, we may never know, but that is no excuse to make up a supernatural creator to help us cope with not knowing.

Old Brahman myth. The world sits on the back of a turtle, which stands on another turtle which in turn stands on an other turtle and so on. Hence turtles all the way down.

ruveyn

personally, i think the universe simply created itself in some kind of paradox with no strnage cosmic deity involved

I'm quite familiar with the myth. I just thought you had more information.

The inherent problem with the question of "Where did God come from?" is the flawed premise that EVERYTHING MUST HAVE AN ORIGIN. That is linear thinking, and it if you accept that premise as true, then you have a problem. However, we cannot prove that premise to be true, and we should not limit the perception of this question from that single position.

We can observe the phenomenon of time in our 3-dimensional universe, but is "time" a constant? No. It is not. Does "time" exist in every dimension of the true nature of the universe? We cannot know from where we sit.

If there are "places" where "time" does not apply, then "God" could be something that has always existed and will never cease to exist. These are mind-bending concepts because they defy everything we can generally comprehend.

Actually, the statement that "people created God" presupposes the claim "God does not exist" to be true. The claim "people created God" is a truth claim regarding the existence of belief in God, and it is a positive claim regardless of the axiom which it is based on.

Sorry to add to your vexation then.

Parents can stink in lots of regards, but it doesn't take the Bible to justify corporeal punishment. In evolutionary terms, with humans being just another type of animal and prior to the age of adulthood a child being considered property, even in the United States, there is still a potential for justification/rationalization. Moreover, if using ideology as an excuse for bad behavior is to say something regarding the veracity of the ideology, then there is a plenitude of evidence against the ideologies which used evolution as a foundation during the times from Darwin through World War II. But mentioning them would just invoke Godwin's Law Of The Internet.

According to Richard Feynmann's Lectures on Physics, time itself is actually a dimension. One which we travel through at the speed of light actually. Any velocity we travel at in any of the three spacial dimensions, x, y, or z, is usually quite minimal compared to the velocity through t as to be negligible, but as a velocity in a spacial dimension approaches the speed of light, then vector addition of a type is required, hence special relativity. Time itself, as we know it, is a component part of this physical universe; physical time is a part of the creation.

The concept of God is a rather complicated creation. The depictions of God, if one is to take them seriously. is of a creature like people, not too different from other primates whose appendages were evolved out of tree dwelling creatures with hands and fingers and two eyes for depth perception etc. That this primate like creature should be selected as the creator of the immense vacuum in which stars and galaxies do their stuff seems most odd. If we depart from this human like protoplasmic construction to what a real creator of the universe might be we have no clue as to its size or shape or if it has a size or shape. It might as well be merely a combination of forces that spit out the universe. If that is acceptable then it is not far from the concept of cosmologists who are reasonably confident that the big bang took place and perhaps something caused the big bang. Of course, this compilation of forces would be not only be unresponsive to the nature of good or evil nor would it conjure up flying angels nor nasty demons to torture people who did not conform to dietary laws or developed odd mating practices it could not be particularly concerned with whatever went on in an exceedingly minor planet of an undistinguished star in one of the billions of far flung galaxies that dotted the universe.

I've noticed many people refer to "Jesus" as being "God" therefore this "god" has a beginning, something created him... Therefore had to be created. Why not just create Jesus from nothing instead of being born from a woman?

Nothing can not create something. Although silence can be awkward itself. It can't do anything by itself just as water, milk, coffee can not come together to make .... coffee (without assistance)

i know that it is impossible for any consciousness to comprehend infinity.
every idea that can be had by a mind must be bounded by a "beginning" and an "end"..

it is not proven that anything is really happening anyway. i may be caught in a deep delusion with all i see. all i see of the universe in which i am conscious of, is the data presented to my "soul" (awareness) via my neural network.

if my neural network was just discharging aimlessly and erroneously, i would none the less believe it because i see all things in my mind(and heart) through the structure of my neural network.

i think in the end, no mind that thinks in quantities can fathom
endlessness. all minds think in quantities.

i think there was no beginning of reality and i think there will be no end to it.

i think that "god" has always been, because i think it is a miracle that "reality" has existed forever and will continue to do so always.

there will never be a time when there is no time.
there is no such thing as "nothing".

this is my shallow viewpoint.

The part I find funny about the cosmological argument is that it was created by chrisianity to argue for Christianity. Yet, the exact same argument could be used to argue that the Sun God Ra created the universe from egyptian mythology when he gazed over the emptiness of nothing and decided to spread his seed which became everything.

The only thing cosmology really argues for is that SOMETHING created the universe that always existed. Whether it is God, or Ra, or Yggdrasil or Chaos, or even Stephen Colbert (most likely) there is 0 evidence for anything other than something had to create the universe with this theory.

Same story, different origin. The difference is just names and semantics.

However, being pagan, and with personal reasons, I vote for Colbert, or possibly Chaos.

Right, but I don't consider it a good argument.

For one this counter argument seems equally valid.

1) The universe has existed for all time.
2) If something has existed for all time, then it has no cause.
3) Therefore the universe has no cause.

Not only that, but arguments that the universe had a beginning are just speculative. I am not saying that the converse isn't also true, as arguments that the universe had no beginning are also speculative. And that fact makes the cosmological argument suspect, as there is no real reason to hold that the argument must go either way. At best it only argues that God is more probable, but there is really no way to say anything on the matter.

"This universe can’t have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldn’t have any properties until it actually came into existence."

This quote goes beyond the theoretical foundations. Why? Because there isn't a solid scientific explanation as to what came before the Big Bang. Frankly, if there was a pre-universe that started spontaneously generating matter to create this one, then it is possible that this universe had physical or logical properties that favored it's emergence over a banana. Is a pre-universe ad hoc? Well, sure, but the cosmological argument doesn't tell us why God is favored, and arguments to favor God tend to be ad hoc. I mean, Craig's own argument is that minds can be timeless, and because the cause is timeless and not a number, it must be a mind, but the issue is that skeptics don't believe in timeless minds as even credible.

In any case, I don't think that your source also is properly taking into consideration that skeptics base their arguments on evolution, a theory that is usually considered overwhelmingly true, while Sarfati is using cosmology, a subject that is basically figured out using all sorts of advanced equations, and that there was ongoing debate on during a lot of this century, thus making it more tentative.

In any case, I think Sarfati basically kills his apologetic for Christianity when he calls the Big Bang unscriptural, because if skepticism is to follow the science, and the science says that God exists, then the Big Bang says that it cannot be the Christian God, at least according to Sarfati. So, there is no reason to be a Christian given from this argument, unless you think that the Christian God beats the deist God hands down, which many people probably wouldn't if they were only convinced by the cosmological argument.

Actually, the cosmological argument was first formalized by Aristotle.