If God created the universe, then who created God?

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

Vince
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

16 Jan 2010, 6:05 pm

PunkyKat wrote:
He was here before the universe was created.

Do you not see the obvious contradiction in this sentence? How could He be here before here was created? That very obviously makes no sense.


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


PunkyKat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 May 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,492
Location: Kalahari Desert

16 Jan 2010, 7:21 pm

Vince wrote:
PunkyKat wrote:
He was here before the universe was created.

Do you not see the obvious contradiction in this sentence? How could He be here before here was created? That very obviously makes no sense.



God was always here. It's something us Christian-folk call "faith". I don't think we're supposed to understand.


_________________
I'm not weird, you're just too normal.


DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

16 Jan 2010, 8:31 pm

PunkyKat wrote:
Vince wrote:
PunkyKat wrote:
He was here before the universe was created.

Do you not see the obvious contradiction in this sentence? How could He be here before here was created? That very obviously makes no sense.



God was always here. It's something us Christian-folk call "faith". I don't think we're supposed to understand.


See us non believers have a thing called science, because we believe we are supposed to search for a rational understanding of all things.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


Vince
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

16 Jan 2010, 8:39 pm

PunkyKat wrote:
God was always here. It's something us Christian-folk call "faith". I don't think we're supposed to understand.

I know what faith is. It's something that, when extended to something that very obviously contradicts itself (the idea of something being located "here" before there was a "here" for it to be located in), is identical to gullibility. "He was here before there was a here" is undisputably a self-contradictory claim, there's no two ways about it. "I don't think we're supposed to understand" doesn't apply. I understand what you're saying, You are saying that a thing was in a place before that place existed, and that is completely impossible. It's not a matter of not being supposed to understand, it's a simple matter of very basic logic, which I am sure you are fully capable of understanding if you just take a moment to think about what it is that you are saying. You are saying that x (God) was a part of y ("here") before y ("here") existed. This is incapable of being true, no matter how mindbogglingly powerful x is supposed to be. Something can not be y and not y at the same time. y=y.


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


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 95
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

16 Jan 2010, 10:06 pm

Vince wrote:
PunkyKat wrote:
God was always here. It's something us Christian-folk call "faith". I don't think we're supposed to understand.

I know what faith is. It's something that, when extended to something that very obviously contradicts itself (the idea of something being located "here" before there was a "here" for it to be located in), is identical to gullibility. "He was here before there was a here" is undisputably a self-contradictory claim, there's no two ways about it. "I don't think we're supposed to understand" doesn't apply. I understand what you're saying, You are saying that a thing was in a place before that place existed, and that is completely impossible. It's not a matter of not being supposed to understand, it's a simple matter of very basic logic, which I am sure you are fully capable of understanding if you just take a moment to think about what it is that you are saying. You are saying that x (God) was a part of y ("here") before y ("here") existed. This is incapable of being true, no matter how mindbogglingly powerful x is supposed to be. Something can not be y and not y at the same time. y=y.


You cannot convince somebody that has as a basic principle that he or she is too stupid to understand and accepts that to deny all inquisitiveness.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,612

16 Jan 2010, 11:05 pm

Vince wrote:
PunkyKat wrote:
He was here before the universe was created.

Do you not see the obvious contradiction in this sentence? How could He be here before here was created? That very obviously makes no sense.


Only if you operate from the premise that the universe is a closed system encompassing all that there is.

When you realize there is very likely something larger within which the universe is "contained" (for lack of a better term), you realize that something could exist outside and before the "universe" we know of came to be.



bigblock
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

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

16 Jan 2010, 11:27 pm

Quantm Physics is a theoretical science that has room for God. Isn't it possable that there are as many God's in alternate dimensions as their are solar systems. Are aternate dimensions so far fetched? Who are we to say being that we're simple 3D creatures? And is it not possible that in these alternate dimensions our beginning and ending rules may not apply? :?:


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


Vince
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

16 Jan 2010, 11:51 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
When you realize there is very likely something larger within which the universe is "contained" (for lack of a better term), you realize that something could exist outside and before the "universe" we know of came to be.

If you look back, you will see that I brought up that possibility before, asking who would have created that, and PunkyKat seemed to either reject it, ignore it, or possibly imply that God created that too*, by "clarifying" that God was always "here" and we're not supposed to understand.

* X can't already have been in Z while creating Z to be in while creating Y, so if X created Y while being in Z, and X created Z, X must have been in yet another hypothetical "something larger" while creating Z, and now we've got ourselves a hypothetical infinite regression in which X is superfluous. Occam's razor says lose the X, as it's a hypothetical step that begs more explanation than it provides for anything.


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


bigblock
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

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

17 Jan 2010, 12:05 am

We haven't even figured out cancer or aids or how to fill our energy needs cleanly. We cant even understand what right in front of us so how can we understand the concept of God?


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


Vince
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

17 Jan 2010, 12:10 am

bigblock wrote:
We haven't even figured out cancer or aids or how to fill our energy needs cleanly. We cant even understand what right in front of us so how can we understand the concept of God?

I find it's quite easy to understand the concept of God simply by categorizing it along with other mythological figures such as Zeus, Santa Claus, and El Chupacabra.


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


DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

17 Jan 2010, 1:11 am

Sand wrote:
..... 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.


Excellent, Thank you Sand, but unfortunately I doubt any of our rapid theists, deists, pagans etc will understand your point. Because for them the earth was without doubt created by a supernatural being. To quote Dawkins "religion is about turning untested beliefs into unshakeable truths through the power of institutions and the passage of time"


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


Last edited by DentArthurDent on 17 Jan 2010, 2:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,103
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

17 Jan 2010, 1:26 am

The best analogy I can think of for the universe and time (ie. thermodynamic relaxation) is a book - a book has characters, a world, changing, evolving, if its by a good writer you don't have too much in the way of deus ex machina, but at the same time a person can read that book - they don't have to go sequentially, they can look at page 566 and then go to 123, because they simply aren't held to the chronology of the pages or the characters within in which are of course bound to the book itself. Being bound to matter and made of matter works something like being characters in a novel.

That said the reality of our universe from beginning to end could - like a book - exist in a particular time and space outside as something similar to what we may think of as an information bearing physical object in our world - whether you want to think of a book, whether you want to think of one of Hero of Alexandria's mechanical plays or Anthony Hopkin's marble tracks in Fracture, everything works on very strict probabilistic guidelines though - enough to say that free will does not exist whatsoever.

I think this is why atheists and theists will be banging out the issue for a long time. On some topics its clear - one side is more educated or intellectually on with things while the other would have to be more ignorant or just plain stupid, you have other issues where two very intelligent people could look at the facts and come to contrary conclusions that are both equally valid - most of what we usually debate in here (or at least seems like it can get people's blood up and keep a debate going on for pages) is the later, no matter what kind of jeering or name-calling either side wants to throw the other.

If we are to say that 'something' created the universe that's fine, I'll define my own opinion a bit more by saying that if we invoke a multiverse we're really just building a bigger universe (which is one of those arguments where ruveyn's saying about placing the earth on a stack of turles holds quite true - multiverse just adds more turtles). I think what will be far more interesting is our future research of dark matter and dark energy; where they came from, if only positive matter resulted from the big bang rather than dark or antimatter, I think cosmological arguments at that point at least will start gaining a lot more back-lighting in one direction or another. I don't think any result will every truly quench or destroy theism or people's concept of 'spirituality' as its an order of salience that's too individual to the holder and where the only arguments for or against its existence seem to fail when you try and make it reach out and grab science or make science reach out and grab it.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


SporadSpontan
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 354
Location: pleasantly surprised to find myself here

17 Jan 2010, 2:55 am

Sand wrote:
dddhgg wrote:
Sand wrote:
dddhgg wrote:
Why is an uncaused existence so unreasonable?


There is no arguing with that mindset.


Care to elaborate? God itself possesses an uncaused existence, according to most. Why does the addition of a temporal aspect (which the universe, but not God, is supposed to have) necessitate causation?


All observation indicates a dynamic universe of cause and effect. To propose that this does not exist in a theoretical and unobserved phenomena is something acceptable to a mind that reaches for extreme explanation. If that kind of reach is acceptable then that mind is unpersuadable that observed phenomena indicate a universal pattern. I prefer to accept that observed phenomena indicate a universal pattern but that is a personal choice.


Hi everyone. I'm temporarily back from my melt-down. Woo-hoo! Anyhow, I love this quote from Sand so if it's okay I'm going to use it for my own reasoning....

Let's focus on observable phenomena. As far as we know everything that exists has a preceding cause (as stated by the OP). If we extend this knowledge to unobservable phenomena (as Sand suggested) it would follow that the universe has a cause which also has a cause and so on for an infinite regressive time. I'm just following logic here, no beliefs. However both infinity and god as a creator cannot be observed, and the boundaries of what science can observe are constantly moving. This makes the following explanations all somewhat unreliable.

1) Science. Pretty much nothing else exists beyond what science can establish from direct observation. We have observed throughout history that science is continually making new discoveries - so it would follow that more discoveries will continue to be made in the future.

2) God as creator. According to current observation there is nothing that exists without a cause. Just because an exception to this rule (eg. an unoriginated God) has not been observed doesn't necessitate its non-existence. Even though this explanation doesn't follow logically - as mentioned in the first explanation - science is continually making new discoveries, so perhaps the universal law of cause and effect is not so universal afterall.

3) Infinite regression. According to current observation there is nothing that exists without a cause. So it would follow that there is no such thing as an unoriginated beginning (or even an unoriginated creator). Just because infinity cannot be observed doesn't necessarily mean it is impossible. Afterall - it is actually the most logical explanation based on current observation.

In any given time it is known that science is limited as to what it can observe, and therefore what it can explain. So the question I pose is this: would you follow something that doesn't know; or something that can't be observed AND breaks the rules of logic; or something that can't be observed BUT follows the rules of logic as far as we know?

Then I would consider the methods we rely on in our quest for answers.
Those who rely on science are content to die knowing that future generations will know more than they do.
Those who rely on God are content to die knowing that all answers will be provided at the time of death.
Those who rely on an infinite regression are NOT content to die without answers, and will instead use particular meditation techniques for an expansion of their consciousness which supposedly brings with it the realisation of the nature of existence during their lifetime (eg. buddhists).
In all 3 scenarios a degree of faith is required.


_________________
happily reclusive


bigblock
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

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

17 Jan 2010, 3:19 am

Vince wrote:
bigblock wrote:
We haven't even figured out cancer or aids or how to fill our energy needs cleanly. We cant even understand what right in front of us so how can we understand the concept of God?

I find it's quite easy to understand the concept of God simply by categorizing it along with other mythological figures such as Zeus, Santa Claus, and El Chupacabra.


Sure put em all together but you can't really hide a watermelon in a basket of apples, oranges and a couple of pears.


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


Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

17 Jan 2010, 9:11 am

I sure could.


_________________
.


b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

17 Jan 2010, 9:48 am

deleted



Last edited by b9 on 18 Jan 2010, 6:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.