Jump to content

Who created God?


Guest Guest

Recommended Posts

"Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" The question implies that there is only one chicken and one egg, which is not true. It can't mean that, so we have to know which chicken and which egg?

Every chicken develops from its egg, and once the species is established, every egg comes from a chicken. That is not what the question is asking either.

The real question is: "Which came first, the first chicken or the first chicken egg?" There is no clear answer because no single chicken and no single egg can be clearly identified as the first of its species. But every genetic change that leads to the evolution of the chicken is present in the egg first. And if there was an identifiable first-of-species, the species can only come into existence in the egg first, though no one would know it until much later. So in that sense, the best answer and the only one that makes sense is "the egg," for the reasons expressed in post 8.

People asked the question for a long time, thinking they had identified a paradox. But now that we know about evolution, we know that the question has a clear scientific answer, though it can't be clearly expressed without a proper explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" The question implies that there is only one chicken and one egg, which is not true. It can't mean that, so we have to know which chicken and which egg?

Every chicken develops from its egg, and once the species is established, every egg comes from a chicken. That is not what the question is asking either.

The real question is: "Which came first, the first chicken or the first chicken egg?" There is no clear answer because no single chicken and no single egg can be clearly identified as the first of its species. But every genetic change that leads to the evolution of the chicken is present in the egg first. And if there was an identifiable first-of-species, the species can only come into existence in the egg first, though no one would know it until much later. So in that sense, the best answer and the only one that makes sense is "the egg," for the reasons expressed in post 8.

People asked the question for a long time, thinking they had identified a paradox. But now that we know about evolution, we know that the question has a clear scientific answer, though it can't be clearly expressed without a proper explanation.

Yup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Guest Guest

Still waiting for an answer. If the claim is that certain things are too complex to have arisen from nature, so there must have been a god . . .

. . . but "God," a being so complete and so powerful that "he" could create a universe from nothing would have to be the most complex thing of all.

Making the argument against someone else's claims but not applying it to your own claims is unethical and intellectually dishonest.

So, who created God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Guest Solid right winger

Still waiting for an answer. If the claim is that certain things are too complex to have arisen from nature, so there must have been a god . . .

. . . but "God," a being so complete and so powerful that "he" could create a universe from nothing would have to be the most complex thing of all.

Making the argument against someone else's claims but not applying it to your own claims is unethical and intellectually dishonest.

So, who created God?

You'll have to be more specific. With 114 Egyptian gods, over 30 Greek gods, 70 plus Roman gods and countless other gods from ancient and current cultures including the god people pray to for to hit the lottery, it's just too broad a question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

"You'll have to be more specific," says "Solid right winger." That would be true if I was the one bringing the idea of God into the discussion, or claiming that there is a god; but I'm not. The question "who created God?" was asked to point out the illogic of an argument by one or more theists on another topic.

The argument was the usual one, where some theists argue that the universe and life are too complex to have arisen on their own, therefore there must have been a designer, in other words, God did it. That argument makes no sense, because a conscious being capable of deliberately creating an entire universe, and life, out of nothing, would have to be extraordinarily complex, and unless I am missing something, far more complex than anything known to exist. "God did it" as an explanation for complexity isn't an explanation at all; on the contrary, it just wraps around itself and ends up right back where we started, where the honest answer is "there is something about the nature and origins of things that we do not understand." The question "who created God" is meant to point out this obvious flaw in the theistic argument, which the theists here have not only overlooked but insisted on ignoring - for the obvious reason that they cannot answer the question and maintain their belief system.

Anyway, the implied property of the god being referenced is clearly specified in post # 32, where the relevant language is bolded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

You'll have to be more specific. With 114 Egyptian gods, over 30 Greek gods, 70 plus Roman gods and countless other gods from ancient and current cultures including the god people pray to for to hit the lottery, it's just too broad a question.

Congratulations, you have qualified for certification as a true right winger. You proved that you have no analytical skills, and missed the point completely. See post # 35, which is spot-on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

The best and most that could ever be said about "God" was written by that "God intoxicated" philosopher, Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677).

Yes, and others have said it too. Einstein said essentially the same thing. More and more people are saying it today, so maybe there's hope yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Yes, and others have said it too. Einstein said essentially the same thing. More and more people are saying it today, so maybe there's hope yet.

“I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind...."

-Albert Einstein (1929)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

“I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind...."

-Albert Einstein (1929)

Yes he did write it that way but as you read further, you realize he wasn't referring to a conscious being at all. He was referring to the order he saw in nature, and believed was present throughout nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u

Yes he did write it that way but as you read further, you realize he wasn't referring to a conscious being at all. He was referring to the order he saw in nature, and believed was present throughout nature.

If he wasn't referring to a conscious being then he may have been referring to a democrat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

How should one respond to the old schoolboy retort, “If everything needs a cause, who caused God?”


First, philosophers and theologians do not maintain that whatever exists needs a cause. Instead, they propose that certain things need causes, such as things that have a beginning or things that don’t have to exist.


If something came into existence at a certain point in time—that is, if it had a beginning—then there needs to be a cause, an explanation, for why it came to be. But if something exists outside of time—like God—then it does not need an explanation for its beginning, because it does not have one.


In the same way, if something doesn’t have to exist, then we need an explanation for why it does exist. But if something does have to exist—if it is a necessary being, like God—then it does not need a further explanation.


The things we perceive in the universe, including space and time themselves, appear to have had a beginning, and so they need a cause—a reason why they began in the first place.


In the same way, each particular bit of matter in the universe doesn’t seem to be necessary. Each could not exist. Therefore, we need an explanation for why each does exist.


Believing philosophers and theologians thus propose God as the ultimate explanation for these things. But since he is a necessary being that exists outside of time, he needs no further explanation.


Indeed, the question “Who created God?” is nonsensical, because it amounts to asking “Who created an uncreated being?”



Catholic Answers to Defend the faith.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Proposing God as a necessary being who transcends time and space is just wishful thinking. There's no reason at all to think that it is true. It's just a convenient way of setting up the premises so that you can get to the conclusion you want.

The more reasonable approach, by far, is to go as far as our science will take us, then acknowledge that questions remain unanswered. We can imagine a wide array of answers to the great unanswered questions but until we have some evidence, we're only speculating. In the case of belief in God, we're speculating not because we have some reason to think it is true but because we want it to be true. If people weren't so hell-bent on believing in a god, this wouldn't be a problem, but they are. Most people don't want to discuss the problem of confirmation bias, but it's a genuine problem any time these discussions come up. The instant "God" enters the discussion, many people want to grab onto that idea, call it the answer and be done with any further inquiry. That is why the scientific community, as a whole, is so skeptical of the idea of "God." It takes the focus away from useful inquiries.

Theoretical physicists are telling us that based on mathematical calculations, there are more dimensions than the three of space and one of time. If that's true, then the problem has to do with our understanding of time and space, so that the very idea of a necessary first cause is nonsense. Anyone can set up the game so that they win, but then two questions should be asked: why are you setting up the issues in that way, and on what basis?

So, to return to the original point, "who created God" is not a schoolboy retort. It's the logical next step when someone makes the argument for intelligent design, or divine creation. Both sides can posit a reality outside space-time as we know it; the difference is that scientists have reasons based on observations of the universe and mathematics for doing so. There is no reason at all to bring a conscious creator into picture, unless that is what you wish to be true. There isn't a shred of evidence for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

So now the theistic argument is that God is an uncreated being, as though that solves the problem and answers all the questions. It doesn't answer anything, when you're just making it up. Never mind that there's no evidence for it. How is it possible? Theists cannot answer that question either.

More important, theists consistently overlook the motivation: why do people keep coming back to the idea of a god or gods? It's because people wish to believe that someone is in charge of things and will make everything OK. Freud called theism wish fulfillment. He was right. You can't just overlook the central role that human biases play in these discussions.

"Who created God?" is entirely a fair question, in response to the arguments that were made here. Theists are the ones who set up the framework for the question by assuming that time and space are linear, which Einstein disproved more than a century ago. We can trace space and time back to the Big Bang. Based on mathematical models, many theoretical physicists conclude that time did not exist "before" the Big Bang occurred; in the sense that we understand it, there was no "before." So asking what was present before the Big Bang is like asking what is south of the South Pole. There may be a reality outside of the dimensions we know about but whether that can be analyzed in any terms we understand is a mystery. So the argument "there must have been a god because science cannot explain how reality came to be" is just picking the answer you want, and making up an unknown conscious being to boot.

Well OK, you might say, but science cannot prove that there is no God, so we choose to believe that there is. Sure, you can do that, but don't imagine that you've said anything that is useful, or likely to be true. There are fundamental differences between the naturalistic argument and the theistic argument. The mathematical/scientific argument is not based on a mere wish. Scientists did not just imagine multiverses out of thin air, or because they think that the answer they might find is a path to eternal life and salvation. These ideas are products of science and mathematics, which have a proven track record of adding to our fund of knowledge. Scientists and mathematicians as a group are not personally invested in today's answers. As new information comes to light, they change their ideas. By contrast, belief in a god or gods is resistant to change in very dangerous ways. As a group, scientists and mathematicians take the evidence and the calculations as far as they go, and recognize that their ideas are hypothetical beyond that point. Many but not all people who believe in a god or gods refuse to consider any other possibility, and close their minds, to the detriment of our country and the world. Over time, ideas about God and gods change, but there are many people who will never admit that about their own religion. History is full of unnecessary violence and suffering as a result of people thinking they know about God but you and those other people don't. And while you may not be so uncompromising, dumbing down science so you can maintain your belief in God encourages that tragic inclination that is all too common to our species.

In other words, this discussion isn't about the right answers to unanswerable questions. It's about how we think about unanswered questions and try to get closer to answers that are useful, and likely to be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

How should one respond to the old schoolboy retort, “If everything needs a cause, who caused God?”

First, philosophers and theologians do not maintain that whatever exists needs a cause. Instead, they propose that certain things need causes, such as things that have a beginning or things that don’t have to exist.

If something came into existence at a certain point in time—that is, if it had a beginning—then there needs to be a cause, an explanation, for why it came to be. But if something exists outside of time—like God—then it does not need an explanation for its beginning, because it does not have one.

In the same way, if something doesn’t have to exist, then we need an explanation for why it does exist. But if something does have to exist—if it is a necessary being, like God—then it does not need a further explanation.

So we are expected to believe that there are categories of things that must exist and categories of things that need not exist, and that these philosophers and theologians knew what fit into each category. Keep in mind that these philosophers and theologians wrote these things before men had science, or had even figured out how to make flush toilets.

We should believe that they knew what they were talking about because . . .?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

So now the theistic argument is that God is an uncreated being, as though that solves the problem and answers all the questions. It doesn't answer anything, when you're just making it up. Never mind that there's no evidence for it. How is it possible? Theists cannot answer that question either.

More important, theists consistently overlook the motivation: why do people keep coming back to the idea of a god or gods? It's because people wish to believe that someone is in charge of things and will make everything OK. Freud called theism wish fulfillment. He was right. You can't just overlook the central role that human biases play in these discussions.

"Who created God?" is entirely a fair question, in response to the arguments that were made here. Theists are the ones who set up the framework for the question by assuming that time and space are linear, which Einstein disproved more than a century ago. We can trace space and time back to the Big Bang. Based on mathematical models, many theoretical physicists conclude that time did not exist "before" the Big Bang occurred; in the sense that we understand it, there was no "before." So asking what was present before the Big Bang is like asking what is south of the South Pole. There may be a reality outside of the dimensions we know about but whether that can be analyzed in any terms we understand is a mystery. So the argument "there must have been a god because science cannot explain how reality came to be" is just picking the answer you want, and making up an unknown conscious being to boot.

Well OK, you might say, but science cannot prove that there is no God, so we choose to believe that there is. Sure, you can do that, but don't imagine that you've said anything that is useful, or likely to be true. There are fundamental differences between the naturalistic argument and the theistic argument. The mathematical/scientific argument is not based on a mere wish. Scientists did not just imagine multiverses out of thin air, or because they think that the answer they might find is a path to eternal life and salvation. These ideas are products of science and mathematics, which have a proven track record of adding to our fund of knowledge. Scientists and mathematicians as a group are not personally invested in today's answers. As new information comes to light, they change their ideas. By contrast, belief in a god or gods is resistant to change in very dangerous ways. As a group, scientists and mathematicians take the evidence and the calculations as far as they go, and recognize that their ideas are hypothetical beyond that point. Many but not all people who believe in a god or gods refuse to consider any other possibility, and close their minds, to the detriment of our country and the world. Over time, ideas about God and gods change, but there are many people who will never admit that about their own religion. History is full of unnecessary violence and suffering as a result of people thinking they know about God but you and those other people don't. And while you may not be so uncompromising, dumbing down science so you can maintain your belief in God encourages that tragic inclination that is all too common to our species.

In other words, this discussion isn't about the right answers to unanswerable questions. It's about how we think about unanswered questions and try to get closer to answers that are useful, and likely to be true.

Why is this so hard to understand? If you don't think straight, you won't get the right answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

(1) First, philosophers and theologians do not maintain that whatever exists needs a cause. Instead, they propose that certain things need causes, such as things that have a beginning or things that don’t have to exist.

(2) If something came into existence at a certain point in time—that is, if it had a beginning—then there needs to be a cause, an explanation, for why it came to be. (3) But if something exists outside of time—like God—then it does not need an explanation for its beginning, because it does not have one.

In the same way, if something doesn’t have to exist, then we need an explanation for why it does exist. (4) But if something does have to exist—if it is a necessary being, like God—then it does not need a further explanation.

The things we perceive in the universe, including space and time themselves, appear to have had a beginning, and so they need a cause—a reason why they began in the first place.

(5) In the same way, each particular bit of matter in the universe doesn’t seem to be necessary. Each could not exist. Therefore, we need an explanation for why each does exist.

(1) Some philosophers and some theologians may say that but most philosophers and even most theologians do not. More important, some may say it but on what basis?

(2) That doesn't mean that the explanation is knowable to us. The explanation may be outside our ability to uncover and understand it.

(3) On what basis do you claim that a God exists who transcends time? Just because you claim it doesn't make it true. Furthermore, even if we could understand what it means to transcend time, we would still ask why things are that way, and how we even know that they are - since transcending time is a concept that upsets our ideas of how things work. It is a disorienting idea, so a skeptic would have every right to ask, "how do you know?"

(4) Nonsense. That's just an excuse for settling on the answer you want and not asking any more questions.

(5) On what basis do you even make that claim? In a determined universe, everything would exist by necessity. How do you know that's not how it is?

These arguments may have seemed impressive centuries ago. But they do not stand up now that we have a scientific worldview readily available to anyone who seeks real knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u

Why is this so hard to understand? If you don't think straight, you won't get the right answers.

LOL. There loony atheists try so hard to appear they know anything about the origins of the universe and God. They quote some 15th century philosopher who didn't have running water and decide all the questions are answered. Atheists are so pathetic with their constant nonsensical attempts to explain the unexplainable with some half-baked theory from a so-called "scientist".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

"Believing philosophers and theologians thus propose God as the ultimate explanation for these things. But since he is a necessary being that exists outside of time, he needs no further explanation."

In other words, "we have no idea why this should be true, or whether it is true, but we choose to believe it, and so you should accept that this makes sense because we say so, and please, don't ask us any more questions about it because we can't answer them."

No, thanks. I pass on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...