Who or what created God?

[Hawkins]

Because in order of something to exist, he or she has to be created.

That's incomplete. In order for something to be created, he or she must not exist at a certain point. For an example, the universe needs to be created because at a certain point (say, 14.5 billion years ago) it doesn't exist, it however exists now. That's why the universe requires to be created.

This "not exist" point however doesn't apply to God. That is, you can't find out a point at which He doesn't exist. That's why He doesn't need to be created!

Edited August 1, 2012 by Hawkins

[Rlyeh]

This "not exist" point however doesn't apply to God. That is, you can't find out a point at which He doesn't exist. That's why He doesn't need to be created!

Sure, before his authors wrote of him.

[Hawkins]

Sure, before his authors wrote of him.

That remains your own faith and your own religion.

[Rlyeh]

That remains your own faith and your own religion.

And that didn't make any sense.

[Hawkins]

And that didn't make any sense.

Why not? Unless you can present empirical evidence showing that God doesn't exit before humans wrote about Him, your comments are completely a made-up out of your faith!

Edited August 1, 2012 by Hawkins

[Left-Field]

No, you're writing the if out of the sentence. And all that the sentence concludes is that a god is not necessary for the universe to exist.

I am not writing the "if" out of the sentence. Essentially though, the "if" in this instance is not important. Waspie Dwarf's statement says that he is basing his belief that the universe can exist without a beginning or an end on the premise that those who believe in God believe He has always been and always will be.

You are refusing to acknowledge that Waspie Dwarf is basing his belief about the universe on something he regards as a work of fiction.

He is acknowledging God's existence in order to state why he believes the universe may be something that has always been and always will be. As an atheist the very act of acknowledging God for any reason stands in contrast to the belief atheists hold that God does not exist.

Whether you realize this or not, it is a contradiction of an atheists beliefs for them to acknowledge God existing for whatever the reason may be.

That is not an exclusively atheist position.

I am not, and have not, stated that it is exclusively an atheists position. Having no belief in God or a higher being, however, is exclusively an atheist position. That is what the issue is here.

There are whole pantheons without any world-creator gods.

And if a person who does not believe in these gods, whether they are world-creators or not, bases their belief on anything upon the beliefs others have about these gods then they are contradicting their belief that such gods are mere fantasy.

The crucial sentence is, at most, a step along a path away from creator-god-belief. That path, for Waspie. ended up in atheism, rather than, say, belief in Odin, or agnosticism, or perhaps the pantheism that has been advocated by two posters in this thread. Alternatives to the World Creator abound.

It's a path they traveled down that is based on a faulty premise for anyone that states they are an atheist.

The conclusion reached in the sentence which you rely upon concerns necessity.

The necessity my statement relies upon is that an atheist truly does not believe in God. With that being the case, as I have stated numerous times, for an atheist to base any of their beliefs upon things soley attributed to God is a contradiction of their belief that he does not exist.

Despite your efforts, try as you might, there is no way to work around that fact.

Generating a counterexample is an adequate proof of non-necessity. In this case, a counterexample would be to point out a possible world in which the Universe exists but a creator god does not. Waspie delievered that. There is no flaw there.

No he hasn't. He has not given any other scenario or reasoning other than "if God can exist without beginning or end" so can the universe.

The only way he can believe the universe exists without basing it upon a belief by others that God has always been and always been would be to say that he believes the universe has always been and always will be simply because that's how he feels the universe's being can best be explained.

If he were to do that, however, then his holding that belief would be a matter of faith because there is no scientific explanation for it - just like there is no scientific explanation for God.

Obviously, something can exist without it being necessary that the something exist. It is not necessary that you or I exist, either, and yet here we are. So, something more is needed, eventually, to argue against God's existence.

However, Waspie's post (as opposed to the one sentence) says that he had already encountered the claim that God's existence was necessary. So, a prerequisite for him to assert even the possibility that God doesn't exist is to defeat the necessity claim. And Waspie did just that.

If he did what you state above (and I'm not so certain he has) then he would still have to concede that his belief that the universe has always been and always will be is based upon faith.

Anything that one believes in that cannot be scientifically explained is a matter of faith - the only exception to that would be if someone witnessed something with their own eyes that science has no explanation for (such as witnessing a UFO maneuver in ways that our curent understanding of science implies such manuevers are impossible).

In this case, however, Waspie Dwarf clearly has not witnessed the universe always existing. As a matter of fact, it would be impossible for anyone (perhaps including God himself) to witness something always existing.

As I noted earlier, I don't know anything more about Waspie's thought process than what he tells us. What he tells us, however, is lucid, systematic and contradiction-free.

For the reasons I have stated in response to all the other statements you have made within this post Waspie Dwarf's stated belief that it is possible the universe always has and always will exist is neither lucid, systematic, and / or contradiction-free.

To claim it is lucid and systematic might even be more absurd than the contradiction-free statement considering science itself has no explanation as to how the universe came into being or that it always has and always will exist.

[Left-Field]

What if it isn't that unique? It's found in philosophy and other religious belief.

If one bases their belief that it's possible the universe has always existed and always will (without any beginning or end) upon something they regard as fictitious then they are contradicting their belief that the thing they don't believe in really does not exist.

If one bases their belief that it's possible the universe has always existed and always will (without any beginning or end) upon nothing more than philosophizing it as so then it is a matter of faith for them - much in the same way those who believe in God do so because of their faith.

[Rlyeh]

Why not? Unless you can present empirical evidence showing that God doesn't exit before humans wrote about Him, your comments are completely a made-up out of your faith!

Has what to do with faith? There is no empirical evidence of God's existence.

[Rlyeh]

If one bases their belief that it's possible the universe has always existed and always will (without any beginning or end) upon something they regard as fictitious then they are contradicting their belief that the thing they don't believe in really does not exist.

You're just repeating yourself now. I've already pointed out using an attribute possessed by a fictional character, only requires the acknowledgement of the attribute.

[THE INTERPRETER]

I always wanted to know this but who or what created him? was it himself? created by other gods? a super-god?

Because in order of something to exist, he or she has to be created.

The New Richard Nixon,

God always has been, he is not confined to this concept of existence as you think of it.

God is the Author of time, time is not the Author of God. Thus, to say God must have been created if God is to exist places God under the authority of time which is no god. God is not 'something' as in existing in a physical body but he is Eternal.

Remove the concept of time and know the Eternal.

[Left-Field]

You're just repeating yourself now. I've already pointed out using an attribute possessed by a fictional character, only requires the acknowledgement of the attribute.

Of course I'm repeating myself. I'm doing so because what I have stated is true. If you ask me the same questions with different wording then you are going to get an answer that I have already given you.

If the attribute one is acknowledging is only attributed to something that the person using that attribute claims is nothing more than fantasy then they are contradicting their belief that the god (or any other being / item they believe is fictional) possessing the attribute doesn't exist when they rely upon it to reason one of their own beliefs.

There really is no denying this as it makes zero sense for one to claim something does not exist only to then acknowledge its possible existance as a means of reasoning their own beliefs on something else that cannot be explained.

And another thing I've already stated, which apparently bears repeating, is that if a person clings to a certain belief that cannot be scientifically explained their belief in that thing becomes a matter of faith - unless it is something they witnessed with their own eyes that wasn't some sort of magic trick.

Regarding the universe's origins, however, it is obvious that no one witnessed its occurrence or it having always been.

These statements hold true time and time again.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Angel Left Wing

[Rlyeh]

If the attribute one is acknowledging is only attributed to something that the person using that attribute claims is nothing more than fantasy then they are contradicting their belief that the god (or any other being / item they believe is fictional) possessing the attribute doesn't exist when they rely upon it to reason one of their own beliefs.

You're confusing the being's non-existence with the attribute's non-existence.

[Left-Field]

You're confusing the being's non-existence with the attribute's non-existence.

No, I'm not.

Tell me of a being or item which exists which is scientifically acknowledged as real with a scientific explanation proving the stated being or item has always existed and always will, or has been produced out of nothing.

Waspie Dwarf's statement would be like me stating:

"I have reasoned that since Superman can fire laser beams from his eyes then it's possible human beings and animals are capable of doing the same."

Are you going to tell me that is a well reasoned belief reached on my behalf? Are you going to tell me that although Superman is fictitious the attribute of firing laser beams from his eyes is real?

To an atheist, God is just as fictitious as Superman is.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Angel Left Wing

[Rlyeh]

No, I'm not.

Tell me of a being or item which exists which is sientifically acknowledged as real with a scientific explanation proving the stated being or item has always existed and always will, or has been produced out of nothing.

Waspie Dwarf's statement would be like me stating:

"I have reasoned that since Superman can fire laser beams from his eyes then I conclude that it's possible human beings and animals are capable of doing the same."

Are you going to tell me that is a well reasoned thought reached on my behalf? Are you going to tell me that although Superman is fictitious the attribute of firing laser beams from his eyes is real?

These lasers are artificial. If you had said about a robot or something, it would've been more accurate and you don't need to believe in superman.

To an atheist, God is just as fictitious as Superman is.

To an atheist, however eternity (or a similar concept) isn't necessarily fictional.

[Left-Field]

These lasers are artificial. If you had said about a robot or something, it would've been more accurate and you don't need to believe in superman.

There is a scientific explanation as to how and why a robot (or weapon I suppose) can be created that is capable of firing laser beams.

There is no scientific explanation as to how a living creature (human, animal, or plant) could possess such an attribute and that is why the Superman scenario is more accurate than you robot scenario.

There is no scientific explanation as to how something could have always been and always will be, or how something can be produced out of nothing.

With that being the case, for anyone to believe in those things (or "attributes" if you prefer to call them that) it requires them to base it upon faith such a thing could exist based upon those attributes - it is no different than people requiring faith to believe God's existence can be explained by those very same attributes.

To an atheist, however eternity (or a similar concept) isn't necessarily fictional.

If they believe something can be eternal then, yet again, they hold that belief based on nothing but faith because neither science (or anything else) provides and explanation as to how something could be eternal.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Angel Left Wing

[eight bits]

ALW

He is acknowledging God's existence in order to state why he believes the universe may be something that has always been and always will be.

Great, we're in agreement. What Waspie discussed was his appreciation of a possibility, that's what your may be means, that it is possible. He's right about that, too, it is possible, and that it is possible is of the character of fact, that is. tenable without regard to any possibilities that are inconsistent with it. His earlier belief in God is irrelevant to his appreciation of this possibility. Anyone else's belief in God is similarly irrelevant.

Having no belief in God or a higher being, however, is exclusively an atheist position

I have no belief in God or a higher being, and I am not an atheist. Pantheists don't believe that God is a higher being, and they're not atheists. Deists do not necessarily believe that God still exists, and they're not atheists; they don't even deny that a god created the Universe.

And if a person who does not believe in these gods, whether they are world-creators or not, bases their belief on anything upon the beliefs others have about these gods then they are contradicting their belief that such gods are mere fantasy.

That would depend upon what "bases their belief on" means in a particular case. In Waspie's story, it meant only that enlightenment came to him while he was contemplating the logical soundenss of someone else's assertions about God. All that Waspie acknolwedged was that assertions were made. Their truth or falsehood is irrelevant to their unsoundness.

I don't see anything in the rest of your post that doesn't depend on the points already addressed.

[dj_nubla]

The Book of Genesis right from the start specifically stated that there is more than 1 God.

[Turecast]

God created man on the sixth day Man returned the favor

[OMagus]

Who or what created God? I think this is one of those eternal questions that humans will always ask. I seem to recall that this is the second thread generated by it right here just in the past few months. I hope this one can be resurrected, because it got pretty interesting.

In my view, almost all the posts approached it from a basically Western perspective, i.e. the theology of the Abrahamic religions intercalated with modern science. My own perspective is more Eastern-oriented, i.e. the worldview of the Dharmic religions, which today has thoroughly infiltrated the West as well, and has likewise been influenced by scientific ideas, notably quantum theory.

The single biggest difference in the Eastern/Dharmic POV is that the question is not just a matter of speculation, rational analysis, or even intuition, but that the answer can be found by direct experience of the realities at issue.

God may exist beyond or separate from space and time. If this is true, God exists 'outside' of time and space, so asking this question would be meaningless.

I believe it's true, but it's not meaningless if an individual human being can attain a state beyond space and time and become one with God. When such an individual returned to the mundane realm, he or she might communicate what they had learned to others who were open to the scoop. In fact this is the entire basis of the Dharmic religions, and the source of the most complex philosophic systems ever created. I've studied this for many years and have had some enlightening experiences myself, and I feel I have lots to share. This might be a good thread to do it in, but I'll wait to see if anyone is interested. Meanwhile, I'll just quote the one post that expressed a POV similar to mine, at least in a basic, general sense:

i believe consciousness always existed but was unaware. like dreaming. it dreamed of something funny and became self aware through the sound / feeling of its own reaction. it thought of everything it could think of. and just when it thought it might last forever this way, it willed itself to shine like a star to start to see what it looks like. . . .

[Viviana98]

God was created by man. If God is real and is all powerful like he claims to be he would have created himself some hands and found some paper and a pen and wrote his own book.

[Orcseeker]

It's amazing how many people are so definite about how the most powerful being in the universe (or even universe clusters of a larger container etc, who knows) in which our existence is a tiny speck, came to be. The wise men of old said so? What do they know? Why would we even ever know this at all?

[BlazeWizard]

Who or what created God? I think this is one of those eternal questions that humans will always ask. I seem to recall that this is the second thread generated by it right here just in the past few months. I hope this one can be resurrected, because it got pretty interesting.

In my view, almost all the posts approached it from a basically Western perspective, i.e. the theology of the Abrahamic religions intercalated with modern science. My own perspective is more Eastern-oriented, i.e. the worldview of the Dharmic religions, which today has thoroughly infiltrated the West as well, and has likewise been influenced by scientific ideas, notably quantum theory.

The single biggest difference in the Eastern/Dharmic POV is that the question is not just a matter of speculation, rational analysis, or even intuition, but that the answer can be found by direct experience of the realities at issue.

I believe it's true, but it's not meaningless if an individual human being can attain a state beyond space and time and become one with God. When such an individual returned to the mundane realm, he or she might communicate what they had learned to others who were open to the scoop. In fact this is the entire basis of the Dharmic religions, and the source of the most complex philosophic systems ever created. I've studied this for many years and have had some enlightening experiences myself, and I feel I have lots to share. This might be a good thread to do it in, but I'll wait to see if anyone is interested. Meanwhile, I'll just quote the one post that expressed a POV similar to mine, at least in a basic, general sense:

"Who or what created God"

I find this question most interesting, especially the interactions between different religions from such varying cultures.

I think firstly we would have to ask which "god" the question is about. Which is strange to think that not only do people not believe in a single god but there are other gods to ask about since there are other religions.

If however we were to assume that there even is a god in the first place we would need to know which type of god we are referring to. I'll assume that it's the christian version of the old Hebrew mythologies. In which case I would say that whoever wrote those myths created it.

From a different angle, I have been reading about different dimensions lately (1st, 2nd, 3rd and the imaginings of 4th and so on) and I wonder how a being of a higher dimension than ours would appear to us. If the 3rd dimension that we are in is subject to change over time (and we view time progression a linear) then would a 4th dimensional being experience time differently?

Existing at all "times" simultaneously? Appearing to us to be godlike?

Perhaps there are many higher dimensional beings and that version of god is just telling us that they are the only one?

As for the universe, who knows? There was a "big bang" that appeared to start it all but what caused that bang?

My two cents anyway

[starchild1976]

Now that science is 99 percent certain as of this year the god particle does exist the world's leading astro physicist, Michio Kuku says this will allow us to question how god was created. I've always believed if we knew exactly who god was then we'd be asking who created god. Could it be god is infinite? God would have to be infinite, because we'd have to keep asking who created god and who created god who created god.

[Alannis]

Since I'm very gifted with open mindedness (sometimes I believe it a curse) I have thought on this. Someone had to create him. It's like humans and earth, we didn't just decide one day we want to become something someone made us into something. The same with God. He was born (yes I say born because of belief system get over it) and grew up just like us. What I'm trying to say is yes someone created God and then someone created that God it's a very long line and never ends just like time.

[Orcseeker]

Since I'm very gifted with open mindedness (sometimes I believe it a curse) I have thought on this. Someone had to create him. It's like humans and earth, we didn't just decide one day we want to become something someone made us into something. The same with God. He was born (yes I say born because of belief system get over it) and grew up just like us. What I'm trying to say is yes someone created God and then someone created that God it's a very long line and never ends just like time.

But what of the creator of God? Was everything just from something that just was? It is a mind boggling thought.