If God created the universe, then who created God?

Page 4 of 7 [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Vyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,070
Location: The fires of the mind

13 Jan 2010, 1:26 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Vyn wrote:
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.


Actually, the cosmological argument was first formalized by Aristotle.


Ah, my bad. Regardless, the rest of what I said still holds. Any religion could use it for a creation story.


_________________
I am Jon Stewart with some Colbert cynicism, Thomas Edison's curiousity, wrapped around a hardcore gamer sprinkled very liberally with Deadpool, and finished off with an almost Poison Ivy-esque love/hate relationship with humanity flourish.


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

13 Jan 2010, 1:30 pm

Vyn wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Vyn wrote:
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.


Actually, the cosmological argument was first formalized by Aristotle.


Ah, my bad. Regardless, the rest of what I said still holds. Any religion could use it for a creation story.


Indeed, as the aspect of a First Cause does not clearly state who or what that first cause is, and neither does the aspect of design clearly state who the designer is. For anyone to know for certain, the Designer/First Cause (or plural if you like) would have to reveal who they are to the creation.



Vyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,070
Location: The fires of the mind

13 Jan 2010, 2:13 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Vyn wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Vyn wrote:
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.


Actually, the cosmological argument was first formalized by Aristotle.


Ah, my bad. Regardless, the rest of what I said still holds. Any religion could use it for a creation story.


Indeed, as the aspect of a First Cause does not clearly state who or what that first cause is, and neither does the aspect of design clearly state who the designer is. For anyone to know for certain, the Designer/First Cause (or plural if you like) would have to reveal who they are to the creation.


Yep. Personally, it would make things very very interesting down here on Earth should a random diety that is unknown make an appearance, say it created the universe, and then proceeded to berate all 'false' religions for not figuring out that IT is the true diety.

Then again, I'd find it just as fascinating if Aphrodite and Isis appeared and called us all prudes too. Though, I'd probably end up dying of laughter just from the inevitable Daily Show clip of conservative religion followers faces. In particular, Islam and Christianity.


_________________
I am Jon Stewart with some Colbert cynicism, Thomas Edison's curiousity, wrapped around a hardcore gamer sprinkled very liberally with Deadpool, and finished off with an almost Poison Ivy-esque love/hate relationship with humanity flourish.


Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,349
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

13 Jan 2010, 3:14 pm

Actually causality (the argument that everything that has a beginning has a cause), presupposes that time exists. So if you consider that time itself did not exist "before" the universe existed, then cause and effect would of been irrelevant.

Nonetheless, Sarfati seemed to of neglected eternal inflation, which provides another explanation for the beginning of the universe (in this case the Big Bang, which Sarfati normally refutes in favor of a literal interpretation of genesis) which is not related to any oscillating universe model. This suggests our universe is one in many in an eternally existing megaverse. Yes, this megaverse is a multiverse but not the same kind of multiverse suggested by the Everette interpretation of quantum mechanics which some people may think of.

Each of these universes had a parent, in that a quantum fluctuation at the Planck scale in the parent universe gives birth to a new universe which splits of and expands and creates it's own spacetime. This would also solve the entropy problem that Sarfati talks about because each new universe can't inherit information from it's parent and so starts off with little or no entropy.

Additionally each universe may have different laws of physics. So then the question of why the constants of nature are so finely tuned so that we could exist then becomes equivalent to asking why the conditions on Earth are right for our existence. There are other planets that we would not be able to live on but we on Earth because the conditions are right. That's why we're Terans and not Martians. If this scenario about the multiverse is true then the reason why our universe would be just right has the same explanation. There would be other universes where we can't exist but we live in one where we can. So the anthropic argument would then be an utter illusion. For more information on eternal inflation, take a look at the following paper by Alan Guth. It's an e-print so you can download it:

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0702178



Vince
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 688
Location: Sweden

13 Jan 2010, 4:30 pm

If the essential question is "Why is there something rather than nothing?", that still doesn't bring us to the answer "Because God did it", because no matter how many times you say that, you still can't define exactly what a God is and then proceed to demonstrate that such a being manifests in reality. All you have is an idea. A vague idea and a bunch of fairy tales. Nothing demonstrable. But the lack of demonstrable truth isn't the only thing suggesting that "because God did it" is not a valid answer to "why is there something rather than nothing?". There is also the fact that God (if your claim is that God exists) would fall under the category of "something", and as such, you're not answering the question, only moving it. Even if there was a God, you'd be left with the question "why is there God rather than nothing?". You haven't managed to explain anything by bringing God into it, you've only complicated the issue.
Hell, even if some superhuman being would appear to the whole world right now and identify itself as God, that still wouldn't prove that said being created the Universe. Even if it pinky swore. A wild claim is not evidence in and of itself.


_________________
I'm Vince. I make the music. And puppet.
http://www.swenglish.nu


TheOddGoat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 516

13 Jan 2010, 5:21 pm

A number of sceptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question ‘Who created God?’ is illogical, just like ‘To whom is the bachelor married?’

This is a kind of strawman, normally when people use the cosmological argument it goes along the lines of "all things have a beginning/cause, god doesn't have a beginning or cause, god made everything." to which the reply is almost always one that points out special pleading and explains occam's razor. God isn't actually defined as the uncreated creator of the universe. The would be a demiurge god in the non-gnostic sense. Noone would contend that that isn't a tautology if that were the definition of a god, but what he said is an outline of what the cosmological tries to prove god is - not what god is.

So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: ‘If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause? And if God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?’ In reply, Christians should use the following reasoning:

1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

It’s important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn’t need a cause. In addition, Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space.

Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created

This isn't logical, " A made B and therefore isn't limited by B". "I made an unopenable box around myself, therefore it doesn't limit me".

, so has no beginning in time—God is ‘the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity’ (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn’t have a cause.



In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.

* 1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
* 2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.

If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy—the ‘heat death’ of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible. So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.


If all of this is accurate, then it can be said that the universe has no beginning. This section is an argument from ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_crunch



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

13 Jan 2010, 5:43 pm

TheOddGoat wrote:
Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created

This isn't logical, " A made B and therefore isn't limited by B". "I made an unopenable box around myself, therefore it doesn't limit me".

, so has no beginning in time—God is ‘the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity’ (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn’t have a cause.


Is a computer programmer limited by the computer programs they write?

God in terms of God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, if you wish to argue theology, or the deist's God are not composed of the materials made and is not a component part of the creation. But your unopenable box would seem to necessarily be of the same basic materials and substance as its maker.



monsterland
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 836
Location: San Francisco, CA

13 Jan 2010, 5:58 pm

I've always said... only in our Universe we expect things to be created in order to exist. Outside our Universe, different laws govern, and things simply ARE.

At least, I allow for that possibility. Much like the concept of infinity, it doesn't fit into the human brain, but at least we accepted that infinity exists and there's no "smallest particle" or "farthest galaxy".



Vince
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 688
Location: Sweden

13 Jan 2010, 6:17 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Is a computer programmer limited by the computer programs they write?

I'm not one, but as far as I know, a computer programmer is limited by the computer, binary logic, availible memory, the programming language being used, electricity for the computer, time, a space in which to exist, food to eat, oxygen to breathe, a certain amount of sleep, and several other factors.


_________________
I'm Vince. I make the music. And puppet.
http://www.swenglish.nu


JetLag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Aug 2008
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,762
Location: California

13 Jan 2010, 6:37 pm

God cannot be part of the universe because if He were He would then be limited by the various other parts of it. Since God is the author of the laws of science, He exists outside the space-time continuum; and, therefore, these laws logically don't apply to him in any way, shape, or form. God is something other than his creation. God is transcendent, which is to say that He is above, beyond, and outside all that He has made.


_________________
Stung by the splendor of a sudden thought. ~ Robert Browning


monsterland
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 836
Location: San Francisco, CA

13 Jan 2010, 6:43 pm

Vince wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Is a computer programmer limited by the computer programs they write?

I'm not one, but as far as I know, a computer programmer is limited by the computer, binary logic, availible memory, the programming language being used, electricity for the computer, time, a space in which to exist, food to eat, oxygen to breathe, a certain amount of sleep, and several other factors.


I think you missed his point. I can write a game where you can only move in 2 dimensions at 90 degree increments. If such world got populated by sentient AI, it will only be able to judge whats OUTSIDE of the computer based on the rules of the ridiculous universe I made for it INSIDE the computer.

The two could be completely different, and the AI inside the computer would NEVER be able to comprehend the OUTSIDE, because all of its axiomic presuppositions and tools would be based on THEIR logic.



Vince
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 688
Location: Sweden

13 Jan 2010, 7:18 pm

monsterland wrote:
I think you missed his point. I can write a game where you can only move in 2 dimensions at 90 degree increments. If such world got populated by sentient AI, it will only be able to judge whats OUTSIDE of the computer based on the rules of the ridiculous universe I made for it INSIDE the computer.

The two could be completely different, and the AI inside the computer would NEVER be able to comprehend the OUTSIDE, because all of its axiomic presuppositions and tools would be based on THEIR logic.


But a computer program, or a game if you so insist, is not a real place full of real things, it's just simulation. Doesn't this mean that if God is real, we are not? Doesn't that make us essentially fictional characters? But I think, therefore I am. You are aware that you are conscious, so you can't be a simulation, can you? What does that make the God-as-programmer/author hypothesis? Seems to me that the idea is rather useless and doesn't explain anything.


_________________
I'm Vince. I make the music. And puppet.
http://www.swenglish.nu


monsterland
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 836
Location: San Francisco, CA

13 Jan 2010, 7:29 pm

Vince wrote:
monsterland wrote:
I think you missed his point. I can write a game where you can only move in 2 dimensions at 90 degree increments. If such world got populated by sentient AI, it will only be able to judge whats OUTSIDE of the computer based on the rules of the ridiculous universe I made for it INSIDE the computer.

The two could be completely different, and the AI inside the computer would NEVER be able to comprehend the OUTSIDE, because all of its axiomic presuppositions and tools would be based on THEIR logic.


But a computer program, or a game if you so insist, is not a real place full of real things, it's just simulation. Doesn't this mean that if God is real, we are not? Doesn't that make us essentially fictional characters? But I think, therefore I am. You are aware that you are conscious, so you can't be a simulation, can you? What does that make the God-as-programmer/author hypothesis? Seems to me that the idea is rather useless and doesn't explain anything.


We're not fictional characters, we're walking biorobots in an artificial MMO, interfaced from the outside reality by our Higher Selves. We're the characters inside World of Warcraft, only the players (outside) are also US... and have a far higher degree of immersion and interface. So high, we forget who we really are until we hit the level cap and our characters die.

While in this world our traits are part character (genetics, circumstances) and part US. Our Higher Selves are a lot more encompassing than what we perceive through our human suits in this world.

Our subsequent or parallel lives are masked from us because the human brain would not be able to handle the pressure of all the mistakes and guilt from other lifetimes.

Just sayin' ;)



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

13 Jan 2010, 8:26 pm

The universe created God, duh.


_________________
.


bigblock
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 309
Location: Canada

14 Jan 2010, 7:04 am

Oh i just found your thread.

Awesome. Just Awesome I love it. This is the first time I have seen scientific theory applied to the God concept rather than just the Big bang concept.


_________________
We're here for a good time... Not a long time...So have a good time, the sun can't shine everyday.


DemonAbyss10
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,492
Location: The Poconos, Pennsylvania

14 Jan 2010, 12:27 pm

He got created from the interaction of the noodly appendage with some timey-wimey stuff :P


_________________
Myers Brigg - ISTP
Socionics - ISTx
Enneagram - 6w5

Yes, I do have a DeviantArt, it is at.... http://demonabyss10.deviantart.com/