Who is Gods creator?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Sleepwalk85

 

Very interesting. Do you have the answers necessary to determine, to any degree, the existential nature and/or origin of any gods that currently exist according to the article you just linked?

I don't believe that "gods" exist. Although I wouldn't be surprised if there were bigger fish in the sea (the universe). I wouldn't call them "gods" though, just more powerful beings.

However, I do believe in God, and the definition of God I use is Biblical as well as philosophical. God is an immaterial, necessary, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent being who created all of reality external to Himself. So when you ask me, who created God... that's like asking why a circle doesn't have four 90 degree angles.

Or did you just link it here to demonstrate how complicated the subject actually is?

No, I linked it to demonstrate that when philosophers talk about God, they're talking about a necessary being. If you asked a trained philosopher: Who created God? They would look at you funny. The real question is does God exist at all--or do necessary beings exist?

reply to post by Sleepwalk85

However, I do believe in God, and the definition of God I use is Biblical as well as philosophical. God is an immaterial, necessary, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent being who created all of reality external to Himself. So when you ask me, who created God... that's like asking why a circle doesn't have four 90 degree angles.

A circle has twenty four 90 degree angles, actually. Should you build a cube using all those angles, you'll find that a circle is perfectly contained within the walls, touching the walls but not breaking through. The cube and sphere are called Platonic Solids, and they are highly significant in the study of gematria, a subject which has a vey influential role in the activities and structure of the material universe as we know it. It's all a matter of perspective and imagination - both of which, it appears, you could use more of.

So you believe in the Judaic god? Why?

No, I linked it to demonstrate that when philosophers talk about God, they're talking about a necessary being. If you asked a trained philosopher: Who created God? They would look at you funny. The real question is does God exist at all--or do necessary beings exist?

They would not look at me funny, because every action requires an equal and opposite reaction. Not a single thing in this universe, whether a physical object or intangible idea, was born without an independent factor causing such an event. In other words, nothing has ever happened without something else happening first.

In addition to the question above, I want you to answer this as well: why is a god necessary at all? Why do we require a god to function as a stable system?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
A circle has twenty four 90 degree angles, actually. Should you build a cube using all those angles, you'll find that a circle is perfectly contained within the walls, touching the walls but not breaking through. The cube and sphere are called Platonic Solids, and they are highly significant in the study of gematria, a subject which has a vey influential role in the activities and structure of the material universe as we know it. It's all a matter of perspective and imagination - both of which, it appears, you could use more of.

Show me one credible source that says a circle has 1 right-angle, let alone 24.

And your example doesn't make any sense. The fact that a circle could fit in a "cube" with 24 right-angles doesn't mean the circle in itself has 24 right-angles or corners.

So you believe in the Judaic god? Why?

My belief in God is properly basic.

However, I do like the Contingency argument, Kalam cosmological argument, Teleological argument, Moral argument, and Ontological argument. My belief in God doesn't rest on these arguments though.

Moreover, Christianity seems to make the most sense if one already believes in the existence of an all-good but holy being who created all of reality external to Himself.

Not a single thing in this universe, whether a physical object or intangible idea, was born without an independent factor causing such an event.

I agree. The universe had a beginning and its cause is God. God had no beginning and thus needed no cause.

In other words, nothing has ever happened without something else happening first.

I agree, but God didn't "happen." He has always existed.

In addition to the question above, I want you to answer this as well: why is a god necessary at all? Why do we require a god to function as a stable system?

You seem to be using the wrong definition of necessary. A necessary being in philosophy doesn't mean that the being is required, although I would argue that without God there would be nothing. A necessary being in philosophy means a being that cannot fail to exist.

reply to post by Sleepwalk85

Show me one credible source that says a circle has 1 right-angle, let alone 24.

I'll rephrase. Twenty four right angles produce a circle. Either way, your assertion that circles have no angles is undermined by the fact that angles are very capable of producing a circle when utilized properly. Your "mutually exclusive" mindset lacks imagination. Fortunately, our scientists don't share your handicap.

My belief in God is properly basic.

However, I do like the Contingency argument, Kalam cosmological argument, Teleological argument, Moral argument, and Ontological argument. My belief in God doesn't rest on these arguments though.

Contingency Argument

3. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is an external, transcendent, personal cause (that is beyond the universe: beyond space and time: beyond matter and energy: a non-physical, immaterial, spiritual entity that has brought the universe into being: the only thing that fits this description is an unembodied Mind: a transcendent consciousness).

That's like saying the Rocky Mountains are proof of a god. No, they are proof of tectonic theory. Likewise, the universe probably has just as logical an explanation. "I don't know, therefore God" is not a viable solution for the rational mind.

Kalam Cosmological Argument

The argument postulates that something caused the Universe to begin to exist, and this first cause must be God.

Again: "I don't know, therefore God." Have you ever even heard of the scientific method?

Moral Argument

The argument from morality is an argument for the existence of God. Arguments from morality tend to be based on moral normativity or moral order. Arguments from moral normativity observe some aspect of morality and argue that God is the best or only explanation for this, concluding that God must exist. Argument from moral order are based on the asserted need for moral order to exist in the universe. They claim that, for this moral order to exist, God must exist to support it.

Invalid. Otherwise, every criminal would be an atheist, and there would be no Catholic pedophiles.

Ontological Argument


1 Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2 The idea of God exists in the mind.
3 A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4 If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5 We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
6 Therefore, God exists.

We've never been past the moon. Our solar system is a speck on the arm of the Milky Way galaxy. The galaxy we call home is one of literally thousands - and that's just per inch of the visible night sky. Exactly how much of this universe's reality have we experienced?

Less than 0.0000000000001%. Hardly enough to consider that a conclusive argument, or even likely. So, moving on...

Moreover, Christianity seems to make the most sense if one already believes in the existence of an all-good but holy being who created all of reality external to Himself.

You didn't provide any proof of such a being. I just ripped apart all of your precious arguments, so let's get down to the empirical objective data. That is, if you have any.

Not a single thing in this universe, whether a physical object or intangible idea, was born without an independent factor causing such an event.

I agree. The universe had a beginning and its cause is God. God had no beginning and thus needed no cause.

Then you don't agree, and you're arguing with an established fact of physics. The law of cause and effect.

In other words, nothing has ever happened without something else happening first.

I agree, but God didn't "happen." He has always existed.

Again, you don't agree, and again, you're arguing with established science. Science that, mind you, has provided more objective and empirical data than any of your arguments - whether ontological, moral, or cosmological. Everything from the worms in the dirt to an eddy in a stream to a star in the middle of nowhere space has a cause. Just because we are unable to isolate the specifics of that cause, doesn't make it nonexistent.

You seem to be using the wrong definition of necessary. A necessary being in philosophy doesn't mean that the being is required, although I would argue that without God there would be nothing. A necessary being in philosophy means a being that cannot fail to exist.

You mean without a god, there would be nothing for you? I'm sure your community appreciates your consideration. Any god that values such a mentality in anyone ought to be slapped with a titanium bat. The many are worth more than the few...or the one. You can thank Spock for that bit of advice, and he's the most objectively rational person, fictional or otherwise, that I am aware of.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
I'll rephrase. Twenty four right angles produce a circle.

No. In mathematics, a circle is produced by a single curved line, not corners.

Fortunately, our scientists don't share your handicap.

I'd hope scientists would understand elementary geometry.

Contingency argument:

1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence. (from 1, 3)
5. Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God. (from 2, 4)

Read more: www.reasonablefaith.org...

Which premise is false?

The moral argument:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Which premise is false?

Read more: www.reasonablefaith.org...

The ontological argument:

1. It’s possible that an all-surpassingly great being exists (i.e. a being greater than which nothing can be conceived). In other words, an all-surpassingly great being exists in some possible world.
2. If an all-surpassingly great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
3. If an all-surpassingly great being in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world (since the actual world is clearly a possible world).
4. If an all-surpassingly great being exists in the actual world, then an all-surpassingly great being actually exists.

Read more: www.reasonablefaith.org...

Which premise is false?

The teleological argument:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

Which premise is false?

You didn't provide any proof of such a being. I just ripped apart all of your precious arguments

I'm giving you a chance to go through the arguments and tell me which of their premises you find to be false.

Then you don't agree, and you're arguing with an established fact of physics. The law of cause and effect.

Are you saying that a being who has always existed would need a cause? How so?

You mean without a god, there would be nothing for you?

No, without God, there would be literally nothing at all.

reply to post by Sleepwalk85

No. In mathematics, a circle is produced by a single curved line, not corners.

Whatever. It's beside the point, so I'm not going to argue further on that tangent.

1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

Oh, wow, just look at you jumping to all those conclusions...obviously if you're not smart enough to figure out what happened, it had to be "God"!

Or maybe you just lack the education to formulate an intelligent answer alongside the rest of the physicists and astronomers who have hitherto failed to prove or disprove the existence of a god. And their accumulative research boards has been at it for how long? In contrast to the sum of your education? Right.

The moral argument:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Objective morals do not exist. Otherwise, we would not have serial killers. Again, more assumptions than I care to count.

1. It’s possible that an all-surpassingly great being exists (i.e. a being greater than which nothing can be conceived). In other words, an all-surpassingly great being exists in some possible world.

You give far too much credit to the span of the human experience in totality from the first modern Homo Sapiens to the last child born up to the moment I post this. It's almost as though you barely bothered to read my previous post. I'm basically repeating myself ad infinitum here.

I'm giving you a chance to go through the arguments and tell me which of their premises you find to be false.

This is the second time I've done that. I'm not doing it again.

Are you saying that a being who has always existed would need a cause? How so?

Show me a verifiable case study in which any effect, object, or idea was produced without a cause.

No, without God, there would be literally nothing at all.

That's a fantastic leap right there, considering the poor quality of the arguments you're hiding behind. I believe the correct statement would be "without gravity, there would be literally nothing at all". While gravity could be considered godly, as defined by Merriam-Webster, it hardly coincides with the blustering tyrannical narcissistic bully you've apparently served with your soul on a gleaming silver platter, complimented by a fine selection of delectable hors d'oeuvres to cover the taste of mutton.

But if you believe you can still salvage the remains of your case, by all means, I'm listening. I'm interested to see what argument you'll come up with next. Just try to put some effort into it this time. I'm beginning to feel like you're not taking this seriously.

Originally posted by AfterInfinityOh, wow, just look at you jumping to all those conclusions...obviously if you're not smart enough to figure out what happened, it had to be "God"!

No. But the existence of the universe would need an explanation. The issue is no naturalistic explanation would due and once you conceptually analyze what the first cause would be, you realize that it sounds an awfully lot like God.

Or maybe you just lack the education to formulate an intelligent answer alongside the rest of the physicists and astronomers who have hitherto failed to prove or disprove the existence of a god.

Science deals with the natural world, so it cannot possibly explain the origin of the natural world itself unless scientists want to posit that the natural world itself is past-eternal. The issue with that is it flies in the face of contemporary scientific evidence and logic. It would seem, at least for now, that the universe is past-finite and therefore had some sort of cause--which means whatever caused the natural world would by definition need to be something that transcends the natural world (supernatural). You yourself said that everything that begins to exist has a cause, didn't you?

Objective morals do not exist. Otherwise, we would not have serial killers.

This makes absolutely no sense. Care to explain what you mean? Are you saying that if there were objective moral values, then everyone would automatically do what they "ought" to do? How does that follow?

You give far too much credit to the span of the human experience in totality from the first modern Homo
Sapiens to the last child born up to the moment I post this.

Feel free to tell me which premise of the ontological argument you have an issue with so we can discuss it.

This is the second time I've done that. I'm not doing it again.

I listed all of the arguments and their proper formalizations. The problem with your last post is that you set up a lot of straw men and brought up a bunch of red herrings. When you feel brave enough, then go back to my last post and list which premises you have an issue with. Then we'll be able to have a proper discussion.

Show me a verifiable case study in which any effect, object, or idea was produced without a cause.

I don't think any effects come into being without causes, including the universe itself. I agree with you completely. But God has always existed and therefore requires no cause.

That's a fantastic leap right there, considering the poor quality of the arguments you're hiding behind. I believe the correct statement would be "without gravity, there would be literally nothing at all".

No, there would still be matter even without gravity.

But, it's like you wrote before, nothing that begins to exist is without a cause--which means the universe had a cause. And, without that cause, then the universe would have never been produced and thus there would be literally nothing.

The first person that saw it was possible to take advantage of the slow thinking masses.

I'm friends with the guy that made all this, feed me or else I'll tell him to get you. and some people still fall for it today.

Originally posted by Sleepwalk85
Contingency argument:

1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence. (from 1, 3)
5. Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God. (from 2, 4)

These things never make sense. Okay #1 is fine. #2 is a huge leap of logic unless you're simply saying the word god exists or that something exists. You could substitute the word god with "tooth fairy", "flying crocodile" or "pink unicorn" and it means the same thing. Since #5 is dependent on #2 being true, it negates the conclusion.

Now for the funny part. Let's assume that little hypothesis above is true. God exists. If that is the case, then he must have an explanation for his existence. Therefor... the explanation must be god? So god is the explanation of god's existence. If that passes for philosophy these days, then philosophy is in a sad state. Not to mention that the universe, by definition, is EVERYTHING that exists, not one thing.

The moral argument:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Which premise is false?

All of them starting with #1. This is a terrible way of saying that without god you cannot be a moral benevolent person. That is the furthest thing from the truth. The answer is empathy. There have been plenty of cultures and belief systems that understand morality without a creator.

The ontological argument:
1. It’s possible that an all-surpassingly great being exists (i.e. a being greater than which nothing can be conceived). In other words, an all-surpassingly great being exists in some possible world.
2. If an all-surpassingly great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
3. If an all-surpassingly great being in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world (since the actual world is clearly a possible world).
4. If an all-surpassingly great being exists in the actual world, then an all-surpassingly great being actually exists.
Which premise is false?

Once again, they reach an answer with pure assumption. It is possible, therefor god exists! Once again you can substitute the phrase "all-surpassingly great being" for virtually anything in the known universe and it will be just as true(which isn't true at all). This is not philosophy, this is deception. Please explain how god existing in some possible world makes him exist in every possible world. How exactly is that connection drawn? It's laughable, to be honest. A desperate attempt to justify faith. Just believe it and enjoy it. Don't attempt to peddle it to people too mentally weak to find the obvious flaws in logic.

The teleological argument:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

Which premise is false?

This is not how logic or philosophy works. #1 is a complete assumption as is #2.

An inference is determined by facts, dependent on other facts.

1. All men are mortals.
2. Joe is a man
3. Joe is mortal
Fact 1 + Fact 2 = Fact 3.

When you start getting into IF statements followed by hypothetical scenarios you drift far away from logic. Hey you can believe in god or a higher power or universal cause if you'd like. But admit it's faith and move on. There's no need to come up with these ridiculous inferences to justify it. Faith by definition is not based on fact. Justify it by your good deeds.

reply to post by AthlonSavage

Who is Gods creator?,

And then who created who created god, and then who created the creator of the creator of the creator that created the creator that created the crater and that’s when you find out that,its just not a question to be asked when alive.

God exists outside of time, space & matter.

It is impossible for us to comprehend this because we exist inside time space & matter.

Pondering how God came to be messes with your mind, he always was. But even this statement is false because it uses past tense and past tense is irrelevant to God because he exists outside of time, space & matter.

Originally posted by _Phoenix_
Why do you assume he was created?

How else could anything of life come to be without being created? If you say god wasn't created, by logic, wouldn't that mean god isn't a being but rather a character in a story we made in order to make sense of how humans were created? Christianity, in itself, raises too many questions that cannot be answered, and should be considered mythology in my eyes.

reply to post by Sleepwalk85

No. But the existence of the universe would need an explanation. The issue is no naturalistic explanation would due and once you conceptually analyze what the first cause would be, you realize that it sounds an awfully lot like God.

That's how the Nordics figured out that Thor is the god of lightning, right? And we all know how that turned out...

Science deals with the natural world, so it cannot possibly explain the origin of the natural world itself unless scientists want to posit that the natural world itself is past-eternal. The issue with that is it flies in the face of contemporary scientific evidence and logic. It would seem, at least for now, that the universe is past-finite and therefore had some sort of cause--which means whatever caused the natural world would by definition need to be something that transcends the natural world (supernatural). You yourself said that everything that begins to exist has a cause, didn't you?

I did say that, yes. And I also said, "I don't know, therefore God" is the simpleton's answer to everything. Are you a simpleton?

I am fully willing to admit that I don't know. I am also fairly certain that the reason we don't know is the same reason that the average 22 year old is relatively unfamiliar with quantum physics.

This makes absolutely no sense. Care to explain what you mean? Are you saying that if there were objective moral values, then everyone would automatically do what they "ought" to do? How does that follow?

Objective:

1ob·jec·tive
adjective əb-ˈjek-tiv, äb-

Definition of OBJECTIVE

1

a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy

b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind

Basically, 'objective' means 'independent of emotional value or significance'. Morals operate on an emotional basis. Perhaps you should look into a philosophy course before attempting to school me on semantics.

Feel free to tell me which premise of the ontological argument you have an issue with so we can discuss it.

Sure. Your claim begs the assumption that we know absolutely everything that has ever existed or ever will exist throughout the entirety of the universe. This, quite simply, is a preposterous assertion. You really should know better.

I listed all of the arguments and their proper formalizations. The problem with your last post is that you set up a lot of straw men and brought up a bunch of red herrings. When you feel brave enough, then go back to my last post and list which premises you have an issue with. Then we'll be able to have a proper discussion.

If you are unable to draw the connections between my paraphrased objections (paraphrasing is an excellent demonstration of true comprehension, FYI) and your premises, then that's not my problem. Compare my objections with your points and work from there. I want to make you work for your humiliation.

I don't think any effects come into being without causes, including the universe itself. I agree with you completely. But God has always existed and therefore requires no cause.

Your last statement in that quote has directly contradicted your first statement. I'll give you a moment to rephrase and save face, if you so desire.

And if you really want a break-down of your fallacies, Barcs did a very nice job:

post by Barcs

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
Who is Gods creator?

It is common agmonst Ats thread writers and posters to refer to God and the general connotation is that God is the creator of life on earth. Now what God actually is will often lead to emotive debates.

I want to in this thread ask the question who created God? Of course this presumes that God is a real thing of a humanly describable or non-humanly undescribale form.

If God is truely an inventation of the human mind then the answer is quite simple that humans created God.

If not and there is actual in fact something of a separate intelligent force to humans with power enough to create the world and everything in it, then the answer will be completely different.

So take a seat in the chair of the greatest mystery of all and ponder.

So who is God?
And who is Gods Creator?

edit on 30-10-2012 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)

Why would that concern us. The universe that we are in and everything in it was created by God. For some of us, when we get to see God, He will tell us who He is, and then we will know. Asking such questions is like asking why atoms hold themselves together and why the universe doesn't just fall apart by spontaneous chaos.

reply to post by Fromabove


What objective evidence do you have for "God"s existence? Evidence that conclusively and exclusively declares the existence of such a being?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Fromabove

 

What objective evidence do you have for "God"s existence? Evidence that conclusively and exclusively declares the existence of such a being?

Wow, I have heard this statement exactly this way before many times over, almost like it's read from a book, but be that as it may let me just say.

1. Faith does not need evidence but is the evidence itself.

2. The universe exists and is orderly and integrated like a fine swiss watch.

3. We live, think, reason, love, hate, cry, laugh, and much more, all of which would be contradictory to a useless mass of energy without order and balance.

The obvious conclusion is that the universe was intelligently designed, and that it is created. That life was injected into that creation to think and to reason and experience that creation.

reply to post by Fromabove

1. Faith does not need evidence but is the evidence itself.

Faith is just shorthand for "I have this reason to lie to myself, which I consider to be quite good, and your reasons for being honest with myself are rubbish."

2. The universe exists and is orderly and integrated like a fine swiss watch.

Not necessarily a sign of intelligence, just a natural mechanism to support the stability of existence. Otherwise, the universe would never gotten this far.

3. We live, think, reason, love, hate, cry, laugh, and much more, all of which would be contradictory to a useless mass of energy without order and balance.

See my above answer.

The obvious conclusion is that the universe was intelligently designed, and that it is created. That life was injected into that creation to think and to reason and experience that creation.

The obvious conclusion is "I don't know, therefore God". People around here really are sophisticated in their investigative methods, aren't they?

Originally posted by AfterInfinityThat's how the Nordics figured out that Thor is the god of lightning, right? And we all know how that turned out...

So, what caused the natural world? It couldn't have been the natural world since the natural world would need to exist before it could produce anything, let alone itself. Moreover, if the natural world is past-eternal, then that means that an actually infinite number of changes would need to occur before we could observe the present. However, we do observe the present. Which means you could hypothetically count the number of changes prior to the present; meaning, the universe is past-finite. But if the universe is past-finite, then what caused the universe to begin to exist?

Basically, 'objective' means 'independent of emotional value or significance'. Morals operate on an emotional basis. Perhaps you should look into a philosophy course before attempting to school me on semantics.

Yes, that's what objective moral values are. But what does that have to do with your line of logic that if objective moral values existed, then everyone would automatically follow them? That's a non sequitur.

Sure. Your claim begs the assumption that we know absolutely everything that has ever existed or ever will exist throughout the entirety of the universe.

Which premise in the ontological argument are you talking about? Look, it's very simple.. you look over the ontological argument that I formulated, then you pick out which premises you think are false and why. That's how you have a discussion. The ontological argument has nothing to do with what you wrote above...

Compare my objections with your points and work from there. I want to make you work for your humiliation.

In other words, you're unable to hold a civilized discussion and are unable to refute any of the premises found in the arguments outlined in my previous posts.

Your last statement in that quote has directly contradicted your first statement. I'll give you a moment to rephrase and save face, if you so desire.

God has always existed.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

I'll give you the chance to explain to me how the two above statements are contradictions.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

What objective evidence do you have for "God"s existence?

The universe.

reply to post by Sleepwalk85

The universe.

That's according to your interpretation - which, I might add, is based on a very minute amount of quality applied education, in contrast to the thousands of scientists whose research would beg to differ from your subjective conclusion.

How about putting a little more effort into your next answer?